Page 1

Property Management A Regional report focusing on the GTA, Hamilton & Niagara November 2010 Vol.17 No 7


Cost-Effective Window Repairs

Demand Response Proposal for Union Station

Low-Risk Approvals Now Obtained On-line


Past Conduct Weighed in Environmental Considerations

Environmental Approvals Toronto’s ChemTRAC Reporting Criteria Cap-and-Trade Program Design Electronic Waste Handling Loitering Prevention Infrared Thermography Applications Cost-effective Window Retrofit Adjusting the Global Adjustment Renewable Energy Projects Approvals Demand Response for Union Station LED Advancements Glass Restoration Energy Audits with BIM

1 6 8 10 14 16 20 22 24 26 28 29 30

By John Willms

With the passage of Bill 68, the Open designated low-risk activities will simply have for Business Act, 2010, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) now has the legislative authority to begin streamlining its backlogged and unwieldy environmental approvals process. The omnibus Bill, which received Royal Assent on October 25, 2010, includes more than 100 revisions to 50 pieces of provincial legislation administered by 10 different ministries. Prominent among these is a new two-t iere d, r isk-base d appro a ch to environmental approvals, as well as an on-line applications process. Once the required regulations are in place and the on-line registry system is up and running, the proponents of any of the

to electronically self-register their intention to undertake that activity, pay the required fee, and provide the necessary financial assurance, if any is required. Once the Director acknowledges the registration, applicants will be able to proceed with the activity in accordance with any prescribed rules or conditions. The MOE estimates that a streamlined approvals process could save businesses as much as 25% of their project application costs. It also permits the Ministry to focus its resources on those proposed projects that are expected to have a more significant environmental impact and on those businesses or facilities with poor compliance records. Continued on page 4.

Take Control of Your Business.

Sophisticated, yet simple electronic controls for buildings up to 50,000 Sq. Ft. Now you can easily control all types of HVAC heating, cooling and hydronics - plus lighting and security. Clients like the simplicity of the Taco iWorX Windowsbased, firmware-driven platform, managed by either a central touch-screen or remote PC. This instant flexibility means you profit by maximizing your system efficiency anytime – from anywhere. It will also increase dependability with no need to purchase extra service contracts or new software.

The iWorX control system offers all the sophisticated features usually reserved for large building automation systems, in a user-friendly, low-cost package. Looking for a highly-capable system that’s inexpensive to install, easy to use and pays for itself year-round? Taco iWorX has everything under control.

TACO CANADA LTD. 8450 Lawson Road, Milton, ON L9T 0J8 Tel. 905-564-9422 Fax. 905-564-9436

From the Editor PUBLISHER Sean Foley EDITOR Barbara Carss Ext. 236 CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Lisa Brodeur, Eli Freedman, Carol Hochu, Michael Laurie, Shawn McDonald, Tom McKay, Gord Miller, Jennifer Reeves, Tracy Ryan, Tiffany Tsun, John Willms, Feng Yang

Rules Amass, Housekeeping Legislation Follows

ADVERTISING SALES Michael Blanchard Ext. 268

Delay is a tradeoff for diligence, and one that is justifiable to ensure that proposed projects meet standards for health, safety and environmental compliance, are in keeping with local planning goals and do not negatively affect residents and businesses in the surrounding area. No one wants to see unexamined developments arrive unannounced on the landscape, or unchecked polluters free to discharge uncontrolled substances into the air, water and soil. That said, the environmental and planning approvals processes have evolved into a labyrinthine ordeal for many applicants, particularly for project proponents who have to undertake largely redundant exercises to obtain permits from more than one regulatory authority. In some cases, as illustrated in this issue’s Energy Management feature on demand response, the spectre of a lengthy and costly process can cause applicants to drop out of the queue entirely. The Ontario government is now attempting to eliminate some of the slowdowns for certain kinds of projects. As our expert legal contributors explain, recent legislative amendments and regulations allow the government to eliminate hurdles for some applicants, support the provincial agenda for renewable power supply, and set priorities for more efficient use of Provincial staff ’s time. John Willms outlines some of the pertinent aspects of the omnibus Open for Business Act, which encompasses more than 100 amendments to 50 Provincial statutes, while Tiffany Tsun looks at the integrated approval process for the development of renewable energy, which establishes a single window for approvals and exempts many projects from environmental assessment requirements. Nevertheless, there is no express lane for complicated or contentious proposals. A new two-tier risk management approach for environmental approvals targets extra scrutiny where it is most needed, and applicants’ past conduct can also be factored into decision making. Meanwhile, renewable energy projects can still be required to undergo the federal environmental assessment process, and, of course, they must comply with Ontario Building Code requirements. Provincial and municipal legislation also underpins market conditions and operational procedures highlighted in other Energy Management and Environmental Management features in this issue. This applies to electricity pricing, electronics recycling, greenhouse gas reduction and monitoring and reporting of other pollutants. Not all of this entails direct costs or compliance requirements for all property owners and managers, but it all has implications for some facets of the real estate sector and is symptomatic of an ever increasing number of rules, guidelines, targets and directives that can potentially affect how business is conducted. Organizations will continue to be pressed to keep current and avoid the financial and reputational fallout of finding themselves in violation of legal requirements. This onslaught of environmental and energy related legislation also demonstrates why housekeeping and streamlining legislation is periodically needed.

Sean Foley Ext. 225 Steve McLinden Ext. 239 Paul Murphy Ext. 264 Senior Designer Annette Carlucci Wong Ext. 231 Production MANAGER Rachel Selbie Ext. 261 Circulation MANAGER Cindy Younan Ext. 232 Property Management Report is produced as a supplement to Canadian Property Management magazine, published 8 times a year by:

5255 Yonge St., Suite 1000 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6P4

President Kevin Brown Tel: (416) 512-8186 Fax: (416) 512-8344 E-mail:

Barbara Carss


Environmental Management NEW REGULATORY REGISTRY As of November 1, 2009, all regulatory proposals that may affect business have been posted for public notice on the province’s Regulatory Registry at http://www. and Ontario businesses then have a minimum of 45 days to review and provide comments on these proposals. The Regulatory Registry, which carries proposals that aren’t necessarily on the Environmental Registry, has been operating for the past year as part of the Open for Business initiative. Regulations affecting business now come into effect twice a year, on January 1st and July 1st. The Ontario government maintains that the two routine effective dates per year will enable businesses to better track and plan for regulatory requirements. While increasing regulatory certainty, the new “kick-in” dates will likely delay any new environmental approvals regulations to mid-2011 or January 1, 2012.

