Ontario HOT2000 PDF

A Study of
Prescriptive Requirements for

EnerGuide 80 in Ontario’s Building Code
for the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
March 2010
Copyright © 2010 Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction of this publication in whole or in part is strictly prohibited without the

expressed permission of the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
A Study of
Prescriptive Requirements
for EnerGuide 80 in
Ontario’s Building Code
for the
Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
March 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1 ..................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................3
Scope and Objectives of the Research Study........................................................4
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................... 5
METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................5
Review Energy Simulation Programs with Energy Advisor Survey.................6
ERS 80 Analysis of 2006 OBC Archetype and 11 NRCan Houses .................6
Develop New 2009 MMAH Archetype.................................................................6
ERS 80 Analysis of 2009 MMAH Archetype .......................................................6
ERS 80 Compliance Packages .................................................................................7
Capital Cost of Upgrade Components ..................................................................7
Life Cycle Costing of Compliance Packages ........................................................7
CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................... 9
HOT2000 AND THE ENERGUIDE RATING SYSTEM ..............................................9
EnerGuide Rating System (ERS) .........................................................................10
HOT2000 Background ...........................................................................................11
HOT2000 Survey.....................................................................................................12
Summary of Survey Results (N=16) ....................................................................12
Alternative Analysis Programs...............................................................................15
CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................... 17
COMPLIANCE PACKAGES .........................................................................................17
Generating the 2009 MMAH Archetype ............................................................18
Sensitivity Analysis – Upgrades to 2009 MMAH Archetype..........................18
Sensitivity Analysis – Special Conditions............................................................21
Proposed Compliance Packages ...........................................................................21
Additional Compliance Packages: Insulating Concrete Forms and Combo
Systems .......................................................................................................................28
CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................... 31
ENERGY CONSUMPTION ..........................................................................................31
Energy Consumption for Each Compliance Package.......................................32
Energy Consumption Impact Forecast Example: Toronto.............................34
CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................... 37
LIFE CYCLE COSTS ....................................................................................................37
Capital Costs of Energy Measures ........................................................................38
Annual Operating Costs..........................................................................................39
Study Period ..............................................................................................................40
Energy Price Forecasts ............................................................................................40
Interest Rates.............................................................................................................40
Life Cycle Costing Formula ...................................................................................40
Three Forecast Scenarios........................................................................................41
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 45
APPENDICES................................................................................................ 47
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On January 1, 2012, the Building Code will require the energy efficiency design of a building or part of a
building of residential occupancy within the scope of Part 9 that is intended to be occupied on a
continuing basis during the winter months to achieve a performance level that is equal to a rating of 80
(ERS 80) or more when evaluated in accordance with Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan)
“EnerGuide for New Houses: Administrative and Technical Procedures-2005.” ERS 80 as an energy
efficiency performance level has not been translated in a comprehensive way into a prescriptive
equivalent. While approaches have been used to calibrate ERS 80 in single houses, none have extended
the analysis to a representative sample of Ontario houses.
The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing sought to better define the requirements for
energy efficiency for housing within the Building Code for new Ontario houses. The task consisted of
two activities grounded in the actual performance of housing currently constructed in Ontario.
This document summarizes the results and observations of the second activity completed by Lio &
Associates and EnerQuality Corporation. The objective of this study was to develop alternative
packages of prescriptive energy efficiency requirements that are equivalent to the efficiency level offered
by EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80). The goal of the study was to identify prescriptive packages that could
reasonably be adopted by the home building industry and that achieve a level of energy efficiency
deemed equivalent to that of EnerGuide 80.
The following tasks were completed for this study:
¾ review energy simulation programs;

¾ complete an EnerQuality energy advisor survey;
¾ complete a sensitivity analysis using HOT2000;
¾ perform an ERS 80 analysis for the old house archetypes;
¾ develop a new 2009 MMAH Archetype House;
¾ perform an ERS 80 analysis of the 2009 MMAH Archetype House;
¾ test and generate full range of compliance packages for natural gas, oil and electrically heated houses
in less than and more than 5000 degree day climate zones for the new archetype house;
¾ establish capital costs associated with compliance packages; and
¾ establish life cycle costing for the range of compliance packages.
The results of each task presented in this document attempts to advise the Ministry in the development
of prescriptive options for the Building Code in response to consumer and building industry demand for
higher energy efficiency.
A total of 38 packages were developed for natural gas, oil, and electrically heated houses in Zones 1 and 2
of Ontario. Each package considered upgrade options for envelope and mechanical components. The
envelope components included the insulation and performance of the ceiling, above grade walls,
1
foundation, and windows. Different levels of mechanical equipment efficiencies for ventilation, heating,
and domestic hot water systems were also analyzed and proposed as upgrade options.
A forecast of the cumulative savings in energy and greenhouse gas emissions was developed. The
proposed 38 packages showed a cumulative energy savings of 10 petajoules and a cumulative green
house gas emission reduction of 500 kilotonnes over the current 2006 Code–built house by the year
2021. When compared to a 1997 Code-built house, the cumulative energy savings increased to 27
petajoules and the cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emission rose to 1300 kilotonnes.
2
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Ontario has consistently been a leader in the development of

building codes in Canada. This has been particularly true in
relation to the energy efficiency provisions for housing. The
energy efficiency requirements embodied in the Building Code
are the results of the strong government policies and priorities.
In the development of the energy efficiency provisions that will
achieve the government’s targets: practicality, enforceability and
cost effectiveness were considered. While the Ontario Code’s
energy efficiency requirements are some of the most progressive
in Canada, the Ministry is interested in staying at the forefront
of building standards in Canada and is seeking ways to improve
the provisions within the Code.
By the end of December 2011, new housing must be built to

have an energy efficiency performance level equivalent to that of
EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80). ERS 80 as a performance level of
energy efficiency has not been translated in a comprehensive
way into a prescriptive equivalent aligned with the current
provisions of the Code. While approaches have been used to
calibrate ERS 80 in single houses, none have extended the
analysis to a representative sample of Ontario houses, nor have
equivalents been established for the Code’s fuel choice
categories or climatic zones.
In addition, it has been more than a decade that Ontario houses

have been assessed with regard to air tightness. Cross Canada
studies conducted in the past tested a very limited sample of
Ontario houses which provided an indication of levels of
tightness, but the sample was not statistically significant.1,2
1
Airtightness Tests on 200 New Houses Across Canada: Summary of Results, by Michael Sulatisky for Energy, Mines and Resources Canada,
January 1984
2
Airtightness and Energy Efficiency of New Conventional and R-2000 Housing in Canada, by Tom Hamlin and John Gusdorf, for Natural
Resources Canada (CANMET), November 1997
3
Scope and Objectives of th e Re s e arc h S tu dy
The results of two studies undertaken by the Ministry have helped to better define the requirements for
energy efficiency for housing within the Code. These two activities are grounded in the actual
performance of housing currently constructed in Ontario.
The objective of the first activity, completed by ALC Incorporated, was to conduct a survey of average
air leakage rates for typical homes built in accordance with the Building Code and to identify the best
practices with respect to installation of air barrier systems that were currently used in achieving
improved airtight home envelopes and how they may differ from conventional building practices. While
the focus was detached single dwelling units for this study, the air leakage of town homes and semi-
detached homes was also assessed.
The objective of the second study, completed by Lio and Associates and EnerQuality Corporation, was
to develop alternative packages of prescriptive energy efficiency requirements that are equivalent to the
efficiency level offered by EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80). The goal of the study is to identify prescriptive
packages that will have minimal negative impact on homeowners and the home building industry while
achieving the level of energy efficiency equivalent to that of EnerGuide 80. The analysis considers
detached houses, Part 9 apartment buildings, attached (townhomes) and semi-detached houses.
4
CHAPTER 2
Methodology
Several alternative prescriptive compliance packages that

achieve EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80) have been created, tested and
optimized as part of this study. The compliance packages were
initially developed for the existing OBC archetype house. The
packages were then applied to the new 2009 archetype house
developed from housing characteristics extracted from the first
study. The results from past and current archetype were
compared. This study also assessed the performance of the 11
archetype buildings Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) has
developed as part of its Protocol for Validating ENERGY
STAR® for New Homes Builder Option Packages (BOPs).
The requirements of ENERGY STAR® for New Homes

Initiative and the capabilities of energy simulation programs
were also examined.
The following tasks were completed for this study:
¾ review energy simulation programs;

¾ complete an EnerQuality energy advisor survey;
¾ complete a sensitivity analysis using HOT2000 3 4;
¾ perform an ERS 80 analysis for the old house archetypes;
¾ develop a new archetype house;
¾ perform an ERS 80 analysis of the new archetype house;
¾ test and generate full range of compliance packages for
natural gas, oil and electrically heated houses in less than
and more than 5000 degree day climate zones for the new
archetype house;
¾ establish capital costs associated with compliance packages;
and
¾ establish life cycle costing for the range of compliance
packages.
3
HOT2000 is an official mark of Natural Resources Canada
4
HOT2000 version 9.34c
5
Review Energy Simulati on Pr ograms w it h En ergy Ad visor S ur vey
The HOT2000 5 computer simulation program was examined in detail to investigate the capabilities and
limitations of the program. Energy consumption results were considered and analysed that resulted from
variations due to house size, orientation, fuel type, and window percentage area.
Alternative programs, including but not limited to HOT2XP, HOT2-EC, HOT3000, Houstrad, and
RETScreen, were analysed for their capabilities and limitations. The results were documented and
compared to the HOT2000 program.
An Energy Advisor survey was prepared and distributed to all EnerQuality certified energy advisors to
complete. The survey was used to capture the opinions from energy advisors of HOT2000 based on
their daily experience with the software.
ERS 80 Analysis of 2006 OBC Ar chetype and 11 NRCan Houses
A preliminary ERS 80 analysis was completed using the HOT2000 software against the existing OBC
archetype house and NRCan’s 11 reference houses used for the development of the current ENERGY
STAR® for New Homes Technical Specification in the province.
The analysis generated a number of options for complying with ERS 80. A preliminary list of
compliance packages was developed for use with a new archetype house.
Develop New 2009 MMAH Archetype
A new archetype house was developed by considering all the relevant house characteristics of all houses
evaluated in Activity 1. Activity 1 evaluated the performance of 100 houses representing the most
popular models currently built in the province and gathered from among Ontario’s largest builders. The
sample represents a very large number of houses currently built in the province, proportional to the local
construction activity. It includes semi-detached and attached building in the approximate proportion of
those currently built in the province.
The housing characteristics that were used included the following: foundation wall area, ceiling area,
exterior main wall area, floor area, exposed floor area, slab perimeter, slab area, window area, air change rate
and house volume.
ERS 80 Analysis of 2009 MMAH Archetype
Based on the results of the preliminary analysis, a more tailored sensitivity analysis was performed on the
new archetype house. The envelope components and mechanical systems were reassessed and their
impact in achieving ERS 80 was re-examined.
5
6
E RS 8 0 C om p li an c e P ac kag e s
In conjunction with Ministry Staff, compliance packages were generated and tested. The analysis
included an examination of the ENERGY STAR® for New Homes Technical Specifications Version 4.0.
Numerous packages were generated and tested for natural gas, oil and electric space heating in the two
climatic zones of the Building Code. Each package was developed to achieve a performance level of ERS
80 for the archetype house.
C a p i t a l C o st of U pgrade Components
The capital cost borne by the homebuyer for every upgraded envelope component and mechanical
appliance within each ERS compliance package was determined. A number of builders were requested
to price each upgrade and report their results on a set of standardized worksheets. The upgrade
components selected from the results of the sensitively analyses were summarized into Builder
Worksheets to obtain initial costs. Participating builders used the worksheets to present their costs
including all labour and mark-up costs. The results from all participating builders were averaged and
used to assess the initial viability of each upgrade component. The builder worksheet template can be
found in Appendix A.
L if e Cyc le C o st ing o f Compliance Packages
A life cycle costing analysis of each of the compliance packages was conducted. The life cycle analysis
used a study period of 25 years which corresponds to a typical residential mortgage. A discount rate was
calculated from the current mortgage rate and the current inflation rate. The analysis considered the
future forecast of energy prices using a range of escalation rates between 0.5% and 4.5%. The range
captures the escalation rates predicted by the National Energy Board.
7
8
CHAPTER 3
HOT2000 and the

EnerGuide Rating
System
Natural Resources Canada’s EnerGuide Rating System uses the

HOT2000 software to evaluate the energy performance of
houses. The software underpins the EnerGuide labels provided
to owners of both new and existing homes. ERS is used as part
of the administration of grants for the federal government’s
ecoENERGY program. HOT2000 is also used to establish
compliance to the ENERGY STAR® for New Homes program
and the R-2000 Standard.
This section assesses the capabilities of the HOT2000 6

simulation program particularly its use within the province as
part the Building Code.
6
9
EnerGuide Rating System (ERS)
The EnerGuide Rating System (ERS) uses a rating scale from 0 to 100. A score of 100 represents a home
with zero purchased energy. The ERS presents the opportunity for a performance approach method by
modeling each house individually and demonstrating where it sits on the rating scale. ENERGY STAR®
levels of energy efficiency are calibrated to an ERS 80 on the scale. ERS 80 also represents the target
space and water heating consumption for R-2000 houses. The formula for calculating ERS can be found
in Appendix B of this report.
HOT2000 is able to simulate the energy performance of houses quite accurately. It considers all
envelop areas and their corresponding thermal resistances, the building’s orientation and level of
exposure to wind, the mechanical and lighting systems installed together with occupant characteristics.
Taken together all of the inputs to the simulation program define the heat loss and heat gain
characteristics of virtually any small residential building. Almost all of the federal government’s energy
efficiency programs for housing reference HOT2000 in one way or another:
ecoENERGY – this NRCan housing energy efficiency program requires houses registered in the
program to be evaluated by trained energy advisors. Certification, training and quality assurance is
supplied by NRCan or its service organizations. The Government of Canada offers grants for qualifying
energy upgrades to homeowners as part of the ecoENERGY incentive program. The Government of
Ontario through its Retrofit Rebate Program provides matching grants to those from the federal
government. Homes must have an evaluation completed by a licensed energy advisor who recommends
upgrades. Financial incentives are provided for homeowners who perform the recommended upgrades
within an 18 month period. HOT2000 is the assessment tool used as part of the ecoENERGY Program
and by extension the Retrofit Rebate Program.
EnerGuide Rating System Initiative for New Homes – This initiative is administered by Natural
Resources Canada to provide energy ratings for new houses. No minimum rating is prescribed. Energy
advisors, who are trained and certified by NRCan-licensed service organizations, work with builders to
provide ratings for houses under construction. HOT2000 is the assessment tool for houses rated under
the program. Enrolled and evaluated houses can qualify for an EnerGuide label.
R-2000 Standard – The R-2000 Standard is administered by NRCan and developed in partnership with
Canada’s residential construction industry. Each R-2000 home must be individually assessed using
HOT2000 and must achieve the following in order to qualify for R-2000 certification: an ERS 80 level of
efficiency; a mechanical ventilation system; indoor air quality and environmental features; and water
conservation measures. R-2000 houses when tested using a blower door cannot be leakier than 1.5 ACH
@ 50 Pa. Complying with this air tightness requirement suggests that strict quality assurance both
during construction and after construction is necessary. HOT2000 is the energy performance
simulation program that calculates the house energy consumption and the R-2000 energy target against
which it is compared.
10
ENERGY STAR® for New Homes – this program is administered by NRCan. It is an energy-efficient
new homes initiative aimed at production builders who can have their homes labeled through a
prescriptive or a performance method. HOT2000 is only used when the performance compliance path is
used. No computer simulation is needed when the prescriptive approach is used.
HOT2000 Background
HOT2000 originated in 1982 as HOTCAN, first developed by the National Research Council of
Canada. Today, the software is developed and distributed by Natural Resources Canada. With every
new release new calculation modules have been added and the user interface improved. The program
now includes enhanced foundation heat loss analysis, a combination heating and hot water system
calculation module, improved energy upgrades analysis, and improved reporting. Its accuracy has been
verified by testing and confirming results against actual houses.
HOT2000 was developed for North American home design professionals. HOT2000’s heat loss/gain
calculations account for building location and orientation, solar gains, and the operation and
performance of the building’s HVAC systems. It can be used to forecast energy consumption on a
monthly basis, project energy costs, and improve the energy efficiency of building designs.
HOT2000 can model various building geometries and configurations as well as various heating and
domestic hot water systems using different fuel types and different steady state or seasonal efficiencies. It
can also model tilted windows and skylights, various thermal mass levels, and various weather/climate
profiles. Finally, mechanical ventilation can be modeled with various systems, and actual blower door
test results or pre-defined air tightness levels can be chosen for air infiltration.
Aside from calculating EnerGuide ratings, HOT2000 can also project energy costs and performance,
predict air infiltration rates, account for passive solar heating, and ensure compliance with energy
regulations.
11
HOT2000 Sur vey
An online survey of Ontario energy advisors was developed to obtain feedback on the use of HOT2000
and the EnerGuide Rating System. Survey participants, drawn from EnerQuality’s roster of certified
advisors, were asked to comment on their experience using HOT2000 and the EnerGuide Rating
System. A complete set of survey responses are provided in Appendix C.
S umm ary of S ur ve y Re s u lt s ( N= 1 6 )
¾ Question 1: How easy is HOT2000 to use?
Overall, there was a mixed response regarding the ease of use of HOT2000. 44% of respondents
rated the program as “somewhat difficult” to use, 38% of respondents rated the program as
“somewhat easy”, and 19% felt neutral about the ease of use of the program.
Respondents attributed difficulties in using the program to a number of factors including software
errors and glitches, as well as a lack of troubleshooting/training help. Some respondents also
indicated that information in the default libraries does not match common industry data or
information and is out of sync with industry practice.
¾ Question 2: How accurately does HOT2000 simulate the total energy use of houses?
Respondents felt that HOT2000 was accurate in simulating the total energy use for different types of
houses (e.g. single, semi-detached, row-house), occupancy conditions (e.g. multi-generational
family), and for different types of mechanical heating and ventilating. However, responses were
mixed as to whether HOT2000 accurately simulates the total energy use of houses when on-site
renewable energy systems are installed.
¾ Question 3: Is HOT2000 sufficiently capable at modelling all components of a house?
The majority of survey respondents (81.3%) felt that HOT2000 is sufficiently capable of modelling
all components of a house. Those that did not find the program sufficiently capable of modelling all
components of a house (18.8%) commented on a number of components that were not modeled
accurately. These include air conditioning, drain water heat recovery systems, solar hot water tanks,
and solar panels. Others felt that there is limited flexibility in modelling windows, and the list of
selections for foundation modelling could be improved. Another concern is limited modelling with
regard to building envelopes and effects of wind washing.
12
¾ Question 4: Are HOT2000 results consistent when generated by different advisors?
There was a mixed response as 62.5% of respondents felt that results were consistent, while 37.5% of
respondents felt that results were not consistent when generated by different advisors. Some
respondents expressed that adequate training reduces the discrepancies between advisors. Others
commented that discrepancies were in part caused by large number of inputs and variables and
rounding off of numbers. However, respondents commented that even though evaluations differed,
results usually varied within a 10% range. One respondent suggested that the discrepancy between
results supports the case for more fixed average inputs.
¾ Question 5: To what extent does the HOT2000 output provide sufficient information to enable the
assessment of compliance to a set of minimum prescriptive requirements?
The majority of respondents felt that HOT2000 provides sufficient information to enable the
assessment of compliance to a set of minimum prescriptive requirements. Specifically, some
respondents felt that HOT2000 requires many extraneous and insignificant inputs, but if these
inputs were defaulted or kept constant, the program could be used as compliance tool.
¾ Question 6: Overall, from your experience, how well does HOT2000 simulate the actual energy
consumption within the home?
Overall, respondents felt that HOT2000 simulates the actual energy consumption within the home
fairly well. However, respondents indicated that occupancy and lifestyle influences can affect actual
consumption. Advanced building techniques may also influence results.
¾ Question 7: What other computer simulation programs for energy use in housing would you
recommend?
Other suggested computer simulation programs for energy use in housing recommended by
respondents are Energy Gauge, RemRate, HRAI, and Wrightsoft.
Respondents commented on their experience with other programs:

other programs seem to have other limitations,
RemRate has less inputs available than HOT2000
RetScreen may be too extensive for residential modeling
Wrightsoft is too be basic in comparison to HOT2000
Right Suite, or other such commonly available heat loss programs could be adapted for
compliance verification
an excel spreadsheet could be configured for use as a compliance tool.
13
¾ Question 8: Please provide your thoughts or additional comments that you may have on the use of
the EnerGuide Rating System and the HOT2000 computer program to establish the energy use of
new houses.
Some common themes from respondents’ feedback:

HOT2000 is too complex for use as a compliance tool
EnerGuide rating scale is too large and small changes in energy efficiency are often not
reflected as a change in points
All new houses fall in a narrow range on the scale, much improvement is needed to move a
house up on the scale - “multiple measures are generally required to move the scale by one
integer making it difficult for the builder to measure the merit of each individual technology
or strategy”
The scale used for the EnerGuide Rating System is not clearly communicated and
calculations behind ratings are not made clear enough
Alignment of the rating system with the HERS Index used in the United States with a score
of zero denoting no energy use in a home
Others suggested improvements to specific applications and components in HOT2000,
such as addition of a room by room heat loss measure, improvement of the assessment of
lighting and entertainment devices, and problems with analysis of air tightness and
ventilation
Some felt that the EnerGuide Rating System is a well recognized program, and there is merit
in using a program with which builders are already familiar
Survey Conclusions
Overall, respondents feel that HOT2000 output provides sufficient information to enable the
assessment of compliance to a set of minimum prescriptive requirements. It is accurate in modelling
most components of a house and in modelling different types of houses. However, there are some
limitations to the program, such as it’s inflexibility to model renewable energy technologies and proper
window performance. As a compliance assessment tool, it is sufficient in providing enough information
and may actually be overly complex for use as a compliance tool.
The EnerGuide Rating System is already recognizable by builders which may help to ease its transition
for use as a compliance tool; however there are issues with the system that need to be further examined.
There is also misunderstanding of the EnerGuide rating scale convention of 100 being the best and 0 the
worst. Survey respondents have recommended that the scale should model the HERS scale used in the
U.S., where a rating of zero equals no energy use. In any case, better communication of the rating
systems would help to remedy any misunderstanding by both builders and consumers.
The use of HOT2000 as a compliance tool must be accompanied by adequate training and education for
evaluators. Adequate training is required in order to reduce discrepancies between results generated by
different advisors.
14
Alternative An alysis Pr ograms
CanmetENERGY has developed other software in addition to HOT2000 that to analyze, model, and
simulate the energy use of housing. This software is intended provide industry with a means to reduce
costs, assess compliance, and qualify for funding and incentive programs.
¾ HOT2XP shares the same analysis engine as HOT2000 however it requires fewer inputs than
HOT2000. The program defaults a number of inputs for internal calculations. HOT2XP is an
accurate analysis tool for simple single-family housing. HOT2000 is recommended for more
complex take-offs where default inputs may not be as accurate. HOT2XP has fallen into disuse as
the benefits to an experienced HOT2000 operator are negligible.
¾ HOT2-EC is a special version of HOT2000 that provides compliance with the 1997 Model National
Energy Code for Houses (MNECH). The program is used when building designs do not meet the
Prescriptive or Trade-offs Paths but are designed to be energy efficient. HOT2-EC is used in these
cases to show that the buildings meet MNECH 1997. Thus this program should not be used for
conventional EnerGuide rating takeoffs. As the MNECH is significantly out of date the usefulness
of the software is also questionable.
¾ HOT3000 is fundamentally more accurate and comprehensive than HOT2000 due to its time-step
engine as opposed to the bin-based core of HOT2000. This approach allows more complex house
systems and heat transfer processes to be modeled, resulting in broader and finer resolution of
simulation. Specifically, HOT3000 evaluates hourly energy demands and fuel consumption, time-of-
use rates and includes a three-dimensional graphical view of the house model. Finally, it allows for
HVAC system sizing, a problem apparent in most of the current analysis programs. HOT3000 is not
yet commercially available; however, a public release of Version 1 was expected in Fall 2009. The
program remains a research tool. It may eventually be ported over to a HOT2000 platform,
¾ Similar to HOT2-EC, Houstrad is used to demonstrate compliance with the envelope requirements
of the Model National Energy Code of Canada for Houses (MNECH) using trade-offs. Again, this
program should not be used for conventional EnerGuide rating takeoffs.
¾ RETScreen is a comprehensive analysis program that can evaluate the energy production and
savings, costs, emission reductions, financial viability and risk for various types of Renewable-energy
and Energy-efficient Technologies. However, RETscreen is primarily a decision support tool as
opposed to a rating and analysis software.
15
United States of America - RESNET (Residential Energy Services Network)
RESNET is an industry not-for-profit corporation that develops standards regarding the energy
performance of homes. RESNET has a standard that covers software accreditation; the tests were
developed by U.S. National Laboratories and RESNET. RESNET has a standard that accredited
software tools must meet. The requirements can be found in the Mortgage Industry National Home
Energy Rating Standards. The ratings are based on calculation procedures for evaluating the home,
including the assumptions for baseloads, default efficiencies, default framing fractions, etc. It also
provides the parameters that must be used for the reference house. Currently, there are three approved
software programs for evaluating the Home Energy Rating System (HERS) index:
¾ EnergyGauge® USA Version 2.8

¾ EnergyInsightsTM V5
¾ REM/Rate v12.7.
The software outputs a rating using the relative energy-use index called the HERS index. The HERS
index is not a fixed scale but starts at 100 and can go up or down from there. 100 represents a home built
to the characteristics of the reference house as defined by RESNET. A score of 0 would represent a
house that requires no net purchased energy. The reference house is integral to the evaluation software
and takes into consideration the climate, efficiencies of mechanical equipment, construction and other
characteristics.
16
CHAPTER 4
Compliance Packages
The effects of incremental energy efficiency improvements to

the building envelope and mechanical systems were simulated
using the HOT2000 computer simulation program. The
improvements taken together were considered in relation to the
EnerGuide rating they produced. Energy efficiency upgrades
that were examined included improvements to insulation,
windows, air leakage, mechanical equipment, and lighting.
The effect of each measure on the house’s rating was

established. Sets of measures were bundled as compliance
packages and tested to reach an EnerGuide 80 energy efficiency
level. The EnerGuide rating considers energy used for space
and water heating. Electrical consumption for specific energy
efficient products was considered through as a fixed set of
energy credits.
Compliance packages were generated for each climatic zone as

defined by the Building Code (Zone 1, less than 5000 degree
days and Zone 2, 5000 degree days or more) and for different
fuel types (natural gas, oil, and electric space heating). Each
compliance package attempted to capture reasonable
combinations of mechanical equipment and envelope upgrades.
Final compliance packages were selected and assembled for the

life cycle costing analysis that follows in the next Chapter.
17
G e ne r at ing the 2 0 0 9 MMAH Arc he ty pe
In previous Ontario studies of regulated housing energy efficiency, a benchmark house was used as the
basis for the estimates of construction costs and energy consumption. The building was a two-storey
detached house with an approximate size of 2100 square feet (123 square metres) that was
representative of Ontario norms at the time with respect to size and layout. Preliminary sets of
compliance measures or packages were developed based the performance of this house. These formed
the basis for the eventual development of compliance packages that were based on an updated 2009
archetype house. Please see Appendix D for the summarized results.
In February 2009, the ENERGY STAR® for New Homes Technical Specifications Version 4.0 was
released across the province. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) required that the development of the
Specification be based on 11 reference houses. The 11 houses, representing a variety of home
configurations and sizes were considered in the development of the provincial code compliance
packages. Please see Appendix E for the summarized results.
A new 2009 archetype house was developed for this study. The new archetype house was developed by
considering all the relevant house characteristics of all 100 houses evaluated in Activity 1. The 100
house sample represented the most popular models currently built in the province and gathered from
among Ontario’s largest builders. The sample represents a very large number of houses currently built in
the province. It includes semi-detached and attached building in the approximate proportion of those
currently built in the province. The housing characteristics that were used included the following:
foundation wall area, ceiling area, exterior main wall area, floor area, exposed floor area, slab perimeter, slab
area, window area, air change rate and house volume.
The arithmetic mean of all 100 data inputs for each characteristic was calculated to derive the physical
attributes of the new archetype. The attributes of the existing benchmark house were comparable to the
new archetype. While minor differences were identified, in general the physical characteristics of both
houses were very similar. This observation served to validate the new 2009 MMAH Archetype as
derived from the 100 sample. The archetype, the authors believe, is representative of new housing
currently built across the province and is suitable as a norm for use in demonstrating provincial code
compliance. See Appendix F for more details on the new archetype.
Sensitivity Analysis – Upgr ad es to 2009 MMAH Archetype
Figures 1 and 2 summarize the sensitivity analysis results using the new archetype house for Zone 1 and
Zone 2. These figures show the incremental effect of each upgrade on the EnerGuide rating.
18
Figure 1: 2009 MMAH Archetype Sensitivity Analysis – Zone 1
# Upgrade ERS Ì
1 ENERGY STAR V4 Specification (EnerQuality) 80.3 3.5
2 Electric Furnace w/ OBC R values 79.0 2.2
3 Zone C Windows (1.6 W/m^2) 78.3 1.5
4 HRV @ 75% 78.3 1.5
5 HRV @ 70% 78.2 1.4
6 Wall 4: R29 (R22 + 1.5" insulating sheathing) 78.2 1.4
7 HRV @ 60% 78.0 1.2
8 Wall 3: R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 77.9 1.1
9 HRV @ 55% 77.9 1.1
10 Wall 2: R24 (R19 + 1" insulating sheathing) 77.7 0.9
11 Zone B Windows (1.8 W/m^2) 77.6 0.8
12 CFL (550 kWh Total) 77.3 0.5
13 R20 batt Basement 77.2 0.4
14 DHW @ 0.67 EF 77.2 0.4
15 Gas Furnace @ 94% AFUE 77.1 0.3
16 Wall 1: R22 High density batt 77.1 0.3 400 kWh electrical credits
17 R50 Blown cellulose + 10" raised heel truss 77.0 0.2 ERS 77.1
18 R50 Blown Fibreglass + 10" raised heel truss 77.0 0.2 Delta 0.3
19 DHW @ 0.62 EF 77.0 0.2
20 R5 1" full slab 77.0 0.2
22 R50 Blown cellulose 77.0 0.2
23 R50 Blown Fibreglass 77.0 0.2
24 R5 1" 600 mm perimeter 76.8 0.0
25 Enery Efficient Motor Credit (ECM) 76.8 0.0
26 R31 Exposed Floors 76.8 0.0
27 Steel Polyurathane Core Door 76.8 0.0
2009 MMAH Archetype Toronto 76.8 0.0

28 Oil Furnace @ 85% AFUE w/ Oil DHW 75.1 -1.7
29 Oil Furnace @ 85% AFUE w/ Electric DHW 75.0 -1.8
19
Figure 2: 2009 MMAH Archetype Sensitivity Analysis – Zone 2
# Upgrade ERS Ì
1 ENERGY STAR V4 Specification (EnerQuality) 79.1 2.2
2 Zone C Windows (1.6 W/m^2) 78.4 1.5
3 Electric Furnace w/ OBC R values 78.0 1.1
4 HRV @ 75% 77.9 1.0
5 HRV @ 70% 77.9 1.0
6 Zone B Windows (1.8 W/m^2) 77.8 0.9
7 HRV @ 60% 77.7 0.8
8 HRV @ 55% 77.6 0.7
9 Wall 4: R29 (R22 + 1.5" insulating sheathing) 77.4 0.5
10 R20 batt Basement 77.4 0.5
11 CFL (550 kWh Total) 77.3 0.4
13 DHW @ 0.67 EF 77.2 0.3
14 R50 Blown cellulose + 10" raised heel truss 77.2 0.3
15 R5 1" full slab 77.2 0.3
16 Wall 3: R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 77.1 0.2 400 kWh electrical credits
17 R50 Blown Fibreglass + 10" raised heel truss 77.1 0.2 ERS 77.2
18 DHW @ 0.62 EF 77.1 0.2 Delta 0.3
20 R50 Blown cellulose 77.1 0.2
21 R50 Blown Fibreglass 77.1 0.2
22 R5 1" 600 mm perimeter 77.0 0.1
23 Wall 2: R24 (R19 + 1" insulating sheathing) 76.9 0.0 * Code
24 Enery Efficient Motor Credit (ECM) 76.9 0.0
25 R31 Exposed Floors 76.9 0.0
26 Steel Polyurathane Core Door 76.9 0.0
27 Wall 1: R22 High density batt 76.2 -0.7 ** downgrade from Code
2009 MMAH Archetype Sudbury 76.9 0.0

Note: EnerQuality's ENERGY STAR® for New Homes Technical Specifications Version
4.0 does not have a prescriptive package for Sudbury (Zone 2)
20
Se n sitivit y Analysis – S pec ial Cond it ion s
Based on NRCan’s 11 reference houses, the authors observed specific conditions that required further
analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effects of window area and house volume
on the overall EnerGuide rating. The results showed a negative correlation between window area and
the EnerGuide rating and showed no correlation between house volume and the EnerGuide rating. See
Appendix G for details.
To address the effects of large window areas, the authors proposed upgrading the window’s overall
coefficient of heat transfer required by the selected compliance package to the next level if the
percentage of window area is more than 17% but not more than 22% of the total wall area. If the
percentage is greater than 22%, it is recommended to require a performance path approach.
Among the NRCan archetypes, two more conditions needed to be addressed: slab-on-grade and
basement walkouts. To address these lower performing conditions, the authors proposed to upgrade
insulation level of the walkout basement walls and require insulation with a minimum R Value of 10 to
be installed around the perimeter of slab-edge-on-grade walkouts and the entire slab for slab-on-grade
and basement floor slabs.
Pr oposed Compliance Packag es
Compliance packages were generated for each climatic zone (Zone 1, less than 5000 degree days and
Zone 2, 5000 degree days or more) and for natural gas, oil, and electric space heating. Each compliance
package attempted to capture reasonable combinations of mechanical equipment and envelope
upgrades. Each compliance package was tested to verify that it in fact achieved the EnerGuide 80 energy
efficiency level.
Final compliance packages were selected and assembled for the life cycle costing analysis that follows in
the next chapter.
Figures 3 to 8 present the selected compliance packages that were evaluated as part of the life cycle
costing analysis in the Chapter that follows.
(See Appendix H for initial costs and the EnerGuide rating for each compliance package)
21
Figure 3:
Zone 1 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher
A B C D E F G H I J
Component (minimum
2006 Code
efficiency)
Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade
Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31
Walls Above Grade R19 R24 R27 R27 R24 R24 R24 R24 R24 R22 R22
Windows and Sliding

2.0 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 2.0 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K
Doors (max U value)
Skylights (max U
- 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K
value)
Basement Walls R12 R20 R20 R20 R20 R20 R12 R12 R12 R20 R12
Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-

- R5 - - - - - - - - -
entire surface
Slab =<600mm B/G- R8 Perimeter
R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
entire surface 2'
Heated Slab @GorB/G- R10
R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
entire surf. Perimeter2'
Space Heating
90 90 90 94 94 90 94 92 94 92 94
Equipment (AFUE)
Ventilation - - - - - HRV @ 55% HRV @ 60% HRV @ 60% HRV @ 70% HRV 55% HRV 60%
Domestic Hot Water

0.57 0.57 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.57 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.62 0.67
EF
22
Figure 4:
Zone 1 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment between 78 – 90% AFUE
A B C D E F
Component
2006 Code
(minimum efficiency)
Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade
Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31
Walls Above Grade R19 R29 R29 R29 R27 R27 R27
Windows and Sliding 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2.0 W/m • K 1.6 W/m • K 1.6 W/m • K 1.8 W/m • K 1.6 W/m • K 1.6 W/m • K 1.8 W/m • K
Doors (max U value)
Skylights (max U
- 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K
value)
Basement Walls R12 R20 R12 R20 R20 R20 R20
Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-

- - - - - - -
entire surface
R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
entire surface 2'
Heated Slab R10
R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
@GorB/G-entire surf. Perimeter2'
Space Heating
- 84 84% 84% 84%
Equipment (AFUE)
Ventilation - HRV @ 55% HRV @ 55% HRV @ 70% HRV @ 55% HRV @ 70% HRV @ 75%
Domestic Hot Water

- - - - - - -
EF
23
Figure 5:
Zone 1 Compliance Packages – Electric Space Heating
A B
Component (minimum
2006 Code
efficiency)
Upgrade Upgrade
Ceiling R50 R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31
Walls Above Grade R29 R29 R29
Windows and Sliding 2 2 2

1.6 W/m • K 1.6 W/m • K 1.6 W/m • K
Doors (max U value)
2 2
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K
Basement Walls R19 R20 R12
Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-

- - -
entire surface
Slab =<600mm B/G- R10
R10 R10
entire surface Perimeter 2'
R10 R10
Space Heating
- - -
Equipment (AFUE)
Ventilation - HRV @ 55% HRV @ 75%
Domestic Hot Water EF - - -
24
Figure 6:
Zone 2 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher
A B C D E F G H I J
Component (minimum
2006 Code
efficiency)
Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade
Windows and Sliding

2.0 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.8 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K
Doors (max U value)
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K
Slab >600mm B/G-

- R5 - - R5 - - - R5 - -
entire surface
Slab =<600mm B/G-
R8 Perimeter 2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
entire surface
R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
Space Heating
90 90 94 92 94 94 94 94 94 - 94
Equipment (AFUE)
Ventilation - - - HRV 60% - - HRV 60% HRV 75% - HRV 60% HRV 60%
Domestic Hot Water EF - - - - - 0.67 - 0.62 0.67 - 0.67
25
Figure 7:
Zone 2 Compliance Packages - Space Heating Equipment between 78 – 90% AFUE
A B
Component (minimum
2006 Code
efficiency)
Upgrade Upgrade
Ceiling R40 R50 R50
Windows and Sliding

2.0 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K
Doors (max U value)
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m2 • K 2.8 W/m2 • K
Slab >600mm B/G-

- R5 R5
entire surface
R10 R10
entire surface 2'
R10 R10
Space Heating
- - 84
Equipment (AFUE)
26
Figure 8:
Zone 2 Compliance Packages – Electric Space Heating
A
Component
2006 Code
(minimum efficiency)
Upgrade
Ceiling R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31
Walls Above Grade R29 R29
Windows and Sliding

1.6 W/m2 • K 1.6 W/m2 • K
Doors (max U value)
Skylights (max U
- 2.8 W/m2 • K
value)
Basement Walls R19 R20
Exposed Floor R25 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-

- R5
entire surface
Slab =<600mm B/G- R10
R10
entire surface Perimeter 2'
Heated Slab R10
R10
@GorB/G-entire surf. Perimeter2'
Space Heating
- -
Equipment (AFUE)
Ventilation - HRV @ 75%
Domestic Hot Water

- -
EF
27
Add it i ona l Co mp li an ce Pac kag e s: In su lat ing C oncr et e Form s a nd
Combo Systems
The use of insulating concrete forms (ICFs) and combination heat and domestic hot water systems was
also considered. A sensitivity analysis was performed to document the incremental effects of these two
measures on the EnerGuide rating. Compliance packages were tested and generated for each measure.
Figure 9 shows the selected compliance packages for ICFs and Combo/DHW Systems in each climatic
zone. Houses with ICFs walls and foundations benefit from reduced thermal bridging and the
availability of the thermal mass associated with the ICF wall.
28
Figure 9: ICF and Combo/DHW System Compliance Packages – Zone 1 and Zone 2
ICF ICF
Zone 1 Above and Below Grade Combo/DHW
Below Grade Only
Component (minimum efficiency) Package A Package AA Package B
Ceiling R50 R50 R50
Walls Above Grade R22 ICF R24 Stud R24 Stud
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K
Skylights (max U value) 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K
Basement Walls R22 ICF R22 ICF R20
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - - -
Slab =<600mm B/G R10 R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 90% 94% 90% Combo