Continued from page 1. With the passage of Bill 68, the Ministry can now begin to roll out a series of regulations detailing the new approvals process. This rollout will likely take two years to complete. OMNIBUS LEGISLATION When first introduced in May 2010, the Ontario government maintained that Bill 68 would transform “the government-to-business relationship” by streamlining government services and cutting red tape. In addition to the environment-related provisions, the Bill will speed the resolution of employment standards claims; harmonize transportation and standards for transportation of dangerous goods (TDG) with other provinces; modernize the Construction Lien Act; and remove unnecessary citizenship requirements for individuals who apply for a professional engineer’s licence. Amendments likely of greatest interest to professionals and practitioners in the environmental community include not only the modernized approvals process, which fits well under “Open for Business,” but also the a u g m en t a t i on of s om e en forcem en t mechanisms. These are: • Revisions to the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) (section 157.0.1) and Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) (section 15.0.1) authorizing a Provincial Officer, for the purposes of determining compliance of a “person” with the Act or the regulations, to require persons under investigation or those employed or providing services to the “person” to respond to “reasonable enquiries”. This may be a significant augmentation of Provincial Officer powers. There is no direction on what is considered “reasonable”. Inspectors and investigators may now make enquiries by telephone and insist that employees and consultants respond. Expect some interesting developments and challenges as Provincial Officers test this section. • Provisions for administrative penalties to be

compliance approval if: “the past conduct of the holder of the approval or the applicant, or, if the holder or applicant is a corporation, of its officers and directors, affords reasonable grounds to believe that the person will not engage in the activity in accordance with this Act, the OWRA or the regulations made under either of those Acts.” A Director can also suspend or remove a registration from the Registry if the person who is engaging in the activity is in contravention of the EPA, OWRA or their regulations, or if the confirmation of registration was provided on the basis of “mistaken, false or inaccurate information.” Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act streamline approval processes for placing fill in sensitive areas and on shorelines. They are intended to ensure greater consistency in permit decisions. In line with this, on October 29, 2010, the Ministry of Natural Resources posted draft amendments to O. Reg. 97/04 that will allow Conservation Authorities’ executive committees or employees to make positive permit decisions and to extend the maximum period of a permit from 24 to 60 months.

levied by Directors and Provincial Officers against businesses that fail to comply with the requirements of registration. At the urging of Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters (CME), MOE amended the draft bill to provide that while a Director will be permitted to levy such penalties, Provincial Officer powers will require an enabling regulation. If a corporation is the target of an administrative penalty, then the order may not be issued to “an employee, officer, director or agent of the corporation.” • Other changes to sections of the EPA cover the ACCEPTED & REJECTED CHANGES A number of minor administrative changes were awarding of costs and financial assurances. made to the Bill following hearings conducted earlier this summer by the Standing Committee STREAMLINED PROCESS However, the bulk of the changes to the EPA on Finance and Economic Affairs. For example, deal with the new streamlined approvals the Minister of the Environment will have to publish, by electronic means or otherwise, process. Part II.1 of the EPA deals with environmental information about environmental compliance compliance approvals. Sections 9 and 27 of the approvals and other instruments under the EPA EPA and section 53 of the OWRA are amended or OWRA as specified in regulation. The committee refused to entertain any to require persons engaging in activities mentioned in those provisions to obtain an amendment to sections of the EPA or other Acts environmental compliance approval instead of that were not already in the version introduced for a Certificate of Approval. The Bill replaces the First Reading. This refusal eliminated a proposal requirement to obtain an approval under to consider “cumulative adverse effects” when section 53 of the OWRA with the requirement issuing regulations, guidelines, orders, approvals for an environmental compliance approval or other instruments. Several other proposed changes were voted under the EPA. Part II.2 establishes the Environmental down, including an amendment that would have Activity and Sector Registry. Persons are deemed the registration of lower risk activities as prohibited from engaging in a prescribed “instruments” under the Environmental Bill of activity unless it has been registered in the Rights. That would have required that such Registry in accordance with the regulations, the activities be posted for public notice and a 30-day Director has provided a confirmation of comment period on the registry, as well as registration, the registration is in effect and the providing a public right of appeal. The activity is engaged in according to rules government members argued that the registration process for lower risk and well understood prescribed by the regulations. In a discussion paper on the modernization activities in the as-yet-to-be-developed regulations of the Certificate of Approval process, posted to will provide the requisite public transparency. pmr the Environmental Registry on March 2, 2010, the MOE indicated that it could use an John Willms is a certified specialist in applicant’s past history of non-compliance to env ironmental law and a partner w ith weed out the bad apples. Bill 68 adds a Past Willms & Shier Environmental Lawyers. He Conduct clause to the EPA. has been named by his peers to the Best That would allow the Director to suspend, Lawyers in Canada. For more information, revoke or refuse to issue an environmental see the web site at


Environmental Management

Deadline Nears for Toronto Pollutant Disclosure Be Aware of Contaminants on Tenants’ Premises By Shawn McDonald

Toronto City Council passed its Environmental Reporting and Disclosure By-law in December 2008. As part of the bylaw, Toronto Public Health has rolled out the C h e m T R AC p r o g r a m – a n a n n u a l environmental reporting program that requires all Toronto businesses, unless specifically exempt, to report their use and release of 25 chemical compounds if they meet certain reporting criteria. Although the primary target of reporting is the business involved in the process, it is important for property owners and managers to understand that they are also responsible for tenants in their premises who may be subject to the reporting requirements. The list of target compounds can be found on Toronto Public Health’s ChemTRAC website at www.toronto. ca/chemtrac. Many of these compounds or elements are in very common use so this will affect many leased premises. ChemTRAC is similar to Environment Canada’s National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), except the reporting thresholds are significantly lower – as low as 1% of the NPRI thresholds in most cases. In addition, while many NPRI-listed substances also have an annual employee-hour threshold of 20,000 hours, ChemTRAC has not included an employee-hour threshold. The rationale behind that is to elicit reporting from small- to medium-sized organizations that currently do not meet the NPRI reporting thresholds.

As of 2009, less than 0.5% of all registered companies within Toronto’s borders report to NPRI on an annual basis, and the City’s Environmental Plan identified significant data gaps in the information available to the public on sources of contaminant releases at the local level. As a result of the lower mass reporting thresholds for the ChemTRAC program, Toronto Public Health estimates that between 4,000 and 7,000 Toronto businesses will have to report their uses and releases annually. Reported data will be made publically available. At this time, the City intends to use the program as a data collection initiative, to be enforced by City by-law officers. The ChemTRAC program is not designed with contaminant emission limits, or fees for reporting. This arguably follows the lead of other regulatory programs that have shown that increased awareness of chemical uses and releases, as well as public disclosure of that information, can motivate industry efforts to reduce without making the reductions mandatory. In Canada, the NPRI has been credited with reducing air emissions by 27% in 17 years, due largely to improved facility tracking of releases and increased public awareness of pollution sources at the community level.

depending on their North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code. Companies in the first group of sectors, listed below, should currently be monitoring their annual use and release of chemicals. If they trigger reporting, their first report will be due June 30, 2011. Educated estimates peg that number at about 2,700 companies in the Phase 1 group currently operating in Toronto. The Phase 1 industrial sectors include: • chemical manufacturers (including paint, petroleum, plastic, and pharmaceutical manufacturers); • food and beverage manufacturers; • power generators; • printing and publishing operations; • water and wastewater treatment facilities; and • wood industries (including sawmills and wood preservation; veneer, plywood and engineered wood product manufacturing; furniture manufacturing; and manufacturing of other wood products such as pallets and doors).

Companies encompassed in Phase 2 include chemical wholesalers, medical and diagnostic laboratories, waste management and remediation services, dry cleaning and laundry services, auto body repair and auto parts repair PHASED COMPLIANCE The ChemTRAC program will be rolled out to facilities and funeral services. The first reports various sectors and services over three years, for these companies will be due June 30, 2012.


Environmental Management First reports for all other facilities will be due June 30, 2013, unless otherwise exempt. SOME EXEMPTIONS The by-law provides lists of sectors and sources which are exempt from reporting. Exemptions include facilities engaged solely in retail sales, and food and accommodation services. While other commercial properties such as office buildings are not specifically exempt, the by-law does not require assessment of emissions from combustion equipment used for comfort heating. If this is the only equipment operated by a property owner or manager, then they are not required to report to ChemTRAC. However, if a property manager has tenants in any of the target sectors, such as dry cleaners, print shops or other small industrial operations, these tenants may use or release some of the target compounds, and should be made aware of their reporting obligations. In addition, any combustion equipment used to provide process heat must be assessed. Commercial, institutional and industrial facilities that have power generators that supply the grid will be considered as power generators (Phase 1 reporters) under the by-law and will need to assess and to report the emissions if the reporting thresholds are satisfied. (See related story, page 26) Facilities that use generators for their own peak shaving purposes would not be considered Phase 1 reporters and would report (or not) based on their NAICS code. Lastly, facilities that employ emergency power generators to run their HVAC and emergency systems are not considered power generators. RESOURCES Toronto Public Heath will be releasing guidance documents that will clarify some of these complexities. A number of other resources are also available to help companies assess their reporting requirements. The City of Toronto, in partnership with Toronto and Region Conservation and Partners in Project Green, is providing trained students to conduct free on-site assessments to help identify and track chemicals and products that contain or release the target contaminants. More information is available by e-mailing Toronto Public Health also has Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet calculators that can be used to estimate chemical uses and releases for different industrial sectors and sources. They will be available on the ChemTRAC website at pmr Shawn McDonald, B.Sc.Hons., is a Project Technologist with Pinchin Environmental Ltd.’s Environmental Air & Noise Group. For more information, see the web site at


of client satisfaction

Protect your company flooring investment with our comprehensive maintenance programs Carpet Cleaning & Maintenance Fabric & Leather Cleaning Cleaning Fabric Workstations Fire and Water Restoration Eco-Friendly Services and more... Contact us today for a demo at your facility

(905) 564 8024


Environmental Management

Cap-and-Trade Design Continues

Incentives to Over-Comply Could Speed GHG Reduction By Gord Miller

The Environmental Protection Amendment Act (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading), 2009 (EPAA) expands the Ontario government’s ability to make market-based regulations involving greenhouse gases (GHGs). It specifies that such market-based approaches could include – but are not limited to – emissions trading. This caveat is significant as it keeps the government’s options open to consider other ways to price carbon, such as a carbon tax or levy. The EPAA gives the government the power to make regulations prescribing: those persons and facilities to which a cap-and-trade system will apply; how the emission allowances (or permits) will be created, distributed or allocated; and how these instruments can be used, traded, reported, verified and/or retired. A cap-and-trade system in isolation cannot reduce overall emissions unless the cap is periodically ratcheted down. However, cap-andtrade can establish an incentive for industry to reduce emissions well below the regulated cap – to over-comply – in exchange for the right to sell excess permits to others who may need them for compliance purposes. Proponents of tradable permit systems stress that greater emission reductions occur under a cap-and-trade system than under conventional command-and-control regulations because, under the latter, no one is overtly rewarded for overcompliance. However, tradable permit systems do not replace regulation. They work best when they are supported by strong regulatory frameworks. The Province has positioned a cap-and-trade regime as a key element in its Climate Change Action Plan, designed to help Ontario meet its 2020 target to reduce GHG emissions by 15% below 1990 levels. In recognition of the economic linkages between Ontario and the rest of North America, the amendment also sets the administrative foundation for the trading of allowances across jurisdictions. This reflects the Province’s desire to ensure that the eventual design of its cap-and-trade system can be harmonized with other North American systems currently under development. In July 2008, Ontario joined the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), a collaboration of U.S. states and Canadian provinces working towards a common framework for the design and implementation of a tradable permit system.

design, operation and administration of any cap-and-trade system consider that the Ontario economy is closely linked with the North American and global economies. Commenters disagreed on how emission permits/allowances should be distributed and one energy company expressed concern about the potential impact of market speculation on carbon price volatility. Several commenters voiced a preference for a carbon tax instead of a cap-and-trade regime, noting concerns about the administrative costs and complexities of designing, operating, adjudicating and enforcing a tradable permit system. They noted that a carbon tax provides a “stable, predictable cost of carbon” and that “having predictable emission prices makes it easier for emitters to make decisions about… investments to reduce emissions.” The challenge for the Ontario government is to ensure sufficient harmonization between its domestic GHG trading regime and the respective regulations of other WCI members. Ontario plans to seek the middle ground on the allocation of allowances and the use of offsets. Still-to-be-proclaimed provisions in the EPAA would give the Province discretion to decide the percentage of allowances to be auctioned and the role of offsets as a compliance mechanism to address competitiveness issues. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario notes that a provision in the WCI’s design recommendations provides for the WCI to intervene to “address… competitiveness VAGUENESS & VULNERABILITIES The majority of commenters participating in issues” between WCI partner jurisdictions public hearings stressed the need to ensure that the regarding the distribution of allowances if it is 8 november 2010 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT

determined that a member jurisdiction is favourably considering local industry. It remains to be seen if Ontario will actually cede sovereignty over such a crucial provincial policy issue. This reluctance to cede sovereignty may apply equally to other WCI partners and calls into question the ultimate viability of the WCI as a suitable platform for trading. The Environmental Commissioner is also sensitive to commenters’ concerns about the potential for Ontario industry to be placed at a competitive disadvantage. These concerns relate primarily to the regulation’s treatment of the cost of carbon and how this will affect the province’s trade position in North America and the rest of the world. Addressing this issue is not an easy task, given the lack of climate change policy direction at the Canadian federal level and the uncertainty surrounding the climate change agenda in the U.S. Congress. One of the key objectives of Ontario’s Climate Change Action Plan, in addition to reducing GHG emissions, is to “support the transition to a low-carbon economy.” If implemented wisely the Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 may be the gamechanger Ontario needs to achieve more aggressive GHG reduction targets, either through a tradable permit system or by other means. pmr Gord Miller is the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. The preceding article is an excerpt from his Annual Report 2009/2010. The complete text can be found on the Commissioner’s web site at