Ventilation - - -
Domestic Hot Water EF 0.57 0.57 0.80 Combo
ICF ICF
Zone 2 Above and Below Grade Combo/DHW Combo/DHW
Below Grade Only
Component (minimum efficiency) Package A Package AA Package B Package BB
Ceiling R50 R50 R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R31 R31 R31 R31
Walls Above Grade R22 ICF R24 Stud R24 Stud R27
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.6 W/m^2 • K
Skylights (max U value) 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K
Basement Walls R22 ICF R22 ICF R20 R20
Exposed Floor R31 R31 R31 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - - - -
Slab =<600mm B/G R10 R10 R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 R10 R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 94% 94% 90% Combo 90% Combo
Ventilation - - HRV 55% -
Domestic Hot Water EF 0.57 0.57 0.80 Combo 0.80 Combo
29
30
CHAPTER 5
Energy Consumption
The energy consumption associated with each proposed

compliance package was determined using both computer
simulations and analytical tools.
Using HOT2000 (version 9.34c) the 2009 MMAH Archetype

house was modeled with 2006 Code levels of energy efficiency
and with each proposed compliance package. The energy
consumption data was established and compared to determine
the energy savings for each proposed package.
In addition to energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions

were also established. Using this data, a 10 year forecast for
Zone 1 gas compliance packages was performed to illustrate the
future impact of the proposed prescriptive requirements.
31
E n e r g y C on su mp t i on f or E a c h C om p li anc e P ac k age
Figure 10 shows the energy consumption savings associated with each compliance package. The energy
use by fuel type (natural gas, oil and electricity) is also shown. Finally, greenhouse gas emission savings
that result from each upgrade package are also shown. Zone 2 data are shown in Figure 11.
Figure 10: Energy Consumption Summary – Zone 1 Compliance Packages
Zone 1 - Compliance Packages: Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher
Estimated Annual
Greenhouse Gas
Space + DHW Energy Estimated Annual Fuel Consumption
Emissions
Package Consumption
Savings Electricity Savings Natural Savings Reduction
(MJ) Oil (l) Savings (l) (kg/year)
(MJ) (kWh) (kWh) Gas (m3) (m3) (kg/year)
BASE 98344 0 9295 0 2588 0 - - 9890 0
A 79945 18399 9205 90 2103 485 - - 8930 960
B 80604 17740 9208 87 2120 468 - - 8970 920
C 80387 17957 9225 70 2113 475 - - 8960 930
D 79953 18391 9232 63 2100 488 - - 8940 950
E 78440 19904 9276 19 2055 532 - - 8880 1010
F 78792 19552 9286 9 2064 524 - - 8900 990
G 77833 20511 9288 7 2038 550 - - 8860 1030
H 78886 19458 9306 -11 2065 523 - - 8920 970
I 79362 18982 9295 0 2078 509 - - 8850 1040
J 78928 19416 9306 -11 2066 522 - - 8830 1060
Average 79313 19031 9263 32 2080 508 - - 8904 986
Zone 1 - Compliance Packages: Space Heating Equipment between 78 - 90% AFUE
Estimated Annual
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Package Consumption
BASE 110775 0 9283 0 - - 2827 0 13020 0
A 81742 29033 9230 53 - - 2078 749 10880 2140
B 83019 27755 9241 42 - - 2110 717 10970 2050
C 82308 28466 9238 45 - - 2092 735 10920 2100
D 82348 28426 9239 45 - - 2093 734 10920 2100
E 81804 28970 9230 53 - - 2080 747 10880 2140
F 83550 27225 9244 40 - - 2124 703 11010 2010
Average 82462 28313 9237 46 - - 2096 731 10930 2090
Zone 1 - Compliance Packages: Electric Space Heating
Estimated Annual
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Package Consumption
BASE 67735 0 27576 0 - - - - 14950 0
A 61076 6659 25726 1849 - - - - 13950 1000
B 60894 6841 25675 1900 - - - - 13920 1030
Average 60985 6750 25701 1875 - - - - 13935 1015
32
Figure 11: Energy Consumption Summary – Zone 2 Compliance Packages
Zone 2 - Compliance Packages: Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher
Estimated Annual
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Package Consumption
BASE 121923 0 9348 0 3216 0 - - 11100 0
A 99516 22407 9238 110 2625 591 - - 9930 1170
B 100650 21273 9254 94 2654 562 - - 9990 1110
C 100470 21453 9289 58 2645 570 - - 10000 1100
D 99796 22127 9250 98 2631 584 - - 9950 1150
E 99668 22255 9270 78 2626 590 - - 9950 1150
F 101753 20169 9301 47 2679 537 - - 10070 1030
G 101744 20178 9312 36 2677 538 - - 10070 1030
H 97867 24055 9261 86 2578 637 - - 9860 1240
I 100911 21011 9286 61 2658 558 - - 10020 1080
J 98715 23208 9307 41 2597 619 - - 9910 1190
Average 100109 21814 9277 71 2637 579 - - 9975 1125
Zone 2 - Compliance Packages: Space Heating Equipment with AFUE between 78 - 90%
Estimated Annual
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Package Consumption
BASE 137788 0 9330 0 - - 3523 0 15020 0
A 105351 32438 9225 105 - - 2691 832 12610 2410
B 104895 32894 9231 99 - - 2679 845 12580 2440
Average 105123 32666 9228 102 - - 2685 838 12595 2425
Zone 2 - Compliance Packages: Electric Space Heating
Estimated Annual
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Package Consumption
BASE 89527 0 33629 0 - - - - 18230 0
A 78577 10949 30587 3041 - - - - 16580 1650
Average 78577 10949 30587 3041 - - - - 16580 1650
33
E n e r g y C on su mp t i on I mp ac t F or e c a st E x a mp l e : To r o n t o
The impact of the proposed compliance packages on provincial energy consumption and greenhouse
gas emissions was estimated. Toronto weather data was used in the simulation of household energy use
and greenhouse gas emissions. The choice of a single weather location is supported by a number of
facts: 1) the majority of new home completions occur in the Toronto area, 2) completions in colder part
of the province are balanced by completions in parts of the province warmer than Toronto. The average
energy and greenhouse gas emission savings for the new archetype house, shown in Figure 10 for
compliance packages with space heating equipment with an AFUE 90% or higher, were used to establish
the province-wide savings.
CMHC housing completion statistics were used to estimate the total energy and greenhouse gas
emission savings that could result from the implementation of the new efficiency requirements in 2012.
A ten-year forecast of the cumulative savings in energy and greenhouse gas emissions was developed.
The average number of yearly housing completions from the previous ten years, from 1998 to 2008, was
calculated and used to estimate the savings. The period from 1998 to 2008 was used as this captures an
entire economic cycle. The average number of completions was used as the basis for the ten year
forecast. Figure 12 shows the housing completions in Ontario from 1998 to 2008 while Figure 13 and 14
presents the forecast energy and greenhouse gas emission savings.
34
Figure 12a: Ontario Housing Completions 1998 to 2008 | Data
Ontario Housing Completions

Detached Semi Row
1998 32084 3729 9517
1999 37790 5701 9669
2000 38507 6574 10456
2001 41546 8196 11693
2002 47020 7200 11073
2003 46536 5754 10780
2004 48221 5874 12726
2005 43165 5019 11655
2006 39795 4697 11535
2007 36349 4028 10735
2008 34493 3396 10460
Average 40501 5470 10936
Total 56907
fro m Table 15, CHS - Residential B uilding A ctivity 2008, CM HC
Figure 12b: Ontario Housing Completions 1998 to 2008 | Graph
Ontario Housing Completions 1998 -2008
80000
70000
60000
housing completions
50000
Row
40000 Semi
Detached
30000
20000
10000
0
e
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
ag
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
er
Av
year
35
Figure 13: Cumulative Energy & Greenhouse Gas Emission Savings for Ontario
2012-2021 over 2006 Building Code
Total Fuel Total Fuel

Total Energy Total GHG
Savings: Savings:
Year Savings: Space Reduction
Electricity Natural Gas
+ DHW (PJ) (kilotonnes)
(MWh) (106 m3)
2012 1.08 1,833 28.9 56.1
2013 2.17 3,666 57.8 112.2
2014 3.25 5,499 86.7 168.3
2015 4.33 7,332 115.6 224.4
2016 5.41 9,165 144.4 280.6
2017 6.50 10,998 173.3 336.7
2018 7.58 12,831 202.2 392.8
2019 8.66 14,664 231.1 448.9
2020 9.75 16,497 260.0 505.0
2021 10.83 18,330 288.9 561.1
The above figure shows an estimate of the cumulative energy and greenhouse gas emission savings for
Ontario based on current 2006 Code consumption attributable to the compliance packages for new
housing in the 2012 Building Code.
Figure 14: Cumulative Energy & Greenhouse Gas Emission Savings for Ontario
2012-2021 over 1997 Building Code
Total Fuel Total Fuel

Total Energy Total GHG
Savings: Savings:
Year Savings: Space Reduction
Electricity Natural Gas
+ DHW (PJ) (kilotonnes)
(MWh) (106 m3)
2012 2.71 2,193 72.6 138.6
2013 5.43 4,386 145.2 277.3
2014 8.14 6,580 217.8 415.9
2015 10.85 8,773 290.4 554.5
2016 13.56 10,966 363.0 693.1
2017 16.28 13,159 435.6 831.8
2018 18.99 15,352 508.2 970.4
2019 21.70 17,546 580.7 1,109.0
2020 24.41 19,739 653.3 1,247.6
2021 27.13 21,932 725.9 1,386.3
The above figure shows an estimate of the cumulative energy and greenhouse gas emission savings for
Ontario based on 1997 Code consumption attributable to the compliance packages for new housing in
the 2012 Building Code.
36
CHAPTER 6
Life Cycle Costs
A modified life cycle cost approach was used to establish the

economic benefits/costs associated with each compliance
package. The life cycle cost approach was selected based on the
ASTM Standard on Building Economics (ASTM E 917-05
Standards on Building Economics 2007). Unlike simple payback,
the life cycle cost (LCC) method considers the time value of
money (inflation and mortgage rates), energy price escalation,
or the benefits imparted by the energy measure beyond the
payback period. LCC considers the full range of economic
variables that establish the economic viability of a measure. It is
the approach used by ASHRAE 90.1 and the basis for the
approach used in this study.
The Building Code set the energy efficiency level of ERS 80 in

year 2006 where the LCC analysis was carried out based
on1997 Code-built houses. In this current study, the LCC
analysis attempts to update the previous results using 2006
Code-built assemblies as the base case.
A calculation engine was developed based on the LCC formula

and used to analyse each upgrade component individually and
each proposed compliance package as a whole.
37
Capital Cost s of Energy Measures
Market pricing research was completed for each upgrade component to obtain incremental costs from
manufacturers, product suppliers and builders. A number of builders were given builder worksheets (see
Appendix A) to fill out to identify all material, labour, taxes and mark-up costs associated with each
upgrade component. Each builder reported cost was validated. All reported costs were averaged and
then used in the LCC calculation. Figure 15 summarizes the average incremental costs for each energy
measure and the associated energy savings (MJ) for the 2009 MMAH Archetype.
Figure 15: Summary of Archetype Initial Upgrade Costs and Energy Savings
Incremental
Component Base/Upgrade Cost over Code MJ Savings
(0)
Ceiling R40 $ - 0
R50 $ 225.43 971.6
R50 + raised heel $ 675.63 1243.4
Walls R19 $ - 0
R22 High density batt $ 544.92 1450.1
R24 1" XPS $ 1,158.40 4984.6
R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 $ 1,662.90 6084.2
R29 (R22 +1.5" XPS) $ 2,197.71 7959.7
Exposed Floors R25 $ - 0
R31 $ 14.80 126.2
Foundation R12 $ - 0
R20 batt $ 751.63 2346.9
Underslab No insulation $ - 0
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter $ 729.71 34.3
R5 1" full slab $ 1,289.05 996.5
Windows Zone A (2.0 W/m^2) $ - 0
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) $ 1,648.30 4616.8
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) $ 3,386.79 7637.6
Gas Furnace 90% AFUE $ - 0
92% AFUE $ 273.33 788.7
94% AFUE $ 273.33 1797.9
Oil Furnace 80% AFUE $ - 0
85% AFUE $ 800.00 2015.5
HRV Principal exhaust fan $ - 0
55% HRV $ 994.58 6310.3
60% HRV $ 994.58 6917.3
70% HRV $ 1,273.25 8130.7
75% HRV $ 1,273.25 8736.4
DHW 0.57 EF $ - 0
0.62 EF $ 33.33 1422.9
0.67 EF $ 33.33 2865.3
Lighting CFL (550 kWh total) $ 138.68 1980
38
A n n u a l O p e r a t i n g C o st s
The annual operating costs were established using current energy prices for natural gas, electricity and
oil as reported by energy utilities and fuel suppliers. Figure 16 shows pricing for natural gas as reported
by Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. Figure 17 shows pricing for electricity obtained from the Ontario
Energy Board (OEB). Winter time of use rates came into effect on November 1st, 2009. An analysis was
completed to derive an average cost based on the energy usage data documented by the OEB from
November 2008 – March 2009 (see Appendix I for more details). Figure 18 shows the pricing for oil as
reported by Shell Canada.
Figure 16: Natural Gas Pricing
Monthly Charges Monthly Rates (¢/m3)

Fixed Customer Charge 16.0000
Supply Charge 23.5363
Delivery:
First 30 m3 13.7411
Next 55 m3 13.1845
Next 85 m3 12.7484
Over 170 m3 12.4237
Monthly Rate (23.5363 + 12.4237) 35.96
Average Consumer Cost for Gas 0.958 ¢/MJ *
* ¢/m3 divided by 37.5 MJ/m3
Figure 17: Electricity Pricing
Commodity Price All in Variable Cost

Time of Use $/kWh $/kWh $/MJ
On peak $ 0.0910 $ 0.1500 $ 0.0416
Mid peak $ 0.0760 $ 0.1330 $ 0.0371
Off Peak $ 0.0420 $ 0.0960 $ 0.0268
Average Consumer Cost for Electricity 3.47 ¢/MJ
Figure 18: Oil Pricing
Monthly Rate for Toronto 87.0 (¢/L)

¢/MJ 2.72 ¢/MJ *
* ¢/L divided by 32 MJ/L
39
S tudy Per iod
The life cycle cost analyses for this study was similar to that used in past studies. A 25 year study period
was used corresponding to a typical mortgage term. The study period for LCC analyses generally relates
to the life of the upgrade before it needs to be replaced. As such the 25 year study period is somewhat
short for envelope upgrades and a little long for mechanical systems.
Energy Pr ice Forecasts
Life cycle cost analyses consider the future forecast of energy prices. The analysis considered a range of
escalation rates between 0.5% and 4.5%. The range captures the escalation rates predicted by the
National Energy Board.
Inte re st Rate s
To reflect the opportunity costs to the homebuyer over the life of a typical home mortgage, the discount
rate is derived from to the mortgage and inflation rate. A range of discount rates were used for the
analysis with 5% at the mean and 3% and 7% at the extremes.
L if e Cyc le C o st ing For mula
The figures below provide the life cycle costs for each compliance package using the following formula –
net present value with an escalating rate:
Where, d is the discounted rate (real interest rate) and e is the energy escalator.
Interest Rate = Discount Rate + Inflation Rate + (Discount Rate x Inflation Rate)
As described in ASTM E 917-05 Standards on Building Economics 2007.
40
Three Forecast S c e nar io s
Energy Escalator Discount Rate Scenario

0.5% 7% Low Return
2.5% 5% Medium Return
4.5% 3% High Return
Using the range of energy escalation rates and discount rates, three scenarios were tested as part of the
life cycle cost analysis. Figures 19 – 21 summarize the results for each compliance package shown in the
medium return scenario. Results of the low return and high return scenarios can be found in Appendix J.
In addition, the mean discount rate (5%) was tested with the range of energy escalators. The results of
the analysis can be found in Appendix K.
41
Figure 19: Medium Return LCC Results – Gas with 90% AFUE or higher
SCENARIO : Medium Return

Discount rate 5.0%
Energy escalator 2.5%
Zone 1 Compliance Packages

Package Net Present Value
A $ (3,784.96)
B $ (2,989.73)
C $ (1,742.52)
D $ (1,434.00)
E $ (525.56)
F $ (36.93)
G $ 3.47
H $ 378.00
I $ (1,279.99)
J $ (401.51)

A $ (4,024.02)
B $ (2,865.47)
C $ (1,606.97)
D $ (3,776.37)
E $ (2,187.59)
F $ (1,226.56)
G $ (627.40)
H $ (2,990.51)
I $ (2,165.24)
J $ (1,564.53)
42
Figure 20: Medium Return LCC Results – Oil with AFUE between 78-90%

Discount rate 5.0%

A $ 5,198.84
B $ 4,983.54
C $ 6,269.22
D $ 5,004.17
E $ 5,427.23
F $ 6,164.44

A $ 5,355.06
B $ 4,932.65
Figure 21: Medium Return LCC Results – Electric Space Heating

Discount rate 5.0%

A $ 3,141.84
B $ 3,665.82

A $ 4,427.89
43
44
CONCLUSION
Ontario has consistently been a leader in the development of building codes in Canada. This has been
particularly true in relation to the energy efficiency provisions for housing. The energy efficiency
requirements embodied in the Building Code are the result of a desire of the Ontario government to
improve the energy performance of buildings across the province. In the development of the energy
efficiency provisions that will achieve the government’s targets: practicality, enforceability and cost
effectiveness were considered. While the Ontario Code’s energy efficiency requirements are some of
the most progressive in Canada, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is interested in staying at
the forefront of building standards in Canada and seeking ways to improve the provisions within the
Code.
This study explores various prescriptive equivalents to the energy efficiency performance level of
EnerGuide 80 (ERS 80). Using actual housing performance data gathered as part of Activity 1, a new
archetype house was developed. The archetype formed the basis for the analysis of prescriptive
packages.
The new archetype house was developed by considering all the relevant house characteristics of 100
houses evaluated in Activity 1. The arithmetic mean of all physical characteristics of the sample of
houses was calculated to derive the physical attributes of the new archetype. The attributes of the
existing benchmark house were comparable to the new archetype. While minor differences were
identified, in general the physical characteristics of both houses were very similar. This observation
served to validate the new 2009 MMAH Archetype as a suitable norm for use in the analysis of
prescriptive equivalents to ERS 80.
The HOT2000 7 computer simulation program was examined in detail to investigate its capabilities and
limitations. Energy consumption results were considered and analysed that resulted from variations due
to house size, orientation, fuel type, and window percentage area. Alternative programs were analysed
for their capabilities and limitations. To better understand software implications, an Energy Advisor
Survey was prepared and distributed to all EnerQuality certified energy advisors to complete and
capture the opinions of their daily experience with the software. The investigation and survey showed
that as a compliance assessment tool, HOT2000 was sufficient in providing enough information and
may actually be overly complex for use as a compliance tool.
Compliance packages were generated and tested on the new 2009 MMAH Archetype. The analysis
included an examination of the ENERGY STAR® for New Homes Technical Specifications Version 4.0
and NRCan’s 11 reference houses. A total of 38 packages were developed for natural gas, oil and electric
space heating in the two climatic zones of the Building Code and demonstrated a performance level of
ERS 80. Each package considered upgrade options for envelope and mechanical components. The
envelope components included the insulation and performance of the ceiling, above grade walls,
7
45
foundation, and windows. Different levels of mechanical equipment efficiencies for ventilation, heating,
and domestic hot water systems were also analysed and proposed as upgrade options.
A forecast of the cumulative savings in energy and greenhouse gas emissions was developed. The
proposed 38 packages showed a cumulative energy savings of 10 petajoules and a cumulative green
house gas emission reduction of 500 kilotonnes over the current 2006 Code–built house by the year
2021. When compared to a 1997 Code-built house, the cumulative energy savings increased to 27
petajoules and the cumulative reduction in greenhouse gas emission rose to 1300 kilotonnes.
The capital cost borne by the homebuyer for every upgraded envelope component and mechanical
appliance within each ERS compliance package was determined. A number of builders were requested
to price each upgrade and report their pricing on a set of standardized worksheets. Using these costs and
the energy savings calculated by HOT2000, a life cycle costing analysis of each of the compliance
packages was conducted.
The final packages presented in this study represent common approaches used by builders across the
province to achieve ERS 80 levels of performance. They include envelopes and mechanicals which are
well understood and are generally well accepted by builders. Each package represents a significant
improvement in energy efficiency compared to current Code requirements.
46
APPENDICES
A Builder Worksheet Template
B EnerGuide Rating Calculation Formula
C HOT2000 Survey Responses
D OBC Existing Archetype: Sensitivity Analysis
E Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 11 Reference House Files: HOT2000 Simulation

Summary
F 2009 MMAH Archetype: HOT2000 Base House Report
G Special Conditions: ERS Correlation with Window Area and House Size
H Initial Costs and ERS of Proposed Compliance Packages
I Electricity Costs: Winter Time of Use Analysis
J Life Cycle Costing Results: Low Return and High Return Scenarios
K More Life Cycle Costing Results
47
48
APPENDIX A
Builder Worksheet Template

BUILDER WORKSHEETS
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of these worksheets is to establish the actual costs builders would
pay for energy efficient options to the building envelope and mechanical systems, and
how they translate into selling prices for home buyers. Assume that all of your homes
were constructed with the measures presented on the pages that follow.
Please fill in the questionnaire provided below. Use the space provided or the back of the
page for any assumptions or comments you may have regarding your answers.
BUILDER PROFILE
Builder Name
Company Name
Address
Phone/Fax Date of Costing
How many houses did your firm build in: 2008 Forecast 2009 ?
What is the average type and size of the home you construct?
stories ft²
TYPICAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
Foundation
Basement Insulation
Wall Construction & Insulation
Ceiling Construction & Insulation
Windows
Heating System
Air Conditioning System
Ventilation System
WORKSHEET 1: FOUNDATION WALLS
Consider foundation wall perimeter of 143 ft or area of 1275 sq. ft
R Value Cost Notes or comments

(all insulation (Please show all calculations and indicate material costs, labor etc.)
full height)
R12 (blanket)
R20 (blanket)
Please consider where applicable all costs including framing, wiring, moisture barrier, taxes and mark-up.
*NOTE: Wall options may require drywall and wiring, please price accordingly.
WORKSHEET 2: CEILINGS
Consider a standard two storey 2200 sq ft house with 1250 sq ft of ceiling.
R Value Cost Notes and Comments

(Please show all calculations and indicate Specify Type of Insulation Used
material costs, labor etc.) (e.g. blown glass fiber, cellulose,
batt, etc
R40
R50
Please consider where applicable all costs including additional baffles, taxes and mark-up.
WORKSHEET 3: Ceiling Truss
Consider a 30’ x 41.5’ roof with trusses at 24” o.c.
Cost Notes or comments

(Please show all calculations and indicate material costs,
labor etc.)
Standard Heel Truss
10” Raised Heel Truss
Please consider where applicable all costs including taxes and mark-up.
WORKSHEET 4: MAIN WALLS
Consider a standard 2200 sq ft house with approximately 2200 sq ft of exterior wall area.
R Value Cost Notes or

(Please show all calculations and indicate material costs, labor comments
etc.)
R19
(R19 Batt Insulation)
R22
R22 High Density Batt
R24 Incremental cost over code is 1” insulating sheathing plus let-in please specify
(R19 + R5 1” insulating “T” bracing minus cost of wood sheathing type
sheathing) insulating
sheathing and
type of wood
sheathing
Please consider where applicable all costs including insulated sheathing and fasteners, jamb extensions, taxes and mark-up.
Worksheet 5: Slab Insulation
Consider a standard 2200 sq ft house with 1015 sq ft of slab area with 435 sq. ft perimeter area.
Description Cost Notes and Comments

(Please show all calculations including Specify Type of Insulation Used
materials, labor, etc)
R5 perimeter
1” perimeter
(Assume 435 sq ft perimeter

area)
R5 full slab
1” full slab
(Assume 1015 sq ft slab area)
R10 full slab

2” full slab
(Assume 1015 sq ft slab area)

WORKSHEET 6: WINDOWS
Consider a standard 2200 sq ft house with approximately seventeen 4.8’ x 4’ slider windows.
Description Cost Notes or comments

per square foot (Use the back if necessary)
(Please show all calculations and indicate unit costs,
labor etc.)
Double Glazed
Low e
–
Zone A (2.0 W/m^2)
Double Glazed
Low e Argon
–
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2)
Triple Glazed
Low E argon
–
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2)
WORKSHEET 7: HEATING SYSTEM
Consider a standard 2200 sq ft house
Furnace Cost Notes or

(Please show all calculations and indicate unit costs, labor Comments
etc.)
Gas Furnace
90% AFUE
50,000 BTU/h output
capacity
Gas Furnace
92% AFUE
50,000 BTU/h output
capacity
Oil Furnace
80% AFUE
50,000 BTU/h output
capacity
Oil Furnace
85% AFUE
50,000 BTU/h output
capacity
Electric Furnace
15 kW output
Gas Combo Unit
25,000 BTU/h output

90% Space/DWH combo
Please consider all costs including the cost of chimney and flue as applicable for mid-efficiency furnaces.
Worksheet 8: Heat Recovery Ventilator
Consider a standard 2200 sq ft house.
Ventilation System Cost Notes or comments

(Please show all calculations including unit cost, labor, etc) (Use the back if
necessary)
Principal Exhaust Fan
60% HRV
simplified installation
62% HRV
60% HRV
full installation
81% HRV
Please consider where applicable all costs including taxes and mark-up
Worksheet 9: Domestic Hot Water Heating
Consider a standard 2200 sq ft house.
Domestic Water Heater Cost Notes or comments

(Please show all calculations (Use the back if
including unit cost, labor, etc) necessary)
0.57 (or current standard) Energy

Factor
0.62 Energy Factor
Worksheet 10: Other Features
Consider an average household
Feature Cost Notes or

(Please show all calculations including unit cost, comments
labor, etc) (Use the back if
necessary)
CFL Lighting
(45 light bulbs)

Throughout house
Air Source Heat Pump
Sizing 24000 BTU/h
Sub-Slab Radon Depressurization

Ready
Please consider all costs.