BOTHWELL-ACCURATE B U I L D I N G E N V E L1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(52 OPE CONTRACTORS BOTHWELL-ACCURATE &22/522),1* :$ *5((1&22/522),1* Â&#x2021; 'HVLJQDWHG6XEVWDQFH6XUYH\V 0DUEOH*UDQLWH5HVWRUDWLRQ /,*+7:(,*+7&21&5(7(522) Â&#x2021;0ROG$VVHVVPHQWV E S T A B Â&#x2021;,QGRRU$LU4XDOLW\7HVWLQJ ,168/$7,216<67(06

2),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1* E

























BUILDING ENVELOPE CONTRACTORS 7(53522),1* :$7(53522),1*Â&#x2021;75$)), 62/$5396<67(0,167$//(56



0(7$/&/$'',1* 6,',1*/,*+7:(,*+7&21&5(7

1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1* 7(&785$/)$6&,$ *5((1&22/522),1* ,168/$7,216<67( $5&+,7(&785$/0(7$/3$1(/6 (1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( 1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1* BOTHWELL-ACCURATE *5((1&22/522),1* 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( *5((1&22/522) :$7(53522),1* BUILDING ENVELOPE CONTRACTORS :$7(53522),1*Â&#x2021;75$)),&7233,1*6 E
















 1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1* BOTHWELL-ACCURATE 0(7$/&/$'',1* ZEDURRIFRP *5((1&22/522),1* BUILDING ENVELOPE CONTRACTORS E






























/,*+7:(,*+7&21&5(7(522) 0(7$/&/$'',1* 62/$5396<67(0,167 ,168/$7,216<67(06 1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1*

*5((1&22/522),1* $5&+,7(&785$/)$6&,$ 0(7$/&/$'',1* 6 :$7(53522),1*Â&#x2021;75$)),&7233,1*6 :$7(53522),1* 62/$5396<67(0,167$//(56 $5&+,7(&785$/)$6&,$ /,*+7:(,*+7&21&5(7(522) INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( 1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1* $5&+,7(&785$/0(7$ 0(7$/&/$'',1* ,168/$7,216<67(06 INSTITUTIONAL 1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1* BOTHWELL-ACCURATE 0(7$/&/$'',1* 6,',1* *5((1&22/522),1* 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( B U I L D I N $5&+,7(&785$/)$6&,$ G ENVELOPE CONTRACTORS *5((1&22/522),1* :$7(53522),1*Â&#x2021;75$)),&7233,1*6 $5&+,7(&785$/0(7$/3$1(/6 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6 :$7(53522),1* 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( 1(:522),1*Â&#x2021;5(522),1* 0(7$/&/$'',1*

*5((1&22/522),1* $5&+,7(&785$/)$6&,$

3 3 :$7(53522),1* 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( ZZZEDURRIFRP ZZZEDURRIFRP 0(7$/&/$'',1*

62/$5396<67(0,167$//(56 /,*+7:(,*+7&21&5(7(522) 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( ,168/$7,216<67(06 0(7$/&/$'',1* 6,',1* *5((1&22/522),1* $5&+,7(&785$/0(7$/3$1(/6 62/$5396<67(0,167$//(56 0$,17(1$1&(Â&#x2021;6(59,&( PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT November 2010 9 0(7$/&/$'',1* 6,',1*


INDUSTRIAL $5&+,7(&785$/)$6&,$



Environmental Management

Clutter Control Meets Resource Reclamation Electronics Collection Easy to Arrange in ICI Buildings By Carol Hochu

In Ontario, it’s estimated that 91,000 tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment are available for reuse, refurbishment and recycling each year, but only about 25% of that waste is managed properly. The rest is sent to landfill or – worse – exported to unknown and possibly unregulated locations outside Canada. Improper disposal of items such as computers, cell phones and televisions causes several problems. For starters, there are significant security risks. Discarded computers and other items with hard drives or SIM cards that haven’t been properly erased or destroyed can leave potentially sensitive information exposed to misuse. Then there are the environmental considerations. Much of today’s e-waste contains potentially harmful components like batteries, mercury, lead, inks and toners. It’s especially important to divert as much of this material as possible from landfill where it can leach into the soil and affect water quality. Simply discarding electronic

items also represents a waste of resources since many electronic products contain valuable materials that can be recycled into the manufacturing of next-generation electronics. Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) is a not-for-profit organization charged with implementing the provincial government’s

Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (also called e-waste) program. It draws its mandate from Ontario’s Waste Diversion Act, 2002, and is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors representing the electronic industry supply chain. OES responsibilities cover a wide scope, including: developing a collection system of




December 1-3, 2010

Metro Toronto Convention Centre South Building


Strategies, Ideas & Solutions at Your Fingertips

Canada’s largest annual exposition of products, services and technologies for building maintenance, retrofit, management and operations.


• New Products • Green Products • Educational Seminars • Technical Demonstrations • Product Updates • Industry Contacts ©2010 MMPC Expositions ULC.

Environmental Management depots and events; ensuring accurate awareness, research and development and tracking of waste electronics from collection continuous improvements in technology to their final destination; and raising and program execution. awareness via a province-wide promotion Businesses and residents in Ontario can and education campaign. now drop off unwanted items at one of Manufacturers, importers and assemblers more than 600 collection points across the of electronics in Ontario, collectively called province, where OES will ensure that the stewards, pay fees to fund the OES and its material is reused, refurbished or recycled programs. This covers the program’s direct properly. To meet that commitment, OES costs of collection, transportation, end-of- has established a system to track electronic DBS_Aug07_SOLISCO.pdf 7/31/07 12:41:42 PM life management and administration. Funds waste from the point of collection through are also used for public education and to final destination.

Midway through its second year, the program has registered a 110% year-overyear performance improvement. As well, this fall OES worked with municipalities and other collection partners to host e-waste collection events in 14 cities across the province, featuring a mobile electronics recycling centre. Though the final figures are not in, at last check the tour had collected 240 tonnes of e-waste. Any commercial, multi-residential or institutional building can become an OESapproved collection site. To do so, building owners/managers must meet performance and compliance requirements, but are then eligible for a weight-based financial incentive for the designated materials that they receive, sort and prepare for transport. Service providers transporting the material must also be OES-approved. OES also provides events consulting for managers who sponsor e-drives in their buildings. This could be integrated into other tenant services and tenant education programs to help build awareness of the importance of recycling, while promoting the location of recycling drop-off stations within the building. pmr Carol Hochu is the Executive Director of the Ontario Electronic Stewardship. For more information, see the web sites at www. r e c y c l e y o u r e l e c t r o n i c s . c a o r w w w.

Items accepted under the Ontario e-waste program



• Amplifiers • Audio and video players and recorders (DVD and VCR players) • Cameras • Cell phones • Computers and peripherals • Copiers • Fax machines • Monitors • Pagers and PDAs • Printers • Radios • Receivers • Scanners • Speakers • Telephones and answering machines • Tuners • Turntables • Televisions • Video projectors



Multifamily Program Need to reduce your energy and maintenance costs?

Want to demonstrate and inspire energy saving practices with your residents? Better Buildings Partnership can help you reach your energy goals Attractive energy retrofit incentives Energy audit assistance )nteresT&REELoans Technical assistance Third party support Resident education Multifamily Energy Efficiency Rebates now available 416-392-1500 Building a better energy future

Environmental Design

Hangouts Hampered

Design Assessment Can Identify Lures for Loitering By Tom McKay

Loitering is a common nuisance that many property managers tend to overlook, particularly when they are focusing valuable time and resources on more serious and pressing problems. Unfortunately, though, unstructured loitering is frequently a cause of those more pressing problems – taking the form of criminality and/or related property damage. Unstructured loitering is a very popular activity among a youthful demographic that can be fraught with social and behavioural risk. It typically occurs in publicly owned or publicly accessible settings where interlopers perceive a weak or unclear sense of ownership and two or more of the following risk factors are present. Convenience Loitering is most likely to occur in convenient and known locations in areas where ownership is weak, or during times of limited or weak monitoring and control. This can include walkways, hallways, stairwells, poorly observed places, schools, community centres, parks etc. or any combination thereof. Examples of these types of environments include school hallways when classes are in session (private space with weak ownership) or playgrounds after dusk (public space with weak ownership). However, convenience isn’t always the driving factor where loitering occurs in an out-of-the way location where the owner/ manager’s control is non-existent. In such cases, loiterers will be prepared to travel farther or overcome significant barriers on the property because they are drawn to the prospect of having full control of the space. This might be deep inside a naturalized area or the roof of a building, for example.

Comfort Comfort is a relative factor that distinguishes one setting from another according to its ability to provide for the comfortable passage of time. Comfortable settings must first and foremost be able to physically support loitering as a longterm activity. This generally requires open space or a lack of conflicting traffic where space is at a premium, such as a sidewalk. Comfort also encompasses the availability of basic creature comforts. This can include intentional comforts such as a park bench, or improvised seating arranged in socially conducive settings – such as logs, ledges and/or walls. Heat can be another source of comfort, and can be intentional or unintentional – such as when derived from a ventilation source. Concealment Concealment offers basic cover for loiterers at or near grade or on a specific level or floor of a structure. It typically takes the form of physical objects, such as landscaping and/or structures, and can partially or completely obscure the surrounding area. Indeed, complete concealment may actually inhibit loitering by hiding potential areas from loiterers’ attention. Loiterers can benefit from directional concealment when the area is located away from the general direction of travel. They can also exploit elements of the environment to disguise their purposes. This is known as purpose concealment and occurs, for example, when perpetrators stand in a bus shelter for the purpose of dealing drugs or use a telephone booth to avoid suspicion. Because it happens in the open, it is not readily controlled.


Canopy/cover Canopy extends beyond the basic forms of concealment and offers a level of overhead protection from the elements and/or prying eyes. It can take constructed (overhang) or natural (forest) forms, and typically serves to give loiterers within the space a heightened sense of security. Cover is a complete form of canopy, typically provided by a roof system (e.g. gazebos), but may simply be the “cover of darkness”. The sense of cover provided by a roof system may be reduced by the volume of a space. Unstructured loitering typically occurs in at-risk environments that hold wide appeal to a youthful demographic and are susceptible to opportunity crimes. As such, they can become rallying points, which, when combined with loitering, serve as an incubator for delinquent tendencies. This can result in criminal activity and/or a number of associated risks. These risks can include increased fear among the general population which, if severe enough, can lead to avoidance behaviour; desensitization to the presence of strangers/furnishing of an excuse; purpose concealment with respect to staging or engaging in a criminal act; and economic loss. THE KNOW LOITERING MATRIX The Know Loitering Matrix was developed as a space and design assessment tool for the purpose of assessing and understanding the potential of loitering as a risk. It is presented in the form of a risk management matrix and was developed from the perspective of the undesired loiterer. (See page 15) The matrix characterizes space as either private or publicly accessible with the only other distinction being weak or strong ownership. This creates four distinctive types of space, commonly categorized into private, semi-private, semi-public and public space. Risk is then factored into the matrix and ranked according to the number of risk factors present. Convenience is typically a factor for any given location, while cover is common to most internal applications. The insights gained from the Know Loitering matrix can be used to predict and mitigate loitering and its related problems. For example, a building’s structural outcroppings, such as pipes and railings, offer a place to sit, which in turn provides comfort. If

Environmental Design

Constable Tom McKay is a Crime Prevention Officer with the Peel Regional Police, a practitioner of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and the originator of the Know Loitering Matrix. He can be reached at


























Reduce Your Lighting Costs By 20-40%

Image courtesy of Constable Tom McKay

those factors are then combined with convenience and a publicly accessible location where ownership can be weak, the resulting risk rating indicates that incidents or disturbances are “more likely than not” to occur. Designs should be assessed at the planning stage for their potential to attract unstructured loitering, which will then allow planners, designers and/or property managers to modify the plan and/or include features that should minimize the risk. That might mean reducing the presence of benchlike surfaces and alcoves; controlling access; strengthening the perception of the owner/ manager’s presence; or fundamentally changing the nature of the space. The Know Loitering Matrix should also be used to encourage and support the development of structured loitering areas. Structured loitering areas should be designed to have a rating of “somewhat likely” or “less likely” to accommodate inappropriate behaviour. pmr

OPA incentives available today!

• Deploy in minutes, not months • Immediately reduce your carbon footprint • Fast pay back Visit us at Booth #2017, PM EXPO

Winner of the Deloitte Technology Green 15TM Award and the Celestica Award for Technology Commercialization

shrinking carbon footprints one watt at a time™ • 416.265.5907 • 1.855.265.5907 (toll free) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT November 2010 15

Energy Management

A Starting Point for Energy Upgrades

Infrared Inspections Detect Anomalies and Easy Fixes By Tracy Ryan

Infrared thermography is a practical and proven tool to predict and prevent electrical and mechanical failures. Building sciences engineers, insurance providers and even government now stress the value of inspections to maintain equipment at optimal service levels, and facilitate worker and tenant safety and comfort. If building and facilities managers want to tap into the many incentives and rebates now offered to increase energy efficiency and upgrade buildings, it is crucially important to understand the building as a whole. Infrared thermography applications offer a clear picture of energy-wasting deficiencies throughout the entire structure including the electrical system, HVAC system, plumbing, glazing, insulation, caulking and roofing structure. ELECTRICAL APPLICATIONS An infrared electrical inspection typically finds anomalies caused by electrical resistance, short circuits, inductive currents and energized grounds. High electrical resistance is the most common. ANSI_ASHRAE 101: Application of Infrared Sensing Devices to the Assessment of Building Heat Loss Characteristics states: “When the current is relatively constant and

resistance is higher than it should be, additional power is dissipated and a thermal anomaly occurs. This is always costly and frequently dangerous. The cost factor is manifold. First the connection dissipates valuable watts in the form of unwanted heat instead of useful work. Second, the increased resistance causes an additional voltage drop and results in increased current to the load with no increase in work. Third, the elevation in temperature causes accelerated aging, which necessitates earlier equipment replacement.” MECHANICAL APPLICATIONS Infrared inspections usually include inspecting the mechanical apparatus in the building

including HVAC systems and elevator controls. The most common anomalies found are within rotating machinery and motors. Problems are usually caused by friction generated by worn, contaminated or over/ under lubricated bearings and couplings and misaligned shafts. Deteriorated lubricant in a motor will cause temperature increases at the location of the bearing, while a misaligned shaft will cause unequal loading and temperature increases at the point of highest mechanical resistance. Thermographic inspection of pipes and valves is also an important part of reducing energy usage. Steam traps, fluid transfer lines and piping insulation should be thermally inspected for deficiencies or leaks on a regular basis. Subsurface leaks and anomalies, such as those found in ramp heating systems and in-floor radiant heating are easily identified by a thermographer. Ramp heating system failure not only wastes energy, but is a safety concern that can’t be ignored in the winter.