APPENDIX B
EnerGuide Rating Calculation Formula

Appendix A. Energy Efficiency Rating
Calculation Procedure
1. Energy Efficiency Rating
The EnerGuide for Houses (EGH) energy efficiency rating for both new and existing
houses is determined from the following equation:
Estimated Total Energy Consumption
Energy efficiency rating = 100 – x 20
Benchmark Total Energy Consumption
Note:
i. A negative energy efficiency rating shall be reported to the homeowner as zero; and
ii. A rating for a house cannot exceed 100 and remain within the scope of this procedure.
2. Estimated Total Energy Consumption
2.1 The EGH Estimated Total Energy Consumption is calculated using the following
equation:
Estimated Total Energy Consumption = S + O
where
S = Space heating consumption
O = Occupancy consumption
2.1.1 The Space Heating Consumption (S) is calculated using the following
equation:
S = (SE x BSE + SF + BSF)
Where
SE = estimated space-heating electrical energy consumption
including fans (in MJ)
BSE = base efficiency for electric space heating = 100 percent
SF = estimated fossil-fuel energy consumption for space (in MJ)
BSF = base efficiency for fossil-fuel space heating = 80 percent
Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (AFUE)
Note:
Credit is given when higher-efficiency equipment is used, and penalties
are applied when lower-efficiency equipment is used.
2.1.2 The Occupancy Consumption (O) is calculated using the following
equation:
O=D+L
where
D = Estimated Domestic Hot Water Consumption
L = Appliance energy consumption = 31 536 MJ per year
D = 1.136 x (DE x BDE + DF x BDF)
where
DE = estimated domestic hot water electrical energy consumption
(in MJ)
BDE = base efficiency for electric domestic hot water, energy
factor (EF) = 0.88
DF = estimated domestic hot water fossil-fuel energy
consumption (in MJ)
BDF = base efficiency for fossil-fuel domestic hot water,
EF = 0.57
1.136 = factor needed to adjust the domestic hot water load to
represent its share of total consumption, including standby
losses
Note:
The base efficiencies are intended to give houses that have the same
insulation levels and thermal envelope characteristics equal energy
efficiency ratings, assuming the most commonly available replacement
equipment of each type. Credit is given if higher-efficiency equipment is
used, and penalties are applied for lower-efficiency equipment. By
applying the base efficiency factor to the estimated portion used for each
purpose, mixed-fuel use can be accommodated. The furnace fan’s energy
contribution to space heating is handled this way.
3. Benchmark Total Energy Consumption
3.1 The benchmark total energy consumption is calculated using the following
equation:
Benchmark Total Energy Consumption = Space Heating Benchmark +
Domestic Hot Water Benchmark + Base Load Benchmark, in which
3.1.1 Space Heating Benchmark is calculated using the following equation:
Space Heating Benchmark = S x 49 x DD x 40 + V i

6000 2.5
where
S = 4.5 MJ for fuel-fired space heating systems; or
S = 1.0 kWh, or 3.6 MJ, for electric space heating systems.
DD = the number of long-term average degree-days relative to a
base of 18°C
V = the heated volume (in m3). The heated volume is the
volume surrounded by the heat transfer areas used to
calculate the Space Heating Consumption.
3.1.2 The Domestic Hot Water Benchmark is calculated using the following
equation:
Domestic Hot Water Benchmark = 4745 x W x 55 - TW

55 – 9.5
where
W = 1.72 kWh, or 6.19 MJ, for fuel-fired DHW systems; or
W = 1.075 kWh, or 3.87 MJ, for electric DHW systems.
TW = local water mains or deep-soil temperature in degrees
Celsius
3.1.3 The Base Load Benchmark is set at 31 536 MJ per year (based on 24 kWh
per day).
Appendix B. Calculation of the Required
Amount of Ventilation to be Added During
an EnerGuide Run
The EnerGuide run determines the amount of ventilation required as follows:
1 The monthly average ventilation rate (air leakage and mechanical ventilation)
for the house is determined for each heating month by the software.
2 The ventilation air-change (VAC) rate is calculated for the house using the
following equation:
VAC (L/s) = 0.30 ac/h x 1000 x Volume of house (m3)

3600
3 The required monthly ventilation to meet the above conditions is calculated

using the following process:
If VAC < 25 L/s then VAC = 25 L/s
If VAC > 100 L/s then VAC = 100 L/s
Difference (L/s) = VAC (L/s) – monthly average ventilation rate (L/s)
If the difference is less than 10 L/s (monthly average ventilation rate is close to VAC)
then no additional ventilation is required.
If the difference is greater than 10 L/s then the additional ventilation requirement
equals the difference and is added to the EGH calculation.
APPENDIX C
HOT2000 Survey Responses

HOT-2000 and ERS in the Ontario Building Code
How easy is HOT2000 to use?
Somewhat Somewhat Rating Response

Answer Options Very Difficult Difficult Neutral Easy Very Easy Average Count
Ease of use: 0 7 3 6 0 2.94 16
If answering very difficult or somewhat difficult, please provide a justification for your answer to help us better understand. (ie. too many inputs required, 8
information that is requested is not readily available)
answered question 16
skipped question 0
If answering very difficult or somewhat difficult, please provide a justification for your answer to help
Number Response Date us better understand. (ie. too many inputs required, information that is requested is not readily
available)
1 04/27/2009 23:39:00 Info in default libraries is out of date or out of sync with industry practice
The basics of Hot are very simple for anyone with sufficient geometry, building science (R value) and construction
2 04/28/2009 00:07:00 methods knowledge. The subtler aspects of Hot, and trouble shooting problems are not always so easy
There are a lot of inputs for things that don't seem to make much difference to end rating. the program has some
minor glitches that you have to get used to otherwise you get erroneous results. For example you have to refresh
the screen whenever you change exposed floor insualtion before you calculate a rating otherwise it doesn't recognize
the change (this only happens for changes in exposed floors).
There are some entries that don't match common industry data or information. For example window specifications
should be entered using A440 results rather than physical descriptors of window elements - no manufacture seems
3 04/28/2009 11:42:00 to know hard coat and soft coat information but they do know there U - values and ER ratings.
Not all wall types are available.
Input requirements are unknown and there is no training available or guide book.
So many different ways the walls and headers could go into the program.
4 04/28/2009 17:09:00 Unsure as to where the calculations in the background are coming up with the numbers
5 04/28/2009 18:31:00 HTML tags required for comments in 10.5 make it difficult for entry level candidates
The user interface is sometimes confusing and little guidance is given. The help function is good when there is a
6 04/28/2009 19:03:00 topic associated with it but annoying when no help is found.
Heat Loss/Gain Calculation End of things for Room by Room F280 method is not very straight forward. Volume of
Data provided by program is sometimes time consuming to filter through when searching for a specific piece of
information. I use Wrightsoft software for all Heat Loss/Gain calc's. It is much more user friendly and the interface
is much more functional as you are able to draw out the plan layout of the home assigning windows, doors, const.
7 05/01/2009 21:52:00 details etc... while having good visual representations to keep a sensible order to inputs.
8 05/08/2009 03:32:00 too many software issues and "bugs" to work around
How accurately does HOT2000 simulate the total energy use of houses?
Very Somewhat Somewhat Rating Response
Answer Options Inaccurate Inaccurate Neutral Accurate Very Accurate Average Count
for different types of houses (e.g. single, semi- 0 1 0 11 4 4.13 16
detached, row and multi-family)
for different types of occupancy conditions (e.g. multi-
0 2 5 7 2 3.56 16
generational families)
for different types of mechanical heating, ventilating
0 2 1 8 5 4.00 16
and air conditioning systems
when on-site renewable energy systems are installed
1 4 4 5 2 3.19 16
(e.g. photovoltaic, solar thermal, etc.)
Comments 8
skipped question 0
Number Response Date Comments
Needs to be used with RETscreen or other solar thermal analysis if thermal soalr heating is considered (very rare
1 04/27/2009 22:50:00 case).
2 04/27/2009 23:39:00 limited ability to deal with plug load, ecm motors, integrated systems
I have no reason to believe the annual energy consumption model for Hot is flawed, although I am aware that for
older houses, with larger theoretical heat losses, it does not do well (a moot point for the purpose of this survey).
As far as the rest goes, Hot appears to be very flexible in modeling the three remaining areas IF you have valid
3 04/28/2009 00:07:00 inputs. My experience in these areas is limited, so take this with a grain of salt.
It is hard for me to say whether it is accurate or not. I do have issues with assumptions the program makes as to
how houses are operated. For example, it seems very odd to me that the design heat loss of ahouse would change
depending on what mode (EnerGuide, General or R-2000) the calculations have been set to. It would seem that the
design heta loss would be the same for the same house, no matter what mode it was in.
As well, the program makes assumptions aboit ventilation that don't match Ontario or national Building Code
requirements. Since 1990 the code has called for a continuous mechanical ventilation capacity in all new homes
regardless of house tightness, HOT 2000 assumes variable ventilation rates based on how tight a house is.
The program, in my opinion, does not accurately reflect air conditioning loads or AC energy use - it seems intuitively
lower than actual (although i don't have data to support this). The EnerGuide rating itself does not include AC and
some other electrical elements, although it does include some - this seems odd to me.
The program seems to give huge credit to thinsg like drain water heat recovery but comparitely little for solar water h
4 04/28/2009 11:42:00 In my opinion there are not enough wetaher data locations for at least Southern ontario.
The really is no accurate area to calculate what renewable energy would have on the whole house and no one would
5 04/28/2009 17:09:00 know where to put it anyways.
Depends on whether you're referring to programs where many variables are defaulted or in General Mode where
reconciliation with actual utility bills is done. To be honest I've never attempted to reconcile actual consumption vs.
6 04/28/2009 18:31:00 Hot2k estimates.
I am not normally around when enough data is collected to determine accuracy of these items as modelled in
7 05/07/2009 21:29:00 Hot2000
The software itself is very accurate where the evaluator can use the general mode and change inputs to match
actual occupany loads. The underlying modeling is sound for the most part.
The ERS rating system however is designed to utilize standard occupancies so that homes can be fairly compared
across Canada. This is a fair balance, but atypical occupancy and lifestyles will always result in variance from the
8 05/07/2009 23:49:00 modelled results. This holds true with any software modelling.
Is HOT2000 sufficiently capable of modelling all components of a house?
Response Response
Answer Options Frequency Count
Yes 81.3% 13
No 18.8% 3
If your answer is no, please let us know why. Are there components
5
that it is not capable of modelling sufficiently well?
skipped question 0
If your answer is no, please let us know why. Are there components that it is not capable of modelling
Number Response Date
sufficiently well?
Version 9 does not have a great library of modern materials (for example a full range of XTPS board thicknesses) but
1 04/28/2009 00:07:00 it does handle all conventional components. It also has limited flexibility in modeling windows.
2 04/28/2009 11:42:00 I think the AC modelling should be reviewed - it seems low for Southern ontario
drain water heat recovery? now available in 10.31

solar hot water tank?
solar ready?
3 04/28/2009 17:09:00 solar panels?
If you understand the shortfalls with the program, you sometimes must use averaging when trying to model a
difficult construction detail. Overall it covers most types of const. details.... no matter how good the program, there
4 05/01/2009 21:52:00 is always something that will require crafty modelling... hence why experience and training are so important.
The key word here is sufficient...
For now the answer is yes, however as codes and labeling programs require higher efficiency levels the modelling
tools need to reflect true impacts of the work being done to improve homes.
My greatest concern is that the envelope modelling does not reflect any technologies that eliminate or minimize the
effects of wind washing through insulation, thus penalizing manufacturers of products that while more costly deliver
better performance that is not reflected in the modelled results accurately.
The cuurent list of selections for foundation modelling could be improved.
The ability to create custom codes does provide the ability to model most assemblies accurately with the exception
5 05/07/2009 23:49:00 of the effects of wind washing.
Are HOT2000 results consistent when generated by different plans evaluators?
Response Response
Answer Options Frequency Count
Yes 62.5% 10
No 37.5% 6
Comments 7
skipped question 0

no experience comparing different evaluators. Volumn of info entered and rounding off of inches will always lead to
1 04/27/2009 23:39:00 slightly different results. Entering identical information however yeilds identical results.
Because most people have received insufficient training on how to use the software. Square box bungalows would
2 04/28/2009 00:07:00 probably model OK, more complex geometries escape peoples expertise!
From my experience teaching evaluators courses, there are so many inputs and so many variables and opportunities
for different inputs it is almost impossible to have 2 evalautions come out the same. That said, most evaluations
come within 10% of each other and it is fairly easy to get evaluations within 5% of each other - after careful review
3 04/28/2009 11:42:00 of inputs.
You can have 12 people in a room doing the EXACT same house and everyone would get a different number of
4 04/28/2009 17:09:00 energy savings. Then if you rotate the house in any direction it could change the house 2 points even.
They are like snowflakes... no two are ever the same. However, they should not be that different. This reason may
make a good case to have more fixed averaged inputs which would stop finite entries creating larger end product
5 05/01/2009 21:52:00 problems.
6 05/07/2009 21:29:00 within 10% or there about
Having worked in EGH on existing homes, my company evaluated literally thousands of homes in HOT2000, and
audited hundreds of those files. The results are very consistent. The caveat is that training is key to ensuring
7 05/07/2009 23:49:00 consistent results.
To what extent does the HOT2000 output provide sufficient information to enable the assessment of compliance to a set of minimum prescriptive
requirements?
Extremely Rating Response
Answer Options Not at all Somewhat Neutral Well Well Average Count
Extent: 0 0 2 10 4 4.13 16
Comments 4
skipped question 0

THis is a little confusing since Hot's outputs are inherently performance based. So if you mean can Hot generate
reports to say a house complies with EnerGuide 80 then the answer is, of course, Yes, that is where the EnerGuide
score came from! If you are asking can a Hot report show individual R values (effective or nominal) for all
components the answer is also yes, but since that is an input to the program I am not sure why you would want
1 04/28/2009 00:07:00 that.
2 04/28/2009 01:16:00 Poorly designed for high performance homes, not a sufficient point spread, tops out in the low 90s
assuming all of the extraneous, insignificant inputs have been defaulted out, then the program can be used to
assess prescriptive requirements. I don't consider it a great compliance tool for prescriptive requirements in its
current format because it takes so many inputs that have little to do with the prescriptive elements before an
3 04/28/2009 11:42:00 assessment can be done.
If all of the inputs are the same and just sizes and dimensions are going in then a base house would be a good
4 04/28/2009 17:09:00 representation of how much energy is being used.
Overall, from your experience, how well does HOT2000 simulate the actual energy consumption within the home?
Rating Response
Answer Options Very Poorly Poorly Neutral Well Very Well Average Count
Extent that HOT2000 reflects actual energy used within 0 0 4 10 2 3.88 16
the home:
Comments 9
skipped question 0

1 04/27/2009 23:39:00 no experience in validating actual consumption against modelled consumption
I have only done limited evaluations of this, but in simple houses I would say it is pretty good. Of course it is not an
2 04/28/2009 00:07:00 easy question since year to year climatic data, as well as lifestyl influence actual consumption hugely!
When modeling in General Mode it is fine since I can match occupancy and behaviour to be close to energy bills. As
far as EGH, modeling 2 adults and 2 children 50% occupancy, not taking into account the use of fireplaces, not so
3 04/28/2009 00:10:00 accurate.
My own home has tracked quite closely to HOT 2000 results over the last 12-15 years - except for air conditioning
(or at least summer electrical bills - HOT 2000 is lower than actual).
4 04/28/2009 11:42:00 This is, of course, subject to lifestyles etc.
It reflects the energy used however, when you get into some fancy building techniques its not so easy to have the
5 04/28/2009 17:09:00 program reflect what they are doing.
6 04/28/2009 18:31:00 See question 2
It does not take into account the occupants energy use habits - i.e. do they conserve or ie. open the windows with
7 04/29/2009 03:10:00 the furnace on...????
The difficulty is being able to justify actual consumption requires the ability to rate occupants habits and not the
house onder a set of standards. It does measrue the house well, but that is only if everyone in Canada had 2 adults
8 05/07/2009 21:29:00 and two children living 50% of the time in the home at 21C.
This again comes down to reflecting the actual occupancy and lifestyle. Of course, in such cases we would no longer
be trying to compare houses but rather reflect an actual occupany. This is done in general mode very well, but why
would we wish to do so? Predicting actual usage across a range of possible occupancies is not what we generally
wish to achieve, we most desire to verify compliance with a program specification, or model heating and cooling
9 05/07/2009 23:49:00 loads for HVAC design purposes where HOT2000 performs very well.
Which other computer simulation programs for energy use in
housing would you recommend?
Response
Answer Options Count
16
skipped question 0
Number Response Date Response Text

In the current context, I would not reccommned others, rather I would reccommend improving the
1 04/27/2009 22:50:00 EnerGuide/HOT2000 system to meet indutry needs as they arise.
2 04/27/2009 23:39:00 HERS
I have only used RemRate (and Rightsuite which has annual consumption prediction for sales purposes... I do not
know how truly it can be called an energy simulation software) and I found it adequate. Some components are not
modeled in an intuite way, but I learned the basics o it very quickly. I do not have much experience with its
reporting features, which seem confusing to get into.
3 04/28/2009 00:07:00 So that wasn't much of a recommendation, just some observations!

4 04/28/2009 00:10:00 I use retscreen for small commercial, but would be too much program for simple modeling.
5 04/28/2009 01:16:00 Energy Gauge
There are at least 2 HERS software packages in the US - REMRATE and ENERGY GAUGE that should be looked at.
I would suggest that some of the commonly available heat loss programs such as Right Suite could be easily
adapted to allow for compliance verification. Frankly, I can imagine a simple excel spread sheet could be configured
to give the degree of accuracy needed for simple comnpliance to code. In new housing there are not that many
6 04/28/2009 11:42:00 options needed to simulate or model
I haven't seen one yet.
REMRATE is pretty much the same thing with even less inputs available
7 04/28/2009 17:09:00 Hot2xp was pretty simple.
8 04/28/2009 18:31:00 REM/Rate
9 04/28/2009 19:03:00 RemRate
10 04/29/2009 03:10:00 Hot is the most comprehensive I have used.

HRAI, Wrightsoft (Wrightsuite Universal). It is quite basic in comparrison to Hot2000 in regards to efficiency
11 05/01/2009 21:52:00 calculations, however seems to be within 5-10% (usually higher) when comparing Heat Loss vales.
12 05/04/2009 17:07:00 none
13 05/07/2009 21:29:00 none at present, I do not use them consistantly enough other then RetScreen and it is too big for residential
14 05/07/2009 23:49:00 None at this time. I have used many others including RemRate, and Energygaugethey have their limitations as well.
15 05/08/2009 01:32:00 Do not know of or have experience with other programs.
16 05/08/2009 03:32:00 nil
Please provide your thoughts or additional comments that you
may have on the use of the EnerGuide Rating System and the
HOT2000 computer program to establish the energy use of new
houses.
Response
Answer Options Count
16
skipped question 0
Number Response Date Response Text

The current system functions well, however, there is room for improvement. When improvements are made, it
seems that they are sometimes made unilaterally by NRCan. There needs to be a process whereby changes and
improvements to the software are discussed and accepted by the various stakeholder groups.
The most significant improvement to be made is the merging of HOT2000 with a room by room
Heat Loss and Gian fucntion which would allow a single set of inputs to be used for HVAC design for permit as well
1 04/27/2009 22:50:00 as for energy modelling and compliance.
The main use for energy simulation software in the field is to provide an assesment tool to designers to inform them
on cost/performance trade offs in the design process. Hot2000 is effective as a tool for elements like fenstration,
insulation, space heating and hot water production ie base loads but is light in it's ability to assess plug and process
loads like lighting and entertainment devices.
The Energuide rating scale lacks sufficient granularity to effectivly use it to apply design trade offs. Multiple
measures are generally required to move the scale by one integer making it difficult for the builder to measure the
2 04/27/2009 23:39:00 merit of each individual technology or strategy.
I think as a software Hot is perfectly acceptable. It needs better documentation and training on the sublter aspects
of it (base loads, reporting conventions and features, etc) but it is far reaching in its capabilities at a technical level.
ERS has some inherent flaws; the scale is pretty big (small changes don't show up) to demonstrate subtle
improvements, but if it is just a pass or fail (80 or not) this is unimportant. Perhaps more important is that the basis
of the scale is poorly understood and documented. I think a lot of grumbling would be put to bed if the authors
3 04/28/2009 00:07:00 clearly demonstrated the basis for the target.
I perform EGNH evaluations. The modeling and actual $ spent is often off by 15% or more depending on habit and
4 04/28/2009 00:10:00 composition.
As a compliance tool it is far too complex, if we start having to run every house through it needs to be simplified
(the Wizard in v. 10.x works well, but v.10 kicks the rating down 2 points). It would be better if the Wizard could be
closed and saved part way through modelling. The software still crashes unexpectedly, but nowehere near as much
5 04/28/2009 01:16:00 as older versions, how about integrating an automatic save every few minutes?
I have been quite vocal on this in the past. HOT 2000 is very powerful, research software that is useful for a wide
range of homes, locations, building materials etc.
It is so thorough and complex that it is more than what is needed for simple, new home code compliance. it coudl
be used to validate a much simpler compliance tool / spreadsheet, but to ask all new home builders to have an
evaluation done on each home with Hot 2000 would be overkill.
The EnerGuide rating has its own issues. For new construction, it ends up being a very narrow scale or band width.
All houses fall between 76 and 85, so while the initial goal of getting houses to 80 can be done with HOT 2000, it will
be difficult to motivate builders to go beyond this in the future because the scale is so insenstive to changes - ie. it
takes a lot of work to move a house number 1 point on the scale.
I would say, learn from the mistakes of others and change to scale to match the US HERS rating.
In any event, HOT 2000 needs to be changed to fix the air tightness and ventilation model. At the moment the
6 04/28/2009 11:42:00 software is discouraging proper ventilation as per code and discouraging house tightness
Stop taking the program as a must meet and start using the numbers that are in the calculations not the Energuide
number.
STOP changing the versions and compile ONE good version that generates no ERRORS and has all the wall types
built in.
7 04/28/2009 17:09:00 Provide serious training and create a manual
8 04/28/2009 18:31:00 Alignment with the HERS Rating system would be helpful to standardize ratings with the US.
Too many background calculations to get to a given rating - no reasoning given for how the rating was achieved.
The scale is backwards in that it goes from 0-100 as 100 means no energy is purchased, when it should be 0 as the
9 04/28/2009 19:03:00 ultimate goal.
Alternative energy type systems are still being developed to use within the programs....
There is debate amoung evaluators if the U.S. numerical system should be adopted which is
10 04/29/2009 03:10:00 zero means no energy use as opposed to 100 meaning non energy use on the zero to 100 EnerGuide scale.
I really like Wrightsofts approach to doing these types of calculations as you actually draw out the floor plan in the
program (visually makes sense and much easier to reference over long term designs or re-evaluations of files). The
biggest problem with Hot2000 has always been how to translate information on a set of architectural drawings and
11 05/01/2009 21:52:00 regurgitate it into the entry points of Hot2000.
12 05/04/2009 17:07:00 Having a room that does room by room heat loss along with Energy Rating would be helpful.
My over all impression is that it is a good approach overall.
The EnerGuide Brand is well known, but has been confused or watered down by changing the program name to
ecoENERGY, (DUMB).
Software upgrades and adjustments for better representations can be improved upon with out throwing the whole
thing away.
I am involved with the Energy Star for New Houses program and it is simple and has remained consistand. There is
now Leed, and Green Home. Many contractors feel too many programs confuse the public and the learning curve is
13 05/07/2009 21:29:00 high. Keeping it simple is very important to builders.
Need to improve as we go forward to include electrical saving technologies and modelling for resistance to
14 05/07/2009 23:49:00 windwashing...
15 05/08/2009 01:32:00 I would like to see the wizard expanded to model different types and styles of houses.
will be a benefit to the consumer, provided proper procedures are in place so that the bigger builders do not twist
16 05/08/2009 03:32:00 the program in their favour
APPENDIX D
OBC Existing Archetype: Sensitivity Analysis

ERS Sensitivity Analysis | OBC Archetype Component Upgrades
August 2009
Base Case Changes with Different Climate Zones Heat Loss and ERS Changes with Upgrades
Space Space Space Space Space
DHW Electrical DHW Electrical DHW Electrical DHW Electrical DHW Electrical
Heating ERS Heating ERS Heating ERS Δ Δ Heating Δ ERS Δ Δ Δ Heating Δ ERS Δ
Component Base (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) Upgrade (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ)
(MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ)
Toronto Windsor Ottawa Toronto Ottawa
R50 Blown
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26828 ‐2 3423 0 68192 944.0 78.3 0.1
cellulose 27941 ‐2 3450 0 80800 1065 78.0 0.2
R50 Blown
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 cellulose + 26829 ‐3 3423 0 67399 1737.0 78.5 0.3
Ceiling R40 raised heel 27943 ‐4 3450 0 79906 1959 78.1 0.3
R50 Blown
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26827 ‐1 3423 0 68744 392.0 78.3 0.1
Fibreglass 27940 ‐1 3450 0 81423 442 77.9 0.1
R50 Blown
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 Fibreglass + 26829 ‐3 3423 0 67623 1513.0 78.4 0.2
raised heel 27942 ‐3 3450 0 80185 1680 78.1 0.3
R22 High density
Walls 1 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26828 ‐2 3423 0 67334 1802.0 78.5 0.3
batt 27941 ‐2 3450 0 79840 2025 78.1 0.3
R24 1"
Walls 2 R19 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 insulating 26831 ‐5 3423 0 63493 5643.0 79.1 0.9
sheathing 27945 ‐6 3450 0 75521 6344 78.8 1.0
R27 Wall 1 +
Walls 3 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26832 ‐6 3423 0 62377 6759.0 79.3 1.1
Wall 2 27947 ‐8 3450 0 74266 7599 79.0 1.2
Foundation R12 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 R20 batt 26806 20 3423 0 67196 1940.0 78.5 0.3 27915 24 3450 0 79683 2182 78.2 0.4
R5 1" 600 mm
Underslab 1 ‐‐ 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26809 17 3423 0 68522 614.0 78.3 0.1
perimeter 27918 21 3450 0 81078 787 77.9 0.1
Underslab 2 ‐‐ 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 R5 1" full slab 26787 39 3423 0 67732 1404.0 78.4 0.2 27892 47 3450 0 80073 1792 78.1 0.3
Zone B (1.8
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26828 ‐2 3423 0 68827 309.0 78.2 0.0
Zone A (2.0 W/m^2) 27941 ‐2 3450 0 81552 313 77.9 0.1
Windows
W/m^2) Zone C (1.6
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26827 ‐1 3423 0 70502 ‐1366.0 78.0 ‐0.2
W/m^2) 27940 ‐1 3450 0 83409 ‐1544 77.6 ‐0.2
Gas Furnace 90% AFUE 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 92% AFUE 26826 0 3423 0 67659 1477.0 78.4 0.2 27939 0 3450 0 80116 1749 78.1 0.3
Oil Furnace 80% AFUE 26826 3423 77387 76.8 27236 3210 65467 77.1 28025 3450 91756 76.3 85% AFUE 26826 0 3423 0 75531 1856.0 77.1 0.3 27939 86 3450 0 89556 2200 76.6 0.3
Electric
90% AFUE 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 Electric Furnace 26817 9 3423 0 49597 19539.0 79.5 1.3
Furnace 27928 11 3450 0 59487 22378 79.1 1.3
Principal
HRV 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 60% HRV 26844 ‐18 3566 ‐143 61425 7711.0 79.2 1.0
exhaust fan 27954 ‐15 3594 ‐144 73446 8419 78.8 1.0
DHW EF 0.57 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 0.62 EF 24719 2107 3423 0 69601 ‐465.0 78.4 0.2 25767 2172 3450 0 82344 ‐479 78.0 0.2
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 2.5 ACH 26826 0 3423 0 64434 4702.0 78.2 0.0 27938 1 3450 0 76269 5596 77.8 0.0
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 2.0 ACH + 60% 26844 ‐18 3566 ‐143 53790 15346.0 80.0 1.8 27953 ‐14 3594 ‐144 64379 17486 79.6 1.8
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 2.5 ACH + 60% 26843 ‐17 3566 ‐143 56838 12298.0 79.7 1.5 27953 ‐14 3594 ‐144 67979 13886 79.3 1.5
Air Change
3.57 ACH 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 3.5 ACH + 60% 26838 ‐12 3566 ‐143 63016 6120.0 79.1 0.9 27953 ‐14 3594 ‐144 75277 6588 78.6 0.8
Rate 27952 ‐13 3594 ‐144 82656 ‐791 77.9 0.1
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 4.5 ACH + 60% 26837 ‐11 3566 ‐143 69265 ‐129.0 78.5 0.3
5.5 ACH + 60%
26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 26837 ‐11 3566 ‐143 75572 ‐6436.0 77.6 ‐0.6
HRV 27951 ‐12 3594 ‐144 90103 ‐8238 76.9 ‐0.9
Lighting none 26826 3423 69136 78.2 27326 3210 59865 77.3 27939 3450 81865 77.8 CFL (550 kWh 26826 0 3423 0 69136 0 78.6 0.4 27939 0 3450 0 81865 0 78.2 0.4
Note that all upgrades are compared to a base case with a 90% AFUE gas furnace, except for the 85% oil furnace which is compared to 80% oil
APPENDIX E
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 11 Reference House Files: HOT2000 Simulation

Summary
% TOTAL % TOTAL % TOTAL TOTAL
ROOF WALLS EXPOSED DOORS % TOTAL S WINDOWS E WINDOWS N WINDOWS W WINDOWS WINDOWS % TOTAL HEADER % TOTAL FOUNDATION % TOTAL % TOTAL VENTILATION HEAT % TOTAL ∆ HEAT
HOUSE ID HEAT HEAT HEAT SLAB (MJ) HEAT LOSS ERS ∆ ERS
(MJ) (MJ) FLOOR (MJ) (MJ) HEAT LOSS (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) HEAT LOSS (MJ) HEAT LOSS (MJ) HEAT LOSS HEAT LOSS LOSS (MJ) HEAT LOSS LOSS
LOSS LOSS LOSS (MJ)
Version 4 Standard Core BOP w/ Condensing Natural Gas Furnace at 90% AFUE
1‐V4 3588.7 6% 12585.68 23% 0.0 0% 1705.7 3% 3057.1 3274.6 4305.4 5304.0 15941.1 29% 631.8 1% 11320.1 20% 691.8 1% 9383.6 17% 55848.4 n/a 81.6 n/a
2‐V4 8812.4 9% 27997.40 28% 0.0 0% 895.1 1% 4139.2 4562.9 1154.4 1677.3 11533.8 11% 1343.0 1% 23368.8 23% 0.0 0% 27497.3 27% 101447.8 n/a 79.8 n/a
3‐V4 2782.3 5% 18982.30 35% 0.0 0% 2402.6 4% 3100.6 973.5 2930.0 4870.9 11875.0 22% 313.1 1% 6518.6 12% 1703.9 3% 10202.2 19% 54780.0 n/a 81.5 n/a
4‐V4 3695.4 5% 23476.10 29% 0.0 0% 1417.4 2% 5772.1 4608.2 8071.4 4608.2 23059.9 28% 709.7 1% 12505.4 15% 655.7 1% 16384.1 20% 81903.7 n/a 80.6 n/a
5‐V4 10869.1 8% 39683.60 30% 3592.3 3% 3968.8 3% 4645.6 3716.4 8362.0 5574.7 22298.7 17% 716.8 1% 20263.5 15% 0.0 0% 30489.3 23% 131882.1 n/a 79.0 n/a
6‐V4 10869.1 8% 38457.40 27% 3592.3 3% 3968.8 3% 12569.8 4502.9 8076.6 7773.0 32922.3 23% 712.9 1% 20102.7 14% 0.0 0% 30484.1 22% 141109.6 n/a 79.3 n/a
7‐V4 7993.4 9% 28880.60 31% 2422.3 3% 2971.9 3% 6025.3 4109.1 5574.7 7609.4 23318.5 25% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11361.1 12% 14902.5 16% 91850.3 n/a 78.4 n/a
8‐V4 4258.1 4% 33328.50 32% 327.0 0% 788.2 1% 6151.4 4562.9 14340.5 5751.7 30806.5 29% 1142.3 1% 11293.6 11% 0.0 0% 22799.8 22% 104744.0 n/a 78.6 n/a
9‐V4 5558.8 4% 37706.30 28% 327.0 0% 788.2 1% 10064.4 8175.8 18325.1 10288.7 46854.0 35% 905.5 1% 13471.3 10% 0.0 0% 29273.4 22% 134884.5 n/a 77.5 n/a
10‐V4 6871.4 8% 25183.60 29% 2175.4 2% 2971.9 3% 4109.1 5057.0 7609.4 0.0 16775.5 19% 701.9 1% 12233.2 14% 0.0 0% 20108.9 23% 87021.8 n/a 78.9 n/a
11‐V4 6607.1 9% 20419.14 27% 2175.4 3% 2973.4 4% 5038.2 0.0 7609.4 0.0 12647.6 17% 505.8 1% 10530.1 14% 0.0 0% 20088.2 26% 75946.7 n/a 79.9 n/a
Average 79.6
Version 4 Standard Core BOP ‐ Electric Furnace
1‐V4 3588.7 6% 12584.78 23% 0.0 0% 1705.7 3% 3057.1 3274.6 4305.4 5304.0 15941.1 29% 631.8 1% 11320.1 20% 691.8 1% 9383.6 17% 55847.5 ‐0.9 80.7 ‐0.9
2‐V4 8812.4 9% 27997.34 28% 0.0 0% 895.1 1% 4139.2 4562.3 1154.4 1677.4 11533.4 11% 1343.0 1% 23368.8 23% 0.0 0% 27497.3 27% 101447.2 ‐0.6 78.1 ‐1.7
3‐V4 2782.4 5% 18982.27 35% 0.0 0% 2402.6 4% 3100.6 973.5 2930.0 4870.9 11875.0 22% 313.1 1% 6518.6 12% 1704.0 3% 10202.2 19% 54780.1 0.1 80.7 ‐0.8
4‐V4 3695.4 5% 23476.15 29% 0.0 0% 1417.4 2% 5772.1 4608.2 8071.5 4608.2 23059.9 28% 709.7 1% 12505.4 15% 655.7 1% 16384.1 20% 81903.7 0.0 79.3 ‐1.3
5‐V4 10869.1 8% 39683.58 30% 3592.3 3% 3968.8 3% 4645.6 3716.4 8362.0 5574.7 22298.6 17% 716.8 1% 20263.6 15% 0.0 0% 30489.3 23% 131882.0 ‐0.1 77.0 ‐2.0
6‐V4 10869.1 8% 38457.46 27% 3592.3 3% 3968.8 3% 12569.8 4502.9 8076.6 7773.0 32922.3 23% 712.9 1% 20102.7 14% 0.0 0% 30484.1 22% 141109.7 0.1 77.4 ‐1.9
7‐V4 7993.4 9% 28880.60 31% 2422.3 3% 2971.9 3% 6025.3 4109.1 5574.7 7609.4 23318.5 25% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11361.1 12% 14902.5 16% 91850.3 0.0 76.9 ‐1.5
8‐V4 4258.1 4% 33328.52 32% 327.0 0% 788.2 1% 6151.4 4562.9 14340.5 5751.7 30806.5 29% 1142.3 1% 11293.6 11% 0.0 0% 22799.8 22% 104743.9 ‐0.1 77.0 ‐1.6
9‐V4 5558.8 4% 37706.34 28% 327.0 0% 788.2 1% 10064.4 8175.8 18325.1 10288.8 46854.1 35% 905.6 1% 13471.3 10% 0.0 0% 29273.4 22% 134884.8 0.3 75.5 ‐2.0
10‐V4 6871.4 8% 25183.59 29% 2175.4 2% 2971.9 3% 4109.1 5057.1 7609.4 0.0 16775.6 19% 701.9 1% 12233.2 14% 0.0 0% 20108.9 23% 87021.9 0.1 77.3 ‐1.6
11‐V4 6607.1 9% 20419.14 27% 2175.4 3% 2973.4 4% 5038.3 0.0 7609.4 0.0 12647.7 17% 505.8 1% 10530.1 14% 0.0 0% 20088.2 26% 75946.7 ‐0.1 78.6 ‐1.3
Average 78.0 ‐1.5
Version 4 Standard Core BOP ‐ Oil Furnace w/ Mid Efficiency at 85 %
1‐V4 3588.7 6% 12585.68 23% 0.0 0% 1705.7 3% 3057.1 3274.6 4305.4 5304.0 15941.1 29% 631.8 1% 11320.1 20% 691.8 1% 9383.6 17% 55848.4 0.0 80.7 ‐0.9
2‐V4 8812.4 9% 27997.34 28% 0.0 0% 895.1 1% 4139.2 4562.9 1154.4 1677.3 11533.9 11% 1343.0 1% 23368.8 23% 0.0 0% 27497.3 27% 101447.8 0.0 78.4 ‐1.4
3‐V4 2782.4 5% 18982.27 35% 0.0 0% 2402.6 4% 3100.6 973.5 2930.0 4870.9 11875.0 22% 313.1 1% 6518.6 12% 1704.0 3% 10202.2 19% 54780.1 0.1 80.8 ‐0.7
4‐V4 3695.4 5% 23476.15 29% 0.0 0% 1417.4 2% 5772.1 4608.2 8071.5 4608.2 23059.9 28% 709.7 1% 12505.4 15% 655.7 1% 16384.1 20% 81903.7 0.0 79.5 ‐1.1
5‐V4 10869.1 8% 39683.58 30% 3592.3 3% 3968.8 3% 4645.6 3716.4 8362.0 5574.7 22298.7 17% 716.8 1% 20263.6 15% 0.0 0% 30489.3 23% 131882.0 ‐0.1 77.4 ‐1.6
6‐V4 10869.1 8% 38457.46 27% 3592.3 3% 3968.8 3% 12569.8 4502.9 8076.6 7773.0 32922.3 23% 712.9 1% 20102.7 14% 0.0 0% 30484.1 22% 141109.6 0.0 77.7 ‐1.6
7‐V4 7993.4 9% 28880.60 31% 2422.3 3% 2971.9 3% 6025.3 4109.1 5574.7 7609.4 23318.5 25% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11361.1 12% 14902.5 16% 91850.3 0.0 77.1 ‐1.3
8‐V4 4258.1 4% 33328.52 32% 327.0 0% 788.2 1% 6151.4 4562.9 14340.5 5751.7 30806.5 29% 1142.3 1% 11293.6 11% 0.0 0% 22799.8 22% 104743.9 ‐0.1 77.3 ‐1.3
9‐V4 5558.8 4% 37706.34 28% 327.0 0% 788.2 1% 10064.4 8175.8 18325.1 10288.8 46854.1 35% 905.6 1% 13471.3 10% 0.0 0% 29273.4 22% 134884.7 0.2 75.8 ‐1.7
10‐V4 6871.4 8% 25183.59 29% 2175.4 2% 2971.9 3% 4109.1 5057.1 7609.4 0.0 16775.6 19% 701.9 1% 12233.2 14% 0.0 0% 20108.9 23% 87021.9 0.1 77.6 ‐1.3
11‐V4 6607.1 9% 20419.14 27% 2175.4 3% 2973.4 4% 5038.3 0.0 7609.4 0.0 12647.7 17% 505.8 1% 10530.1 14% 0.0 0% 20088.2 26% 75946.7 0.0 78.8 ‐1.1
Average 78.3 ‐1.3
OBC w/ Condensing Natural Gas Furnace at 90% AFUE
1‐OBC 3588.7 6% 14907.33 23% 0.0 0% 1983.2 3% 3337.1 3617.6 4724.2 5844.8 17523.7 27% 795.1 1% 11592.1 18% 691.8 1% 13312.8 21% 64394.7 8546.3 79.2 ‐2.4
2‐OBC 8812.4 7% 32506.69 27% 0.0 0% 895.1 1% 4518.4 5026.1 1265.5 1906.8 12716.8 11% 1670.1 1% 23663.8 20% 0.0 0% 38554.2 32% 118819.0 17371.2 76.7 ‐3.1
3‐OBC 2782.4 4% 23126.50 36% 0.0 0% 2402.6 4% 3422.1 1122.6 3217.2 5364.8 13126.6 21% 397.0 1% 6711.3 11% 1704.0 3% 13656.8 21% 63907.1 9127.1 79.0 ‐2.5
4‐OBC 3695.4 4% 28382.70 30% 0.0 0% 1648.8 2% 6327.4 5097.5 8893.9 5097.5 25416.3 26% 889.4 1% 12769.7 13% 655.7 1% 22720.6 24% 96178.6 14274.9 77.5 ‐3.1
5‐OBC 10869.1 7% 47304.20 30% 4118.8 3% 4616.7 3% 5124.1 4099.3 9223.4 6148.9 24595.7 16% 726.3 0% 20654.5 13% 0.0 0% 47816.8 31% 156583.3 24701.2 74.7 ‐4.3
6‐OBC 10869.1 7% 46131.60 28% 4118.8 2% 4616.7 3% 13990.1 4981.4 8938.0 8519.7 36429.2 22% 722.7 0% 20504.9 12% 0.0 0% 47809.5 29% 167083.7 25974.1 75.0 ‐4.3
7‐OBC 7993.4 8% 36335.52 34% 2777.4 3% 3457.1 3% 6630.2 4620.9 6148.9 8421.1 25821.1 24% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11361.1 11% 21098.1 20% 106066.4 14216.1 74.7 ‐3.7
8‐OBC 4258.1 3% 39880.70 32% 376.0 0% 788.2 1% 6737.3 5026.1 15524.2 6437.8 33725.4 27% 1243.2 1% 11776.2 10% 0.0 0% 32109.1 26% 123780.9 19036.9 74.8 ‐3.8
9‐OBC 5558.8 4% 44428.08 28% 376.0 0% 916.9 1% 11122.6 9071.6 20009.3 11351.0 51554.4 32% 1144.3 1% 13680.7 9% 0.0 0% 41417.9 26% 158701.1 23816.6 73.4 ‐4.1
10‐OBC 6871.4 7% 30949.50 31% 2498.0 2% 3457.1 3% 4620.9 5516.6 8421.1 0.0 18558.6 18% 884.7 1% 12523.2 12% 0.0 0% 28016.3 28% 101260.8 14239.0 75.3 ‐3.6
11‐OBC 6607.1 8% 20679.10 25% 2498.0 3% 3457.1 4% 5645.7 0.0 8421.1 0.0 14066.8 17% 637.8 1% 10738.1 13% 0.0 0% 27986.7 33% 84172.7 8226.0 77.4 ‐2.5
Average 76.2 ‐3.4
OBC w/ Electric Furnace
1‐OBC 3116.9 5% 9903.4 17% 0.0 0% 1983.2 3% 3337.1 3626.0 4738.5 5873.4 17575.0 30% 894.9 2% 10824.8 19% 691.8 1% 13317.6 23% 58307.6 ‐6087.1 79.5 ‐2.1
2‐OBC 8125.6 7% 22396.6 19% 0.0 0% 895.1 1% 4518.4 5026.1 1265.5 1906.8 12716.8 11% 1986.0 2% 24320.1 21% 0.0 0% 46008.7 40% 116448.9 ‐2370.1 77.0 ‐2.8
3‐OBC 2685.3 4% 15511.3 23% 0.0 0% 2402.6 4% 3422.1 1122.6 3217.1 5364.7 13126.5 20% 464.4 1% 6438.4 10% 1703.9 3% 24644.2 37% 66976.6 3069.5 79.9 ‐1.6
4‐OBC 3013.1 3% 19210.5 20% 0.0 0% 1648.8 2% 6327.4 5160.1 8956.5 5160.1 25604.1 27% 1028.9 1% 12653.3 13% 655.7 1% 31502.2 33% 95316.6 ‐862.0 78.2 ‐2.4
5‐OBC 10513.6 8% 32140.9 23% 4118.8 3% 4616.7 3% 5124.1 4099.3 9223.4 6148.9 24595.7 18% 866.3 1% 20879.3 15% 0.0 0% 44849.4 32% 138461.9 ‐18121.4 74.9 ‐4.1
6‐OBC 10513.6 7% 31440.7 21% 4118.8 3% 4616.7 3% 13990.1 4981.4 8938.0 8519.7 36429.2 24% 866.3 1% 20879.3 14% 0.0 0% 44849.4 30% 149595.2 ‐17488.5 75.1 ‐4.2
7‐OBC 7930.5 8% 23718.9 23% 2777.4 3% 3457.1 3% 6630.2 4620.9 6148.9 8421.1 25821.1 25% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 11361.1 11% 29267.7 29% 101556.4 ‐4510.0 75.4 ‐3.0
8‐OBC 3916.4 3% 25597.4 23% 376.0 0% 788.2 1% 6737.3 5026.1 14282.9 6159.2 32205.5 28% 1169.8 1% 8270.5 7% 0.0 0% 41460.3 37% 113408.1 ‐10372.8 75.5 ‐3.1
9‐OBC 5157.6 4% 28738 20% 376.0 0% 916.9 1% 11122.6 9071.6 18814.7 11082.8 50091.7 34% 1109.6 1% 9770.1 7% 0.0 0% 49946.2 34% 145730.1 ‐12971.0 73.6 ‐3.9
10‐OBC 6606.4 7% 20575.8 21% 2498.0 3% 3457.1 3% 4620.9 5516.6 8421.1 0.0 18558.6 19% 1054.9 1% 12415.9 13% 0.0 0% 36552.8 37% 99221.5 ‐2039.3 75.8 ‐3.1
11‐OBC 6125.4 7% 14225.1 17% 2498.0 3% 3457.1 4% 5645.7 0.0 8421.1 0.0 14066.8 16% 757.5 1% 10465.7 12% 0.0 0% 36535.1 43% 85632.7 1460.0 77.6 ‐2.3
Average 76.6 ‐3.0
APPENDIX F
2009 MMAH Archetype: HOT2000 Base House Report