Images courtesy of IRIS

BUILDING ENVELOPE & THERMAL BRIDGING Conducting a thermal inspection of the building envelope is the most obvious method of detecting energy loss in any type of building structure, from the single-family residential unit to the 50-storey high-rise. The latest thermal imaging equipment provides the thermographer with a 640 x 480 (307,200 infrared pixels) resolution, making the inspection of a high-rise 16 times more detailed and accurate than older models that were 320 x 240 (76,800 infrared pixels). It is important that the building manager have an understanding of the equipment used to conduct a thermal building envelope inspection to ensure the most accurate results. 16 november 2010 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT

• Commercial • Industrial • Institutional •

Specializing in complete interior renovations 905-625-9153


F. 905-625-5351 5359 Timberlea Blvd.,Unit 33 Mississauga, Ontario L4W 4N5

Servicing businesses across Canada

Energy Management Typical causes of heat loss and energy deficiencies in the building envelope are insulation voids, thermal bridging, deteriorating curtain wall and exterior building materials, deteriorating sealants and caulking and poor performance of glazing, particularly under solar loading. Sealing issues are very easily pinpointed in an infrared inspection, and the subsequent repairs are very cost-effective measures for energy savings. Glazing and shading solar performance can also be measured efficiently with infrared thermography by testing the indoor surface temperature of the material to evaluate how much cooling – or heating – is being wasted due to solar gain. In contrast, thermal bridging is a structural issue that is not easily resolved. That occurs when a thermal conductive material penetrates or bypasses an insulation system – a metal fastener, concrete beam, slab or column. Thermal bridging causes decreased interior surface temperatures sometimes leading to condensation problems, significant heat loss and cold areas within the building. Engineers conclude that thermal bridging degrades insulation value by an average of 15%-25% in wood frame construction and up to 100% for metal framed wall systems, adding

Infrared thermography applications offer a clear picture of energy-wasting deficiencies throughout the entire structure. Energy audits are now recognized as the starting point of any program to upgrade HVAC and building controls and introduce energy efficiency measures, but savvy energy managers and building operators are widening that scope to include a comprehensive look, via infrared thermography, at all the building’s systems. That will support the energy audit’s results and help identify the most cost-effective repairs and upgrades. pmr to HVAC and ongoing energy costs forever. They stress the importance of evaluating the building envelope system in tandem with the HVAC system.

We Manage the Quality of Your Lifestyle. Not Just Your Building.

At Samuel Property Management Ltd., we are one of Toronto’s most respected rental, condominium, commercial, office and retail managers, providing a level of service that goes well beyond your expectations. Discover a level of personal attention, commitment and care superior to anything you have yet experienced. After all, your home deserves the best. For information, please call Gino Sisera or John Wannamaker at (416) 398-5757

1120 Finch Ave. West, Suite 801 Toronto, ON M3J 3H7 Tel: (416) 398-5757 • Fax: (416) 398-4988

Tracy Ryan is Director of Sales and Marketing for IRIS Maintenance Infrared Imaging Solutions. For more information, see the web site at

7<kbb<_h[Fhej[Yj_edI[hl_Y[Fhel_Z[h >HD.%%&/'%%%8:GI>;>:9

')=g:bZg\ZcXnHZgk^XZ BV^ciZcVcXZ 8dYZIZhi^c\ ;^gZ6aVgbHnhiZbh ;^gZHeg^c`aZgHnhiZbh ;^gZVcY7ddhiZgEjbeh EdgiVWaZ;^gZ:mi^c\j^h]Zgh Hbd`Z8dcigda (gYEVginKZg^ÒXVi^dc H^iZEZghdccZaIgV^c^c\

)&+'.'%*.. .%*,-+&&.+ mmm$^WhZ_d]Óh[$Yec 18 november 2010 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT 10089 Samuel march condo.indd 1

2009074_PropertyManagement.FINAL.indd 1 3/31/10 4:51:40 PM

10/15/09 12:07:39 PM

Energy Management

Draft-Free, Debt-Free

$132,000 Project Forestalls $1.6-million Window Replacement

Photos courtesy of Peel Condo Corp. #260

By Jennifer Reeves

After 25 years, the Ritz Towers in Brampton required major overhauls of several key building systems and components, including water pipes, boilers and elevators. It was a major undertaking, but the Board of Directors of Peel Condominium Corporation #260 and Leonora Frangella, the Property Manager with EcoCondos Management Services, accomplished the upgrades with the help of an energy management firm. Thanks to the reserve fund and the right expertise, the building was renovated without borrowing a cent. Only one more task remained on the to-do list: new windows. Over the years, the building had shifted, causing misalignment and, therefore, gaps in the slider windows. The resulting drafts made the units very uncomfortable for the building’s older residents. Furthermore, energy was wasted at significant rates as the HVAC system overcompensated for air leakage. In the winter months, residents would crank up the heat, only for it to rise up through the structure and escape out the top of the building. As the warm air left, it reduced pressure on lower levels, drawing in yet more cold air – i.e. stack effect.

However, the estimated cost to replace the windows was $1.6 million – a price that the condo corporation simply couldn’t afford. Nor would the Board of Directors consent to a special assessment to raise the necessary funds. The Board calculated that reserves could be built up to fund the project within 12 years, but the residents needed some kind of solution in the interim. Happily, the condo corporation’s energy management contractor suggested a building envelope consultant that could help address the air leakage dilemma. Upon investigation, the Board endorsed a plan to spend $132,000 to repair the existing windows and redirect the resulting


energy savings to eventually pay for new windows. Using its own proprietary forecast software, the building envelope specialist estimated that the project could save the condo corporation nearly $29,500 per year. (This would also result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 329,465 kilograms every year.) Discovering that traditional weatherstripping wouldn’t work on the meeting rails, the project manager decided to put extruded metal on the meeting rail to take out the gap. “It was unique, but it functioned well and solved their immediate problems,” reports Jim Bunting, Senior Client Advisor at Canam Building Envelope Specialists.

In one year, the air-sealing window repairs saved the building nearly $22,000 in utilities alone.

Energy Management

“It has been proven that with smart money management, special assessment and borrowing money is not always the route to go. In fact, this building has been the model for other boards and corporations to see how we rebuilt the infrastructure, without imposing financial stress on the residents.” Another element of the project involved sealing the elevator shafts, doors to the emergency stairs, garbage chutes and electrical penetrations to control air flow within the building, and to allow the HVAC system to do its job more effectively. For the residents, the repairs have allowed them to sit comfortably in their solariums without floor heaters and extra blankets – and they can do so while enjoying debt-free status. “For a corporation to do all of the necessary retrofits and repairs without incurring any debt is fantastic. It shows that it is a well-managed building,” Bunting observes. The repairs also brought a quick and noticeable drop in operating costs – with a year-end saving of nearly $22,000 in utilities alone. “The project is paying for itself and, come next year, our focus will be to rebuild our reserve fund,” says Gerry Pickering, President of the Board of Directors. “It has been proven that with smart money management, special assessment and borrowing money is not always the route to go,” Frangella asserts. “In fact, this building has been the model for other boards and corporations to see how we rebuilt the infrastructure, without imposing financial stress on the residents.” The lifespan of the repair is projected to last about seven years, which now gives the Board more time to save for new windows. Even then, Bunting notes that the weatherstripping won’t be the vulnerable factor. “The life of the weatherstripping is 20 to 25 years. If the building continues to shift, it will get new holes, but they won’t be due to weatherstripping,” he maintains. pmr The preceding article is provided by Canam Building Envelope Specialists, the contractor/ project manager for the work at the Ritz Towers in Brampton. For more information, see the web site at

Leaking Pipes? Let Us Restore Them In-Place To a Better Than New Condition

No More Rip and Replace Ask us about our Neofit and Pipes Down Under lining technologies


• Ontario Building Code Approved • 10 Year Warranty • Improved Water Quality - Reduced Lead + Metal Content • BPA FREE • Improved Water Flow • Better than a New Pipe • Turn Key Installation • Certified to NSF 61

Epoxy Application parameters developed with our PIPE SHIELD™ BELT (blown epoxy lining technology) software program, developed with the assistance of NRC-IRAP and the University of Toronto

Pipe Shield™ AN500 Epoxy is manufactured with non-toxic base ingredients Division of:

“Experience you can count on on since 1985”

Toll Free: 1.800.463.0251 • Tel: 905.670.7481 • Fax: 905.670.7483 Email: •

Bradley Mechanical PMR.indd 1


10-08-13 12:31 PM

Energy Management

Ontario Electricity Prices Defy Market Logic Global Adjustment is Almost Consistently a Surcharge By Lisa Brodeur

Pending changes in the application of the Global Adjustment on large consumers’ electricity bills could have some significant ramifications for companies that are struggling through tough economic times. Efforts to encourage large electricity consumers to reduce peak demand will actually cost them more money in the short term if they do, since they’ll be locked into a long-term formula for calculating their portion of the Global Adjustment charge. The Global Adjustment – which is more often identified as the Provincial Benefit on consumers’ electricity bills – is a monthly price adjustment to reflect the difference between the Hourly Ontario Energy Price (HOEP) and the contracted price that the Ontario government has established with electricity generators in the province. Initially, this adjustment tended to be delivered as a rebate to consumers, but this has not been the case since early in 2007. In the last 18-20 months the line cost of the Global Adjustment has actually exceeded the price that consumers are paying for the HOEP on 11 occasions. The electricity market in Ontario is constantly changing. Recently, the manufacturing sector has experienced decreasing demand, while the provincial government continues to encourage increase in supply – in particular through renewable energy and the new Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program. Renewable energy, albeit green and more environmentally friendly than coal or nuclear, is also guaranteed much higher set prices and continues to escalate the cost of the Global Adjustment/Provincial Benefit. Added supply and the softening of thermal fuel pricing (oil, natural gas) should typically bring prices down – as is the rule of thumb with market economics – but fixed prices established for existing power generation and incentives for new renewable energy have actually increased costs in Ontario. For consumers, too, the Global Adjustment/Provincial Benefit remains consistent regardless of when power is used, which does not support the Province’s efforts to encourage electricity consumers to conserve energy during on-peak hours.

However, the Ministry of Energy is altering how large electricity consumers are classified, splitting them up into groups A or B in an effort to provide large consumers with an incentive to reduce consumption at times of peak demand. Class A consumers are organizations with a monthly demand (determined by the greatest amount of energy used over the course of a 60-minute interval every month) of 5 megawatts (MW) or greater. Class B encompasses the remaining consumers, as well as any new consumers to the marketplace. Once classified, the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which is responsible for day-to-day oversight of the system, will identify and publish the 5 peak hours chosen for the reporting period. The reporting period will be a one-year interval from May 1 to April 30 of the following year. (Beginning in July 2011, this would mean May 1, 2010 to April 30, 2011. Prior to this, an interim reporting period of May 1 to October 31, 2010 will be used). Once these peak hours are established, peak demand factors for each Class A consumer will be calculated according to the consumer’s percentage of contribution to the overall system demand during those times. If a Class A consumer is assessed to be responsible for 5% of peak demand during the 5 peak hours of the reporting period, that consumer will be allocated 5% of the total system-wide Global Adjustment charge for the billing period (billing period is typically CHANGES CREATE TWO monthly). Even if that demand drops over the CONSUMER CLASSES Until now, all large electricity consumers in course of the year, the identified demand factor Ontario who pay the HOEP have been charged would be applied and would not be reviewed the Provincial Benefit on a volumetric basis. again until the next reporting period. 22 november 2010 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT

VOLUMETRIC RATE COULD RISE OR FALL Class B consumers will continue to be charged a rate based on the remaining total Global Adjustment cost divided by the total volume of consumption from Class B consumers. This means that Class B consumers will continue to be charged a volumetric rate that could be greater or less than their current volumetric rate, depending on the number of Class A consumers. Class B consumers should also be aware that local distribution companies (LDCs) will have the flexibility to modify the Global Adjustment. Hydro utilities will have the option to bill a Class B customer based on either an estimated or actual rate, subject to certain conditions that have yet to be outlined. Customers will not be made aware of their actual rate until they receive their bills, beginning January 1, 2011. “It will be more important than ever for consumers to be aware of their load profile and how to interpret the bills they are receiving from their electrical utilities. The best way to do this is through strong monitoring programs and understanding what equipment or process affects the load profile,” observes David Arkell, President and CEO of the energy consulting firm, 360 Energy Inc. “It is always best to be fully prepared for the good and the bad, and really knowing your energy market, as those costs change on a monthly basis, is one place to begin.” pmr Lisa Brodeur is Quality Assurance Supervisor with 360 Energy Inc., an energy services and energy management consulting firm. For more information, see the web site at

Structural Contracting Ltd.

50 Years of Proven

Construction Reliability

Structform International Ltd. • Structural Floor Finishing Limited • Structural Roofing And Waterproofing Limited

• Building Restoration • Parking Garage Repairs • Caulking and Brick Repairs • Expansion Joint Repairs • Waterproofing Repairs • EIFS and/or Cladding Repairs • much more.