H2K 4/7/2010
HOT2000
Natural Resources CANADA
Version 9.34c
File: 2009 Archetype OBC Toronto.HSE
Application Type: EnerGuide for New Houses
User Weather File:
Weather Data for ,
Builder Code:
Data Entry by: Candice Luck

Date of entry: 8/19/2009
Company: Lio & Associates
Client name: MMAH, Ontario

Street address:
City: Region:
Postal code: Telephone:
GENERAL HOUSE CHARACTERISTICS
House type: Single Detached

Number of storeys: Two storeys
Plan shape: Rectangular
Front orientation: North
Year House Built: 2001
Wall colour: Red Absorptivity: 0.74
Roof colour: Medium brown Absorptivity: 0.84
Soil Condition: Normal conductivity (dry sand, loam, clay)
Water Table Level: Normal (7-10m/23-33ft)
House Thermal Mass Level: (A) Light, wood frame
Effective mass fraction 1.000
Occupants : 2 Adults for 50.0% of the time

2 Children for 50.0% of the time
0 Infants for 0.0% of the time
Sensible Internal Heat Gain From Occupants: 2.40 kWh/day
Page 1 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
HOUSE TEMPERATURES
Heating Temperatures
Main Floor: 21.0 °C
Basement: 19.0 °C
TEMP. Rise from 21.0 °C: 2.8 °C
Basement is- Heated: YES Cooled: NO Separate T/S: NO

Fraction of internal gains released in basement : 0.150
Indoor design temperatures for equipment sizing

Heating: 22.0 °C
Cooling: 24.0 °C
AIR LEAKAGE AND VENTILATION
Building Envelope Surface Area: 571.97 m2
Air Leakage Test Results at 50 Pa.(0.2 in H2O) = 3.02 ACH

Equivalent Leakage Area @ 10 Pa = 866.95 cm2
Terrain Description Height m
@ Weather Station : Open flat terrain, grass Anemometer 10.0
@ Building site : Suburban, forest Bldg. Eaves 5.5
Local Shielding: Walls: Heavy

Flue : Light
Leakage Fractions- Ceiling: 0.200 Walls: 0.650 Floors: 0.150

Normalized Leakage Area @ 10 Pa: 1.5157 cm2/m2
Estimated Airflow to cause a 5 Pa Pressure Difference: 138 L/s
Estimated Airflow to cause a 10 Pa Pressure Difference: 217 L/s
F326 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS
Kitchen, Living Room, Dining Room 3 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 15.0 L/s
Utility Room 1 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 5.0 L/s
Bedroom 1 rooms @ 10.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s
Bedroom 1 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 5.0 L/s
Bathroom 1 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 5.0 L/s
Basement Rooms : 10.0 L/s
CENTRAL VENTILATION SYSTEM
System Type: Fans w/o HR

Manufacturer:
Model Number:
Fan and Preheater Power at : Watts

Fan and Preheater Power at : Watts
Page 2 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
Preheater Capacity: Watts

Sensible Heat Recovery Efficiency at %
Sensible Heat Recovery Efficiency at %
Total Heat Recovery Efficency in Cooling Mode %
Low Temperature Ventilation Reduction: %

Low Temperature Ventilation Reduction: Airflow Adjustment (%)
Vented combustion appliance depressurization limit: 5.00 Pa.
Ventilation Supply Duct

Location: Main floor Type: Flexible
Length: 4.9 m Diameter: 6.0 mm
Insulation: 4.0 RSI Sealing Characteristics: Sealed
Ventilation Exhaust Duct

Location: Main floor Type: Flexible
Length: 4.9 m Diameter: 6.0 mm
Insulation: 4.0 RSI Sealing Characteristics: Sealed
Operating schedule for
Added Vent. Added Vent.

Month % of Time Month % of Time
Rate (L/s) Rate (L/s)
Jan 48.53 18.34 Jul 0.00 0.00
Feb 52.02 19.66 Aug 0.00 0.00
Mar 64.79 24.48 Sep 0.00 0.00
Apr 83.62 31.59 Oct 100.00 37.78
May 0.00 0.00 Nov 78.31 29.58
Jun 0.00 0.00 Dec 59.52 22.49
SECONDARY FANS & OTHER EXHAUST APPLIANCES
Control Supply (L/s) Exhaust (L/s)

Dryer Continuous - 1.20
Dryer is vented outdoors
AIR LEAKAGE AND VENTILATION SUMMARY
F326 Required continous ventilation: 50.000 L/s (0.23 ACH)

Central Ventilation Rate (Balanced): 37.781 L/s (0.18 ACH)
Total house ventilation is Balanced
Gross Air Leakage and Ventilation Energy Load: 28265.836 MJ
Seasonal Heat Recovery Ventilator Efficiency: 0.000 %
Estimated Ventilation Electrical Load: Heating
672.388 MJ
Hours:
Estimated Ventilation Electrical Load: Non-
1.283 MJ
Heating Hours:
Net Air Leakage and Ventilation Load: 30577.873 MJ
Page 3 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
SPACE HEATING SYSTEM
Primary Heating Fuel: Natural Gas

Equipment: Condensing furnace/boiler
Manufacturer:
Model:
Calculated* Output Capacity: 12.00 kW
* Design Heat loss X 1.00 + 0.5 kW
AFUE: 90.00
Steady State Efficiency: 92.90
Fan Mode: Auto
Low Speed Fan Power: 0 watts
High Speed Fan Power: 233 watts
DOMESTIC WATER HEATING SYSTEM
Primary Water Heating Fuel: Natural gas

Water Heating Equipment: Induced draft fan
Energy Factor: 0.57
Manufactuer:
Model:
Tank Blanket
Tank Capacity = 151.40 Litres 0.00 RSI
Insulation
Tank Loacation: Basement
Pilot Energy = 0.00 MJ/day Flue Diameter 76.20 mm
ANNUAL SPACE HEATING SUMMARY
Design Heat Loss at -17.20 °C (15.06 Watts / m3): 11547.28 Watts

Gross Space Heat Loss: 109668.38 MJ
Gross Space Heating Load: 106065.23 MJ

Usable Internal Gains: 24982.29 MJ
Usable Internal Gains Fraction: 22.78 %
Usable Solar Gains: 15274.84 MJ
Usable Solar Gains Fraction: 13.93 %
Auxilary Energy Required: 65808.12 MJ
Space Heating System Load: 65808.10 MJ

Furnace/Boiler Seasonal efficiency: 93.03 %
Furnace/Boiler Annual Energy Consumption: 69489.48 MJ
ANNUAL DOMESTIC WATER HEATING SUMMARY
Daily Hot Water Consumption: 225.00 Litres
Page 5 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
Hot Water Temperature: 55.00 °C

Estimated Domestic Water Heating Load: 15341.31 MJ
Primary Domestic Water Heating Energy Consumption: 26929.66 MJ
Primary System Seasonal Efficiency: 56.97%
BASE LOADS SUMMARY
kwh/day Annual kWh

Interior Lighting 3.00 1095.00
Appliances 14.00 5110.00
Other 3.00 1095.00
Exterior Use 4.00 1460.00
HVAC Fans
HRV/Exhaust 0.51 187.13
Space Heating 0.95 347.88
Space Cooling 0.00 0.00
Total Average Electrical Load 25.47 9295.01
FAN OPERATION SUMMARY (kWh)
Hours HRV/Exhaust Fans Space Heating Space Cooling
Heating 186.77 347.88 0.00

Neither 0.36 0.00 0.00
Cooling 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 187.13 347.88 0.00
Page 6 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
ENERGUIDE FOR HOUSES ENERGY CONSUMPTION SUMMARY REPORT
Estimated Annual Space Heating Energy Consumption = 70741.87 MJ = 19650.52 kWh

Ventilator Electrical Consumption: Heating Hours = 672.39 MJ = 186.77 kWh
Estimated Annual DHW Heating Energy Consumption = 26929.66 MJ = 7480.46 kWh
ESTIMATED ANNUAL SPACE + DHW ENERGY CONSUMPTION = 98343.92 MJ = 27317.76 kWh

ENERGUIDE RATING (0 to 100) 77
EnerGuide Required Ventilation Capacity 37.78 L/s
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 9.89 tonnes/year
ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION SUMMARY
Fuel Space Heating Space Cooling DHW Heating Appliance Total

Natural Gas (m3) 1865.03 0.00 722.77 0.00 2587.80
Electricity (kWh) 534.66 0.00 0.00 8760.35 9295.01
ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION COSTS
Fuel Costs Library = C:\H2KEGH~1\StdLibs\fuelLib.flc
Electricity Natural Gas Oil Propane Wood

RATE Total
(Ottawa97) (Ottawa97) (Ottawa97) (Ottawa97) (Sth Ont)
$ 861.61 660.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1521.69
Page 7 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
MONTHLY ENERGY PROFILE
Energy Load Internal Gains Solar Gains Aux. Energy HRV Eff.
Month
(MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ) %
Jan 18768.383 2712.002 1786.678 14269.705 0.000
Feb 16472.163 2445.895 2096.338 11929.930 0.000
Mar 14941.116 2716.337 2610.831 9613.950 0.000
Apr 9976.066 2646.028 2270.206 5059.833 0.000
May 5072.894 2757.389 1621.842 693.663 0.000
Jun 1190.074 1099.305 90.770 0.000 0.000
Jul 229.222 229.222 0.000 0.000 0.000
Aug 519.527 517.170 2.357 0.000 0.000
Sep 2279.208 1695.207 584.001 0.000 0.000
Oct 8075.241 2774.836 1766.379 3534.026 0.000
Nov 11786.153 2661.610 1102.611 8021.931 0.000
Dec 16755.184 2727.288 1342.826 12685.070 0.000
Ann 106065.242 24982.287 15274.836 65808.109 0.000
FOUNDATION ENERGY PROFILE
Heat Loss (MJ)

Month Crawl Space Slab Basement Walkout Total
Jan 0.000 0.000 1918.042 0.000 1918.042
Feb 0.000 0.000 1603.079 0.000 1603.079
Mar 0.000 0.000 1291.832 0.000 1291.832
Apr 0.000 0.000 679.878 0.000 679.878
May 0.000 0.000 93.185 0.000 93.185
Jun 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jul 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Aug 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sep 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Oct 0.000 0.000 474.828 0.000 474.828
Nov 0.000 0.000 1077.901 0.000 1077.901
Dec 0.000 0.000 1704.521 0.000 1704.521
Ann 0.000 0.000 8843.270 0.000 8843.266
FOUNDATION TEMPERATURES & VENTILATION PROFILE
Temperature (Deg °C) Air Change Rate Heat Loss

Month Crawl Space Basement Walkout Natural Total (MJ
Jan 0.000 18.722 0.000 0.208 0.300 5613.137
Feb 0.000 18.475 0.000 0.202 0.300 4937.539
Mar 0.000 18.385 0.000 0.179 0.300 4469.010
Apr 0.000 18.542 0.000 0.146 0.300 2936.167
May 0.000 18.786 0.000 0.106 0.111 729.297
Jun 0.000 20.056 0.000 0.072 0.077 194.218
Jul 0.000 21.302 0.000 0.058 0.063 78.317
Page 8 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
Aug 0.000 21.208 0.000 0.060 0.066 117.268

Sep 0.000 20.066 0.000 0.082 0.087 367.836
Oct 0.000 19.640 0.000 0.117 0.300 2370.816
Nov 0.000 19.430 0.000 0.156 0.300 3432.391
Dec 0.000 19.102 0.000 0.189 0.300 4995.683
Ann 0.000 19.484 0.000 0.131 0.208 30241.686
SPACE HEATING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Space Heating Heat Pump

Furnace Input Pilot Light Indoor Fans Total Input
Month Load Input System Cop
(MJ) (MJ) (MJ) (MJ)
(MJ) (MJ)
Jan 14269.704 15067.967 0.000 271.564 0.000 15339.531 0.930
Feb 11929.929 12597.301 0.000 227.036 0.000 12824.338 0.930
Mar 9613.951 10151.765 0.000 182.961 0.000 10334.726 0.930
Apr 5059.833 5342.885 0.000 96.293 0.000 5439.178 0.930
May 693.663 732.467 0.000 13.201 0.000 745.668 0.930
Jun 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Jul 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Aug 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sep 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Oct 3534.026 3731.723 0.000 67.255 0.000 3798.978 0.930
Nov 8021.932 8470.686 0.000 152.664 0.000 8623.350 0.930
Dec 12685.070 13394.686 0.000 241.407 0.000 13636.094 0.930
Ann 65808.109 69489.477 0.000 1252.381 0.000 70741.859 0.930
MONTHLY ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY DEVICE (MJ)
Space Heating DHW Heating Lights & HRV & Air

Month Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Appliances FANS Conditioner
Jan 15068.0 0.0 2496.7 0.0 2678.4 340.2 0.0
Feb 12597.3 0.0 2287.4 0.0 2419.2 293.5 0.0
Mar 10151.8 0.0 2502.2 0.0 2678.4 274.5 0.0
Apr 5342.9 0.0 2335.1 0.0 2592.0 210.7 0.0
May 732.5 0.0 2290.7 0.0 2678.4 13.2 0.0
Jun 0.0 0.0 2099.0 0.0 2592.0 0.0 0.0
Jul 0.0 0.0 2082.3 0.0 2678.4 0.0 0.0
Aug 0.0 0.0 2050.6 0.0 2678.4 0.0 0.0
Sep 0.0 0.0 2015.1 0.0 2592.0 0.0 0.0
Oct 3731.7 0.0 2159.0 0.0 2678.4 208.6 0.0
Nov 8470.7 0.0 2207.2 0.0 2592.0 259.8 0.0
Dec 13394.7 0.0 2404.3 0.0 2678.4 325.6 0.0
Ann 69489.5 0.0 26929.7 0.0 31536.0 1926.1 0.0
Page 9 of 10
H2K 4/7/2010
ESTIMATED FUEL COSTS (Dollars)
Month Electricity Natural Gas Oil Propane Wood Total

Jan 76.29 109.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 186.07
Feb 70.32 94.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 164.76
Mar 75.01 81.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 156.68
Apr 72.08 53.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 125.26
May 69.91 26.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.09
Jun 67.97 20.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.66
Jul 69.65 20.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.24
Aug 69.65 20.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.05
Sep 67.97 20.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.16
Oct 73.72 42.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 116.63
Nov 73.04 70.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 143.39
Dec 76.00 99.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.68
Ann 861.61 660.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1521.69
The calculated heat losses and energy consumptions are only estimates, based upon the data entered and assumptions
within the program. Actual energy consumption and heat losses will be influenced by construction practices, localized
weather, equipment characteristics and the lifestyle of the occupants.
Page 10 of 10
APPENDIX G
Special Conditions: ERS Correlation with Window Area and House Size
Window Percentage Impact on ERS
across 100 house sample
80
79
78
EnerGuide Rating (ERS)
77
76
75
74
73
72
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Window Percentage (%)
ERS vs. Floor Area

across 100 house sample
85
83
81
EnerGuide Rating (ERS)
79
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Floor Area (sq. ft.)
APPENDIX H
Initial Costs and ERS of Proposed Compliance Packages

ZONE 1 Compliance Packages for Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher
October 1 2009
Package A Package B Package C Package D Package E Package F Package G Package H Package I Package J
Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade
2
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 2.0 W/m • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 2.0 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - R5 - - - - - - - - -
Slab =<600mm B/G-entire surface R8 Perimeter 2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 90 90 90 94 94 90 94 92 94 92 94

Ventilation - - - - - HRV @ 55% HRV @ 60% HRV @ 60% HRV @ 70% HRV 55% HRV 60%
Domestic Hot Water EF 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.57 0.57 0.62 0.67 0.62 0.67
Electrical Credits/CFLs
ERS 76.8 80.0 79.9 79.9 79.9 80.3 80.2 80.3 80.1 80.2 80.2
Estimated Initial Incremental Costs $ - $ 7,400.00 $ 6,600.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 5,100.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 3,800.00
ZONE 1 Compliance Packages for Space Heating Equipment with AFUE between 78 - 90%
October 1 2009
Package A Package B Package C Package D Package E Package F

Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade
Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31
Walls Above Grade R19 R29 R29 R29 R27 R27 R27
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 2.0 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K
2 2 2 2 2 2
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K
Basement Walls R12 R20 R12 R20 R20 R20 R20
Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - - - - - - -
Slab =<600mm B/G-entire surface R8 Perimeter 2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) - 84 84% 84% 84%

Ventilation - HRV @ 55% HRV @ 55% HRV @ 70% HRV @ 55% HRV @ 70% HRV @ 75%
Domestic Hot Water EF - - - - - - -
ERS 75.1 79.8 79.6 79.7 79.7 79.8 79.5
Estimated Initial Incremental Cost $ - $ 8,700.00 $ 8,800.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 8,300.00 $ 7,800.00 $ 7,000.00
ZONE 1 Compliance Packages for Electric Space Heating

October 1 2009
Package A Package B
Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code Upgrade Upgrade
Ceiling R50 R50 R50
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K
2 2
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m • K
Slab =<600mm B/G-entire surface R10 Perimeter 2' R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) - - -

ERS 79 80.2 80.2
Estimated Initial Incremental Cost $ - $ 960.00 $ 850.00
ZONE 2 Compliance Packages for Space Heating Equipment with 90% AFUE or higher
October 1 2009
Package A Package B Package C Package D Package E Package F Package G Package H Package I Package J
Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade Upgrade
2
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 2.0 W/m • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.8 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K
2
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - R5 - - R5 - - - R5 - -
Slab =<600mm B/G-entire surface R8 Perimeter 2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 90 90 94 92 94 94 94 94 94 - 94

Ventilation - - - HRV @ 60% - - HRV @ 60% HRV @ 75% - HRV 60% HRV 60%
Domestic Hot Water EF - - - - - 0.67 - 0.62 0.67 - 0.67
ERS 76.9 80.2 80.0 80.0 80.1 80.0 79.8 79.8 80.3 80.0 80.2
Estimated Initial incremental costs $ - $ 8,000.00 $ 6,700.00 $ 5,700.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,400.00 $ 6,300.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 5,200.00
ZONE 2 Compliance Packages for Space Heating Equipment with AFUE between 78 - 90%
October 1 2009
Package A Package B
Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code Upgrade Upgrade
Ceiling R40 R50 R50
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 2.0 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K
2
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m • K 2.8 W/m 2 • K
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - R5 R5
Slab =<600mm B/G-entire surface R8 Perimeter 2' R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 Perimeter2' R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) - - 84

ERS 74.9 79.6 79.5
Estimated Initial incremental costs $ - $ 9,600.00 $ 9,700.00
ZONE 2 Compliance Packages for Electric Space Heating

October 1 2009
Package A
Component (minimum efficiency) 2006 Code Upgrade
Ceiling R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31
Walls Above Grade R29 R29
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.6 W/m 2 • K 1.6 W/m 2 • K
2
Skylights (max U value) - 2.8 W/m • K
Basement Walls R19 R20
Exposed Floor R25 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - R5
Slab =<600mm B/G-entire surface R10 Perimeter 2' R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 Perimeter2' R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) - -

Ventilation - HRV @ 75%
Domestic Hot Water EF - -
ERS 78 79.8
Estimated Initial Incremental Costs $ - $ 2,900.00
Proposed Compliance Packages: Insulating Concrete Forms and Combo/DHW Systems
ICF ICF
Zone 1 Above and Below Grade Combo/DHW
Below Grade Only
Component (minimum efficiency) Package A Package AA Package B
Ceiling R50 R50 R50
Walls Above Grade R22 ICF R24 Stud R24 Stud
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K
Skylights (max U value) 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K
Basement Walls R22 ICF R22 ICF R20
Slab =<600mm B/G R10 R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 90% 94% 90% Combo

Ventilation - - -
Domestic Hot Water EF 0.57 0.57 0.80 Combo
ERS 80.1 80.0 80.0
ICF ICF
Zone 2 Above and Below Grade Combo/DHW Combo/DHW
Below Grade Only
Component (minimum efficiency) Package A Package AA Package B Package BB
Ceiling R50 R50 R50 R50
Ceiling Below Attic R31 R31 R31 R31
Walls Above Grade R22 ICF R24 Stud R24 Stud R27
Windows and Sliding Doors (max U value) 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.8 W/m^2 • K 1.6 W/m^2 • K
Skylights (max U value) 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K 2.8 W/m^2 • K
Basement Walls R22 ICF R22 ICF R20 R20
Exposed Floor R31 R31 R31 R31
Slab >600mm B/G-entire surface - - - -
Slab =<600mm B/G R10 R10 R10 R10
Heated Slab @GorB/G-entire surf. R10 R10 R10 R10
Space Heating Equipment (AFUE) 94% 94% 90% Combo 90% Combo
Ventilation - - HRV 55% -
Domestic Hot Water EF 0.57 0.57 0.80 Combo 0.80 Combo
ERS 80.1 80.0 80.1 80.0
APPENDIX I
Electricity Costs: Winter Time of Use Analysis

Average Fuel Usage on an Average Winter Day
24000
21000
18000
Fuel Usage (MWh)
15000
12000
9000 OFF-PEAK ON-PEAK MID-PEAK ON-PEAK OFF-PEAK
6000
3000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of the Day
Note: Analysis based on Ontario Energy Board Data
APPENDIX J
Life Cycle Costing Results: Low Return and High Return Scenarios
Life Cycle Costing Analysis | MMAH ERS 80 - Low Return Scenario DRAFT: November 2009
Fuel: Natural Gas with 90% AFUE or higher prepared by Lio & Associates
SCENARIO
Discount rate 7.0%
House Section Component Code Energy Savings [MJ] Monthly Energy Savings $ Present Value Energy Savings $ Present Value Upgrade Cost Total NPV Economic Assumptions
Ceiling R40 CA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Discount rate (i) 7.0%

R50 CB 972 $ 0.78 $ 115.01 $ 225.43 $ (110.42) energy escalator (e) 0.5%
R50 + raised heel CC 1243 $ 0.99 $ 147.19 $ 675.63 $ (528.44) Amortization Period 25 years
Walls R19 WA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Number Yearly Payments 12
R22 High density batt WB 1450 $ 1.16 $ 171.66 $ 544.92 $ (373.26) Number of Payments (N) 300
R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 590.06 $ 1,158.40 $ (568.34)
R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 WD 6084 $ 4.86 $ 720.22 $ 1,662.90 $ (942.67) Gas Rate (on margin) 0.009589 $/MJ
R29 (R22 +1.5" XPS) WE 7960 $ 6.36 $ 942.24 $ 2,197.71 $ (1,255.47) Sales Tax Rate (incl GST) 13%
Exposed Floors R25 EA 0 $ - $ - $ - Builder MarkUp 15%
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 14.94 $ 14.80 $ 0.14
Foundation R12 FA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - UPV* multiplier 148.1398
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 277.82 $ 751.63 $ (473.81)
Underslab No insulation SA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 4.06 $ 729.71 $ (725.65)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 117.96 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,171.09) 0.07535
Windows Zone A (2.0 W/m^2) WWA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 546.52 $ 1,648.30 $ (1,101.78)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 904.11 $ 3,386.79 $ (2,482.68)
Gas Furnace 90% AFUE GA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 93.36 $ 273.33 $ (179.97)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 212.83 $ 273.33 $ (60.51)
HRV Principal exhaust fan HA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 746.99 $ 994.58 $ (247.59)
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 818.84 $ 994.58 $ (175.74)
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 962.48 $ 1,273.25 $ (310.77)
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,034.18 $ 1,273.25 $ (239.07)
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 168.44 $ 33.33 $ 135.10
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 339.18 $ 33.33 $ 305.85
Lighting CFL (550 kWh total) LA 1980 $ 1.58 $ 234.38 $ 138.68 $ 95.70
Life Cycle Costing Analysis Results | Gas with AFUE 90% +
SCENARIO
Discount rate 7.0%

NPV
A $ (4,806.20) CB+WC+WWC+FB+EB+SC
B $ (4,009.58) CB+WD+WWC+FB
C $ (2,689.19) CB+WD+WWB+FB+GC
D $ (2,314.85) CB+WC+WWB+FB+GC
E $ (1,400.16) CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ (915.00) CB+WC+GC+HC
G $ (899.36) CB+WC+GB+HC+DB
H $ (744.18) CB+WC+GC+HD+DC
I $ (2,351.73) CB+WB+WWB+FB+GB+HB+DB
J $ (1,515.85) CB+WB+WWB+GC+HC+DC

NPV
A $ (4,924.99) CB+WE+WWC+FB+EB+SC-WC
B $ (3,814.40) CB+WE+WWC+FB+GC+EB-WC
C $ (2,728.71) CB+WE+WWB+FB+GB+HC+EB-WC
D $ (4,672.69) CB+WD+WWC+FB+SC+GC+EB-WC
E $ (3,195.76) CB+WD+WWC+FB+EB+GC+DC-WC
F $ (2,296.45) CB+WD+WWB+FB+EB+GC+HC-WC
G $ (1,750.86) CB+WD+WWB+GC+HE+DB+EB-WC
H $ (3,992.51) CB+WC+WWC+FB+EB+SC+GC+DC-WC
I $ (3,242.51) CB+WC+WWC+FB+EB+HC-WC
J $ (2,694.10) CB+WC+WWC+EB+GC+HC+DB-WC
Fuel: Oil with 78 - 90% AFUE prepared by Lio & Associates
SCENARIO
Discount rate 7.0%

R50 CB 972 $ 2.19 $ 325.05 $ 225.43 $ 99.62 energy escalator (e) 0.5%
R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 1,667.59 $ 1,158.40 $ 509.20
R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 WD 6084 $ 13.74 $ 2,035.46 $ 1,662.90 $ 372.57 Oil Rate 0.0271 $/MJ
R29 (R22 +1.5" XPS) WE 7960 $ 17.98 $ 2,662.91 $ 2,197.71 $ 465.20 Sales Tax Rate (incl GST) 13%
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 42.22 $ 14.80 $ 27.42
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 785.15 $ 751.63 $ 33.53
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 11.48 $ 729.71 $ (718.24)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 333.38 $ 1,289.05 $ (955.67) 0.07535
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 1,544.55 $ 1,648.30 $ (103.75)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 2,555.15 $ 3,386.79 $ (831.64)
Oil Furnace 80% AFUE OA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 674.28 $ 800.00 $ (125.72)
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 2,111.10 $ 994.58 $ 1,116.52
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 2,314.18 $ 994.58 $ 1,319.59
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 2,720.12 $ 1,273.25 $ 1,446.87
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 2,922.75 $ 1,273.25 $ 1,649.50
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 476.03 $ 33.33 $ 442.70
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 958.58 $ 33.33 $ 925.25
Life Cycle Costing Analysis Results | Oil with 78 - 90% AFUE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 7.0%

NPV
A $ 910.65 CB+WE+WWC+EB+FB+HB
B $ 751.41 CB+WE+WWC+EB+OB+HB
C $ 1,843.16 CB+WE+WWB+EB+FB+OB+HD
D $ 692.30 CB+WD+WWC+EB+FB+OB+HB
E $ 1,148.36 CB+WD+WWC+EB+FB+HD
F $ 1,953.16 CB+WD+WWB+EB+FB+OB+HE

NPV
A $ 487.96 CB+WE+WWC+FB+EB+SC+HE
B $ 32.33 CB+WE+WWC+FB+EB+SC+OB+HC
Fuel: Electric Space Heating prepared by Lio & Associates
SCENARIO
Discount rate 7.0%

R50 CB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - energy escalator (e) 0.5%
R50 + raised heel CC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Amortization Period 25 years
R22 High density batt WB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Number of Payments (N) 300
R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 WD 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Electric Rate 0.0347 $/MJ
R29 (R22 +1.5" XPS) WE 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Sales Tax Rate (incl GST) 13%
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 54.06 $ 14.80 $ 39.26
Foundation R12 FA -2347 $ (6.79) $ (1,005.39) $ (751.63)$ (253.76) UPV* multiplier 148.1398
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 14.69 $ 729.71 $ (715.02)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 426.87 $ 1,289.05 $ (862.18) 0.07535
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 2,703.15 $ 994.58 $ 1,708.57
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 2,963.17 $ 994.58 $ 1,968.59
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 3,482.96 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,209.71
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 3,742.42 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,469.17
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 609.53 $ 33.33 $ 576.20
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 1,227.41 $ 33.33 $ 1,194.08
Life Cycle Costing Analysis Results | Electric Space Heating Packages
SCENARIO
Discount rate 7.0%

NPV
A $ 1,747.83 EB+HB
B $ 2,254.67 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 2,508.43 EB+HE
Life Cycle Costing Analysis | MMAH ERS 80 - High Return Scenario DRAFT: November 2009
SCENARIO
Discount rate 4.5%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 996.37 $ 1,158.40 $ (162.02)
R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 WD 6084 $ 4.86 $ 1,216.17 $ 1,662.90 $ (446.72) Gas Rate (on margin) 0.009589 $/MJ
R29 (R22 +1.5" XPS) WE 7960 $ 6.36 $ 1,591.07 $ 2,197.71 $ (606.64) Sales Tax Rate (incl GST) 13%
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 25.23 $ 14.80 $ 10.43
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 469.12 $ 751.63 $ (282.50)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 6.86 $ 729.71 $ (722.86)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 199.19 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,089.86) 0.07635
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 922.85 $ 1,648.30 $ (725.45)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,526.68 $ 3,386.79 $ (1,860.11)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 157.65 $ 273.33 $ (115.68)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 359.38 $ 273.33 $ 86.05

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,261.37 $ 994.58 $ 266.79
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,382.70 $ 994.58 $ 388.12
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,625.25 $ 1,273.25 $ 352.00
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,746.32 $ 1,273.25 $ 473.07
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 284.42 $ 33.33 $ 251.09
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 572.75 $ 33.33 $ 539.41
SCENARIO
Discount rate 4.5%

NPV
B $ (2,620.55) CB+WD+WWC+FB
E $ (208.96) CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ 280.93 CB+WC+GC+HC
G $ 330.29 CB+WC+GB+HC+DB
H $ 784.22 CB+WC+GC+HD+DC
I $ (892.03) CB+WB+WWB+FB+GB+HB+DB
J $ 1.86 CB+WB+WWB+GC+HC+DC

NPV
F $ (839.27) CB+WD+WWB+FB+EB+GC+HC-WC
G $ (220.72) CB+WD+WWB+GC+HE+DB+EB-WC
SCENARIO
Discount rate 4.5%

R50 + raised heel CC 1243 $ 2.81 $ 702.42 $ 675.63 $ 26.79 Amortization Period 25 years
R22 High density batt WB 1450 $ 3.27 $ 819.19 $ 544.92 $ 274.28 Number of Payments (N) 300
R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,815.91 $ 1,158.40 $ 1,657.51
R27 Wall 1 + Wall 2 WD 6084 $ 13.74 $ 3,437.10 $ 1,662.90 $ 1,774.20 Oil Rate 0.0271 $/MJ
R29 (R22 +1.5" XPS) WE 7960 $ 17.98 $ 4,496.61 $ 2,197.71 $ 2,298.90 Sales Tax Rate (incl GST) 13%
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 71.29 $ 14.80 $ 56.49
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,325.81 $ 751.63 $ 574.19
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 19.38 $ 729.71 $ (710.34)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 562.94 $ 1,289.05 $ (726.11) 0.07635
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 2,608.13 $ 1,648.30 $ 959.83
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 4,314.64 $ 3,386.79 $ 927.85

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 1,138.60 $ 800.00 $ 338.60
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 3,564.82 $ 994.58 $ 2,570.24
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 3,907.73 $ 994.58 $ 2,913.15
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 4,593.21 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,319.96
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 4,935.38 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,662.13
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 803.83 $ 33.33 $ 770.49
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,618.67 $ 33.33 $ 1,585.34
Lighting CFL (550 kWh total) LA 1980 $ 4.47 $ 1,118.54 $ 138.68 $ 979.86
SCENARIO
Discount rate 4.5%

NPV
A $ 6,751.12 CB+WE+WWC+EB+FB+HB
B $ 6,515.53 CB+WE+WWC+EB+OB+HB
D $ 6,565.02 CB+WD+WWC+EB+FB+OB+HB

NPV
A $ 7,116.90 CB+WE+WWC+FB+EB+SC+HE
B $ 6,706.52 CB+WE+WWC+FB+EB+SC+OB+HC
SCENARIO
Discount rate 4.5%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 91.29 $ 14.80 $ 76.49
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 24.81 $ 729.71 $ (704.90)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 720.82 $ 1,289.05 $ (568.23) 0.07635
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 4,564.55 $ 994.58 $ 3,569.97
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 5,003.63 $ 994.58 $ 4,009.04
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 5,881.34 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,608.09
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 6,319.47 $ 1,273.25 $ 5,046.22
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 1,029.25 $ 33.33 $ 995.92
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 2,072.61 $ 33.33 $ 2,039.28
Lighting CFL (550 kWh total) LA 1980 $ 5.73 $ 1,432.23 $ 138.68 $ 1,293.55
SCENARIO
Discount rate 4.5%

NPV
A $ 3,646.46 EB+HB
B $ 4,176.64 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 5,122.71 EB+HE
APPENDIX K
More Life Cycle Costing Results

Life Cycle Costing Analysis | MMAH ERS 80 DRAFT: November 2009
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 716.74 $ 1,158.40 $ (441.66)
R29 (R22 +1.5" XPS) WE 7960 $ 6.36 $ 1,144.53 $ 2,197.71 $ (1,053.18) Sales Tax Rate (incl GST) 13%
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 18.15 $ 14.80 $ 3.35
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 337.46 $ 751.63 $ (414.16)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 4.93 $ 729.71 $ (724.78)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 143.29 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,145.76) 0.05525
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 663.85 $ 1,648.30 $ (984.45)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,098.22 $ 3,386.79 $ (2,288.57)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 113.41 $ 273.33 $ (159.93)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 258.52 $ 273.33 $ (14.81)

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 907.36 $ 994.58 $ (87.22)
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 994.64 $ 994.58 $ 0.06
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,169.12 $ 1,273.25 $ (104.13)
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,256.21 $ 1,273.25 $ (17.04)
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 204.60 $ 33.33 $ 171.27
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 412.00 $ 33.33 $ 378.67
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (3,576.51) CB+WD+WWC+FB
E $ (1,028.77) CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ (542.13) CB+WC+GC+HC
J $ (1,042.65) CB+WB+WWB+GC+HC+DC

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,025.62 $ 1,158.40 $ 867.22
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 51.28 $ 14.80 $ 36.48
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 953.72 $ 751.63 $ 202.09
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 13.94 $ 729.71 $ (715.77)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 404.95 $ 1,289.05 $ (884.10) 0.05525
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 1,876.15 $ 1,648.30 $ 227.85
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 3,103.73 $ 3,386.79 $ (283.06)

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 819.05 $ 800.00 $ 19.05
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 2,564.35 $ 994.58 $ 1,569.77
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 2,811.02 $ 994.58 $ 1,816.44
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 3,304.12 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,030.87
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 3,550.26 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,277.01
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 578.23 $ 33.33 $ 544.90
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,164.39 $ 33.33 $ 1,131.05
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 65.67 $ 14.80 $ 50.87
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 17.85 $ 729.71 $ (711.86)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 518.52 $ 1,289.05 $ (770.53) 0.05525
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 3,283.50 $ 994.58 $ 2,288.92
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 3,599.35 $ 994.58 $ 2,604.77
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 4,230.73 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,957.48
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 4,545.90 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,272.65
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 740.39 $ 33.33 $ 707.06
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 1,490.93 $ 33.33 $ 1,457.60
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 2,339.79 EB+HB
B $ 2,853.91 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 3,323.52 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 754.87 $ 1,158.40 $ (403.52)
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 19.11 $ 14.80 $ 4.31
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 355.42 $ 751.63 $ (396.21)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 5.19 $ 729.71 $ (724.52)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 150.91 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,138.14) 0.0605
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 699.17 $ 1,648.30 $ (949.13)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,156.65 $ 3,386.79 $ (2,230.14)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 119.44 $ 273.33 $ (153.89)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 272.28 $ 273.33 $ (1.06)

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 955.64 $ 994.58 $ (38.94)
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,047.56 $ 994.58 $ 52.98
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,231.32 $ 1,273.25 $ (41.93)
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,323.05 $ 1,273.25 $ 49.80
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 215.49 $ 33.33 $ 182.15
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 433.92 $ 33.33 $ 400.59
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (3,446.14) CB+WD+WWC+FB
E $ (916.97) CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ (429.89) CB+WC+GC+HC
J $ (900.22) CB+WB+WWB+GC+HC+DC

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,133.39 $ 1,158.40 $ 974.99
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 54.01 $ 14.80 $ 39.21
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,004.46 $ 751.63 $ 252.84
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 14.68 $ 729.71 $ (715.03)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 426.50 $ 1,289.05 $ (862.55) 0.0605
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 1,975.97 $ 1,648.30 $ 327.67
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 3,268.86 $ 3,386.79 $ (117.93)

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 862.63 $ 800.00 $ 62.63
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 2,700.78 $ 994.58 $ 1,706.20
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 2,960.58 $ 994.58 $ 1,965.99
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 3,479.91 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,206.66
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 3,739.14 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,465.89
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 609.00 $ 33.33 $ 575.66
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,226.34 $ 33.33 $ 1,193.00
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 69.16 $ 14.80 $ 54.36
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 18.80 $ 729.71 $ (710.92)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 546.11 $ 1,289.05 $ (742.94) 0.0605
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 3,458.20 $ 994.58 $ 2,463.61
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 3,790.85 $ 994.58 $ 2,796.27
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 4,455.82 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,182.57
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 4,787.76 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,514.51
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 779.78 $ 33.33 $ 746.45
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 1,570.25 $ 33.33 $ 1,536.92
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 2,517.98 EB+HB
B $ 3,034.29 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 3,568.87 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 796.00 $ 1,158.40 $ (362.40)
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 20.15 $ 14.80 $ 5.35
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 374.78 $ 751.63 $ (376.85)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 5.48 $ 729.71 $ (724.24)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 159.13 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,129.92) 0.06575
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 737.27 $ 1,648.30 $ (911.03)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,219.67 $ 3,386.79 $ (2,167.12)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 125.95 $ 273.33 $ (147.38)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 287.11 $ 273.33 $ 13.78

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,007.71 $ 994.58 $ 13.12
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,104.64 $ 994.58 $ 110.06
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,298.41 $ 1,273.25 $ 25.16
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,395.14 $ 1,273.25 $ 121.89
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 227.23 $ 33.33 $ 193.89
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 457.57 $ 33.33 $ 424.23
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (3,305.54) CB+WD+WWC+FB
E $ (796.39) CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ (308.83) CB+WC+GC+HC

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,249.63 $ 1,158.40 $ 1,091.23
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 56.96 $ 14.80 $ 42.16
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,059.19 $ 751.63 $ 307.56
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 15.48 $ 729.71 $ (714.23)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 449.74 $ 1,289.05 $ (839.31) 0.06575
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 2,083.63 $ 1,648.30 $ 435.33
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 3,446.97 $ 3,386.79 $ 60.18

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 909.63 $ 800.00 $ 109.63
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 2,847.94 $ 994.58 $ 1,853.35
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 3,121.88 $ 994.58 $ 2,127.30
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 3,669.51 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,396.26
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 3,942.87 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,669.62
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 642.18 $ 33.33 $ 608.84
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,293.15 $ 33.33 $ 1,259.82
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 72.93 $ 14.80 $ 58.13
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 19.82 $ 729.71 $ (709.89)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 575.86 $ 1,289.05 $ (713.19) 0.06575
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 3,646.62 $ 994.58 $ 2,652.03
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 3,997.39 $ 994.58 $ 3,002.81
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 4,698.60 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,425.35
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 5,048.62 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,775.37
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 822.27 $ 33.33 $ 788.94
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 1,655.81 $ 33.33 $ 1,622.48
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 2,710.16 EB+HB
B $ 3,228.84 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 3,833.50 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 840.40 $ 1,158.40 $ (317.99)
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 21.28 $ 14.80 $ 6.48
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 395.69 $ 751.63 $ (355.94)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 5.78 $ 729.71 $ (723.93)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 168.01 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,121.04) 0.071
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 778.39 $ 1,648.30 $ (869.91)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,287.70 $ 3,386.79 $ (2,099.09)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 132.97 $ 273.33 $ (140.36)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 303.13 $ 273.33 $ 29.79

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,063.92 $ 994.58 $ 69.33
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,166.26 $ 994.58 $ 171.67
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,370.84 $ 1,273.25 $ 97.59
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,472.96 $ 1,273.25 $ 199.71
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 239.90 $ 33.33 $ 206.57
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 483.09 $ 33.33 $ 449.76
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (3,153.75) CB+WD+WWC+FB
E $ (666.22) CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ (178.14) CB+WC+GC+HC

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,375.11 $ 1,158.40 $ 1,216.71
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 60.13 $ 14.80 $ 45.33
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,118.27 $ 751.63 $ 366.65
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 16.34 $ 729.71 $ (713.37)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 474.82 $ 1,289.05 $ (814.23) 0.071
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 2,199.86 $ 1,648.30 $ 551.56
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 3,639.24 $ 3,386.79 $ 252.45

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 960.37 $ 800.00 $ 160.37
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 3,006.80 $ 994.58 $ 2,012.21
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 3,296.03 $ 994.58 $ 2,301.44
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 3,874.20 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,600.95
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 4,162.81 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,889.56
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 678.00 $ 33.33 $ 644.66
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,365.29 $ 33.33 $ 1,331.95
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 77.00 $ 14.80 $ 62.20
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 20.93 $ 729.71 $ (708.79)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 607.98 $ 1,289.05 $ (681.07) 0.071
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 3,850.03 $ 994.58 $ 2,855.45
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 4,220.37 $ 994.58 $ 3,225.79
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 4,960.69 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,687.44
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 5,330.24 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,056.99
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 868.14 $ 33.33 $ 834.80
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 1,748.17 $ 33.33 $ 1,714.84
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 2,917.64 EB+HB
B $ 3,438.87 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 4,119.19 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 888.38 $ 1,158.40 $ (270.01)
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 22.49 $ 14.80 $ 7.69
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 418.28 $ 751.63 $ (333.35)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 6.11 $ 729.71 $ (723.60)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 177.60 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,111.45) 0.07625
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 822.83 $ 1,648.30 $ (825.47)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,361.22 $ 3,386.79 $ (2,025.57)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 140.57 $ 273.33 $ (132.77)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 320.43 $ 273.33 $ 47.10

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,124.66 $ 994.58 $ 130.07
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,232.84 $ 994.58 $ 238.26
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,449.10 $ 1,273.25 $ 175.85
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,557.05 $ 1,273.25 $ 283.80
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 253.60 $ 33.33 $ 220.26
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 510.67 $ 33.33 $ 477.34
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (2,989.73) CB+WD+WWC+FB
E $ (525.56) CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ (36.93) CB+WC+GC+HC

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,510.71 $ 1,158.40 $ 1,352.31
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 63.57 $ 14.80 $ 48.77
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,182.12 $ 751.63 $ 430.49
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 17.28 $ 729.71 $ (712.44)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 501.93 $ 1,289.05 $ (787.12) 0.07625
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 2,325.45 $ 1,648.30 $ 677.15
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 3,847.01 $ 3,386.79 $ 460.22

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 1,015.19 $ 800.00 $ 215.19
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 3,178.45 $ 994.58 $ 2,183.87
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 3,484.20 $ 994.58 $ 2,489.61
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 4,095.38 $ 1,273.25 $ 2,822.13
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 4,400.46 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,127.21
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 716.70 $ 33.33 $ 683.37
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,443.23 $ 33.33 $ 1,409.90
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 81.39 $ 14.80 $ 66.59
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 22.12 $ 729.71 $ (707.59)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 642.69 $ 1,289.05 $ (646.36) 0.07625
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 4,069.83 $ 994.58 $ 3,075.25
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 4,461.31 $ 994.58 $ 3,466.73
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 5,243.90 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,970.65
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 5,634.54 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,361.29
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 917.70 $ 33.33 $ 884.37
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 1,847.98 $ 33.33 $ 1,814.64
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 3,141.84 EB+HB
B $ 3,665.82 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 4,427.89 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 940.27 $ 1,158.40 $ (218.12)
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 23.81 $ 14.80 $ 9.01
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 442.71 $ 751.63 $ (308.92)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 6.47 $ 729.71 $ (723.24)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 187.98 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,101.07) 0.0815
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 870.89 $ 1,648.30 $ (777.41)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,440.73 $ 3,386.79 $ (1,946.06)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 148.78 $ 273.33 $ (124.56)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 339.15 $ 273.33 $ 65.82

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,190.35 $ 994.58 $ 195.77
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,304.85 $ 994.58 $ 310.27
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,533.74 $ 1,273.25 $ 260.49
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,648.00 $ 1,273.25 $ 374.75
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 268.41 $ 33.33 $ 235.08
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 540.50 $ 33.33 $ 507.17
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (2,812.33) CB+WD+WWC+FB
E $ (373.43) CB+WC+FB+HB

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,657.36 $ 1,158.40 $ 1,498.96
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 67.28 $ 14.80 $ 52.48
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,251.17 $ 751.63 $ 499.54
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 18.29 $ 729.71 $ (711.43)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 531.25 $ 1,289.05 $ (757.80) 0.0815
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 2,461.28 $ 1,648.30 $ 812.98
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 4,071.71 $ 3,386.79 $ 684.92

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 1,074.49 $ 800.00 $ 274.49
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 3,364.11 $ 994.58 $ 2,369.53
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 3,687.71 $ 994.58 $ 2,693.13
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 4,334.59 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,061.34
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 4,657.50 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,384.25
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 758.57 $ 33.33 $ 725.23
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,527.53 $ 33.33 $ 1,494.20
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 86.15 $ 14.80 $ 71.35
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 23.41 $ 729.71 $ (706.30)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 680.23 $ 1,289.05 $ (608.82) 0.0815
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 4,307.55 $ 994.58 $ 3,312.97
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 4,721.90 $ 994.58 $ 3,727.32
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 5,550.20 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,276.95
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 5,963.66 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,690.41
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 971.30 $ 33.33 $ 937.97
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 1,955.92 $ 33.33 $ 1,922.58
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 3,384.31 EB+HB
B $ 3,911.27 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 4,761.76 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 1,057.31 $ 1,158.40 $ (101.09)
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 26.77 $ 14.80 $ 11.97
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 497.81 $ 751.63 $ (253.82)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 7.28 $ 729.71 $ (722.44)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 211.37 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,077.68) 0.092
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 979.29 $ 1,648.30 $ (669.01)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,620.05 $ 3,386.79 $ (1,766.74)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 167.29 $ 273.33 $ (106.04)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 381.36 $ 273.33 $ 108.03

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,338.51 $ 994.58 $ 343.92
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,467.26 $ 994.58 $ 472.68
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,724.64 $ 1,273.25 $ 451.39
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,853.12 $ 1,273.25 $ 579.87
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 301.82 $ 33.33 $ 268.48
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 607.77 $ 33.33 $ 574.44
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (2,412.24) CB+WD+WWC+FB
D $ (935.23) CB+WC+WWB+FB+GC
E $ (30.32) CB+WC+FB+HB
H $ 1,013.43 CB+WC+GC+HD+DC

NPV
C $ (971.80) CB+WE+WWB+FB+GB+HC+EB-WC
G $ 8.75 CB+WD+WWB+GC+HE+DB+EB-WC
J $ (924.92) CB+WC+WWC+EB+GC+HC+DB-WC
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 2,988.11 $ 1,158.40 $ 1,829.72
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 75.65 $ 14.80 $ 60.85
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,406.89 $ 751.63 $ 655.27
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 20.56 $ 729.71 $ (709.15)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 597.37 $ 1,289.05 $ (691.68) 0.092
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 2,767.63 $ 1,648.30 $ 1,119.33
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 4,578.51 $ 3,386.79 $ 1,191.72

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 1,208.23 $ 800.00 $ 408.23
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 3,782.83 $ 994.58 $ 2,788.25
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 4,146.71 $ 994.58 $ 3,152.13
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 4,874.11 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,600.86
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 5,237.20 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,963.95
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 852.98 $ 33.33 $ 819.65
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,717.66 $ 33.33 $ 1,684.33
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 96.87 $ 14.80 $ 82.07
Foundation R12 FA -2347 $ (6.79) $ (1,801.52) $ (751.63)$ (1,049.89) UPV* multiplier 265.4477
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 26.33 $ 729.71 $ (703.38)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 764.90 $ 1,289.05 $ (524.15) 0.092
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 4,843.70 $ 994.58 $ 3,849.12
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 5,309.62 $ 994.58 $ 4,315.04
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 6,241.01 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,967.76
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 6,705.94 $ 1,273.25 $ 5,432.69
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 1,092.20 $ 33.33 $ 1,058.87
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 2,199.36 $ 33.33 $ 2,166.03
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 3,931.19 EB+HB
B $ 4,464.86 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 5,514.76 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 1,123.30 $ 1,158.40 $ (35.09)
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 28.44 $ 14.80 $ 13.64
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 528.89 $ 751.63 $ (222.74)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 7.73 $ 729.71 $ (721.98)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 224.57 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,064.48) 0.09725
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 1,040.42 $ 1,648.30 $ (607.88)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,721.17 $ 3,386.79 $ (1,665.62)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 177.74 $ 273.33 $ (95.60)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 405.17 $ 273.33 $ 131.83

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,422.06 $ 994.58 $ 427.47
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,558.85 $ 994.58 $ 564.27
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 1,832.29 $ 1,273.25 $ 559.04
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 1,968.79 $ 1,273.25 $ 695.54
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 320.66 $ 33.33 $ 287.32
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 645.71 $ 33.33 $ 612.38
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (2,186.63) CB+WD+WWC+FB
C $ (997.06) CB+WD+WWB+FB+GC
E $ 163.16 CB+WC+FB+HB

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 3,174.63 $ 1,158.40 $ 2,016.24
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 80.38 $ 14.80 $ 65.58
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,494.71 $ 751.63 $ 743.09
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 21.85 $ 729.71 $ (707.87)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 634.66 $ 1,289.05 $ (654.39) 0.09725
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 2,940.39 $ 1,648.30 $ 1,292.09
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 4,864.30 $ 3,386.79 $ 1,477.51

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 1,283.65 $ 800.00 $ 483.65
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 4,018.96 $ 994.58 $ 3,024.37
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 4,405.55 $ 994.58 $ 3,410.96
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 5,178.35 $ 1,273.25 $ 3,905.10
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 5,564.11 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,290.86
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 906.23 $ 33.33 $ 872.90
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 1,824.88 $ 33.33 $ 1,791.54
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 102.92 $ 14.80 $ 88.12
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 27.97 $ 729.71 $ (701.74)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 812.64 $ 1,289.05 $ (476.41) 0.09725
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 5,146.04 $ 994.58 $ 4,151.46
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 5,641.05 $ 994.58 $ 4,646.47
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 6,630.58 $ 1,273.25 $ 5,357.33
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 7,124.53 $ 1,273.25 $ 5,851.28
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 1,160.37 $ 33.33 $ 1,127.04
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 2,336.65 $ 33.33 $ 2,303.32
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 4,239.58 EB+HB
B $ 4,777.05 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 5,939.39 EB+HE
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 3.98 $ 1,272.74 $ 1,158.40 $ 114.34
R31 EB 126 $ 0.10 $ 32.22 $ 14.80 $ 17.42
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 1.88 $ 599.24 $ 751.63 $ (152.38)
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.03 $ 8.76 $ 729.71 $ (720.95)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 0.80 $ 254.44 $ 1,289.05 $ (1,034.61) 0.10775
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 3.69 $ 1,178.83 $ 1,648.30 $ (469.47)
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 6.10 $ 1,950.14 $ 3,386.79 $ (1,436.65)
92% AFUE GB 789 $ 0.63 $ 201.38 $ 273.33 $ (71.95)
94% AFUE GC 1798 $ 1.44 $ 459.07 $ 273.33 $ 185.73

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 5.04 $ 1,611.23 $ 994.58 $ 616.65
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 5.53 $ 1,766.22 $ 994.58 $ 771.64
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 6.50 $ 2,076.05 $ 1,273.25 $ 802.80
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 6.98 $ 2,230.70 $ 1,273.25 $ 957.45
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 1.14 $ 363.31 $ 33.33 $ 329.98
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 2.29 $ 731.61 $ 33.33 $ 698.28
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
B $ (1,675.77) CB+WD+WWC+FB
C $ (522.87) CB+WD+WWB+FB+GC
E $ 601.26 CB+WC+FB+HB
F $ 1,094.36 CB+WC+GC+HC
G $ 1,166.66 CB+WC+GB+HC+DB
I $ 100.82 CB+WB+WWB+FB+GB+HB+DB
J $ 1,034.17 CB+WB+WWB+GC+HC+DC

NPV
E $ (888.68) CB+WD+WWC+FB+EB+GC+DC-WC
F $ 151.86 CB+WD+WWB+FB+EB+GC+HC-WC
I $ (777.32) CB+WC+WWC+FB+EB+HC-WC
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R22 High density batt WB 1450 $ 3.27 $ 1,046.41 $ 544.92 $ 501.50 Number of Payments (N) 300
R24 1" XPS WC 4985 $ 11.26 $ 3,596.96 $ 1,158.40 $ 2,438.56
R31 EB 126 $ 0.29 $ 91.07 $ 14.80 $ 76.27
R20 batt FB 2347 $ 5.30 $ 1,693.56 $ 751.63 $ 941.93
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.08 $ 24.75 $ 729.71 $ (704.96)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.25 $ 719.09 $ 1,289.05 $ (569.96) 0.10775
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 4617 $ 10.43 $ 3,331.55 $ 1,648.30 $ 1,683.25
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 7638 $ 17.25 $ 5,511.40 $ 3,386.79 $ 2,124.61

85% AFUE OB 2015.5 $ 4.55 $ 1,454.41 $ 800.00 $ 654.41
55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 14.25 $ 4,553.60 $ 994.58 $ 3,559.02
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 15.62 $ 4,991.62 $ 994.58 $ 3,997.04
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 18.36 $ 5,867.22 $ 1,273.25 $ 4,593.97
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 19.73 $ 6,304.31 $ 1,273.25 $ 5,031.06
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 3.21 $ 1,026.78 $ 33.33 $ 993.45
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 6.47 $ 2,067.64 $ 33.33 $ 2,034.31
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV

NPV
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

R24 1" XPS WC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
R31 EB 126 $ 0.36 $ 116.61 $ 14.80 $ 101.81
R20 batt FB 0 $ - $ - $ -
R5 1" 600 mm perimeter SB 34 $ 0.10 $ 31.69 $ 729.71 $ (698.02)
R5 1" full slab SC 997 $ 2.88 $ 920.75 $ 1,289.05 $ (368.30) 0.10775
Zone B (1.8 W/m^2) WWB 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
Zone C (1.6 W/m^2) WWC 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -

55% HRV HB 6310.3 $ 18.25 $ 5,830.62 $ 994.58 $ 4,836.04
60% HRV HC 6917.3 $ 20.00 $ 6,391.48 $ 994.58 $ 5,396.90
70% HRV HD 8130.7 $ 23.51 $ 7,512.65 $ 1,273.25 $ 6,239.40
75% HRV HE 8736.4 $ 25.26 $ 8,072.30 $ 1,273.25 $ 6,799.05
DHW 0.57 EF DA 0 $ - $ - $ - $ -
0.62 EF DB 1422.9 $ 4.11 $ 1,314.74 $ 33.33 $ 1,281.41
0.67 EF DC 2865.3 $ 8.29 $ 2,647.49 $ 33.33 $ 2,614.16
SCENARIO
Discount rate 5.0%

NPV
A $ 4,937.85 EB+HB
B $ 5,483.90 FA+EB+HE

NPV
A $ 6,900.86 EB+HE

Ontario HOT2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ontario HOT2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ontario HOT2000 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of

Prescriptive Requirements for

for the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Reproduction of this publication in whole or in part is strictly prohibited without the

Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

The following tasks were completed for this study:

¾ review energy simulation programs;

Ontario has consistently been a leader in the development of

By the end of December 2011, new housing must be built to

In addition, it has been more than a decade that Ontario houses

Several alternative prescriptive compliance packages that

The requirements of ENERGY STAR® for New Homes

The following tasks were completed for this study:

¾ review energy simulation programs;

ERS 80 Analysis of 2006 OBC Ar chetype and 11 NRCan Houses

Develop New 2009 MMAH Archetype

ERS 80 Analysis of 2009 MMAH Archetype

L if e Cyc le C o st ing o f Compliance Packages

HOT2000 and the

Natural Resources Canada’s EnerGuide Rating System uses the

This section assesses the capabilities of the HOT2000 6

¾ Question 1: How easy is HOT2000 to use?

¾ Question 3: Is HOT2000 sufficiently capable at modelling all components of a house?

Respondents commented on their experience with other programs:

Some common themes from respondents’ feedback:

¾ EnergyGauge® USA Version 2.8

The effects of incremental energy efficiency improvements to

The effect of each measure on the house’s rating was

Compliance packages were generated for each climatic zone as

Final compliance packages were selected and assembled for the

Sensitivity Analysis – Upgr ad es to 2009 MMAH Archetype

2009 MMAH Archetype Toronto 76.8 0.0

2009 MMAH Archetype Sudbury 76.9 0.0

Pr oposed Compliance Packag es

Windows and Sliding

Slab >600mm B/G-

Domestic Hot Water

Ceiling R40 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50 R50

Windows and Sliding 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Basement Walls R12 R20 R12 R20 R20 R20 R20

Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31 R31

Slab >600mm B/G-

Domestic Hot Water

Ceiling R50 R50 R50

Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31

Walls Above Grade R29 R29 R29

Windows and Sliding 2 2 2

Basement Walls R19 R20 R12

Exposed Floor R25 R31 R31

Slab >600mm B/G-

Ventilation - HRV @ 55% HRV @ 75%

Domestic Hot Water EF - - -

Windows and Sliding

Slab >600mm B/G-

Domestic Hot Water EF - - - - - 0.67 - 0.62 0.67 - 0.67

Ceiling R40 R50 R50

Ceiling Below Attic R28 R31 R31

Walls Above Grade R24 R29 R29

Windows and Sliding