84 Passmore Ave. Toronto ON, M1V 4S9 Tel: 416.291.7576 Fax: 416.291.4868 Please contact: John Ienco @ 416.320.8607

Energy Management

Approval Queue Eases

Ontario Overrides Municipal Planning Controls for Green Energy By Tiffany Tsun

Ontario’s energy regulatory framework underwent significant changes over the past year as the Province created a new approval regime for renewable energy projects. This includes solar, wind, biomass and hydropower energy generation. Renewable energy projects were formerly subject to the same approval requirements for all other energy projects and the new streamlined process is part of the effort to encourage investment in and development of its renewable energy supply. The recent reforms could make it easier for building owners and managers to incorporate green energy technology into building retrofits. For example, small scale energy projects, such as solar panels and wind generators, could be more easily installed on walls or roof-tops of existing buildings.

simplify the approval process for renewable energy projects. Changes were made to the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Planning Act in order to establish a new integrated Renewable Energy Approval process. These amendments are consistent with the government’s efforts to create a streamlined regulatory framework for renewable energy producers, and they coincided with the enactment of the Green Energy Act, 2009.

EXISTING STATUTES AMENDED In 2009, Ontario introduced legislative amendments to a number of statutes in order to 24 november 2010 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT

Prior to the amendments, a green energy project, depending on the site and nature of the project, had to obtain multiple approvals including environmental assessments, certificates of approval, and permits to take water, while municipalities could delay or block renewable energy projects using their land use control power. This decentralized energy approval process contributed to delays and increased costs for proponents, sometimes making green energy projects economically unfeasible. Now, the new integrated process for renewable energy projects establishes a single approval regime (at least at the provincial level) managed by the Ministry of the Environment. As a result, renewable energy projects are mostly exempted from the approval process under the Environmental Assessment Act and are no longer subject to land use controls passed under Part V of the Planning Act, such as municipal Official Plans and zoning by-laws. One of the objectives of the integrated approval system is to remove the procedural barriers that can hinder green energy production from large-scale renewable energy development such as cogeneration and bio-energy generation. The new regime eliminates a patchwork of local approval requirements, while ensuring that some important environmental protections remain in place. The Province has also created the Renewable Energy Facilitation Office, which it promotes as a “one-window access point for information on renewable energy project requirements.” Applications for Renewable Energy Approval must still be supported by the required documents. Ontario Regulation 359/09 defines these as reports on project description, construction plans, consultation, design and operations reports, decommissioning plans and any additional reports required, depending on the renewable energy sources.

The recent reforms could make it easier for building owners and managers to incorporate green energy technology into building retrofits.

Energy Management EXEMPTIONS, INCENTIVES, REMAINING OBSTACLES Other noteworthy implications of the statutory changes include the following: â&#x20AC;˘ Exemption from Approval Process for Certain Projects Exempted projects include wind turbines generating power output of 3 kilowatts (kW) or less and solar panels with a power output of 10 kW or less. Under the Green Energy Act, 2009, certain renewable energy projects have been designated as priorities, including roof or wallmounted solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, roof or wall-mounted solar thermal air and water heating systems and ground source heat pumps. The designation has the effect of further exempting these energy projects from any approval requirements outside the renewable energy approval regime. â&#x20AC;˘ Cost Recovery through Feed-in Tariff Programs One of the most prominent elements of the Green Energy Act, is the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s FIT program for procuring new renewable energy generation. Renewable energy producers have the opportunity to sell excess power at guaranteed rates over longterm contracts. This includes two separate streams for generators with power output greater than 10 kW and the microFIT program for generators with output of 10 kW or less. The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) now issues contracts to purchase power from successful applicants at guaranteed rates for 20 years or 40 years for water power projects. Previously, the Province had procured new renewable energy sources by issuing requests for proposals to large-scale producers and through the Renewable Energy Standard Offer Program (RESOP) from small-scale generators. The new FIT program allows proponents to develop new renewable projects on their own initiative rather than in response to the provinceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s periodic requests for proposals, and it offers above-market tariff rates as a stimulus to green energy generation development. Aside from this new approval regime, renewable energy projects remain subject to other approvals from federal requirements and municipal building code requirements. Individual proponents also must work with local energy distributors to meet connection obligations for electricity transmission under the Electricity System Approval process. Additional approval requirements outside the renewable energy approval could also apply depending on the location of the property. pmr Tiffany Tsun is an Associate practicing law with WeirFoulds LLP. For more information, see the web site at

While our competitors are just starting to â&#x20AC;&#x153;go greenâ&#x20AC;?...


905.761.9411~ Keypads

Card Readers

Panic Stations

24/ 7

Emergency Phones Cameras


Entry/Exit Doors



24/7 Your Property.

Monitored, Managed and Secure




Energy Management

Easy Money Found Elsewhere

Standby Power Difficult to Deploy for Demand Response By Barbara Carss

A requisite capital investment could assurance that prospective bidders are than diesel and we ran into a space constraint,” generate some bonus revenue at Toronto’s Union Station. Earlier this year, Toronto City Council endorsed a proposal to enroll two new standby generators in Ontario’s Demand Response 3 (DR3) program, which pays contracted participants to divert generation to the grid or shed electricity load during periods of peak demand. (See Property Management Report, September 2009.) City officials foresee potential income in the range of $350,000 annually or $1.75 million over the five-year contract, but the process of securing that contract is unlikely to be easy. Thus far, the DR3 program has been predominantly weighted to load curtailment as prospective participants face hurdles in obtaining environmental approvals to make use of generators for anything but emergency power. “The emissions requirement is so stringent it excludes practically every stationary diesel engine available,” says Bill McMillan, Director of Business Development with GAL Power Systems, who initially viewed the DR3 program as a lucrative opportunity for clients with standby generating capacity. “A natural gas engine can meet it fairly easily, but there are other issues that can make natural gas impractical.” AGGREGATOR AND APPROVALS PENDING Toronto officials are just beginning the process to obtain a Certificate of Approval (CofA) from Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment (MOE) that would allow the two 1.25-megawatt (MW) generators to produce electricity for the power grid for up to 100 hours every year. The generators aren’t slated for delivery to Union Station, where a $640-million redevelopment project is now in progress, until 2012. In a first step, the City will issue a request for proposals for an aggregator – i.e. one of the companies the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) has authorized to enlist and coordinate DR3 program participants and then deliver a collectively accumulated reduction and/or generation target when called upon to do so. Possible choices have already shrunk to five from the field of eight aggregators the OPA initially selected in 2008. Toronto Hydro Energy Services Inc. abandoned its efforts to act as an aggregator in 2009 and two US-based companies have also withdrawn from the program. However, Toronto officials have informal

interested. “We have talked with three of them and they are prepared to work with us in getting the Certificate of Approval,” reports Jim Baxter, Director of Energy & Strategic Initiatives for the City of Toronto. To gain approval, the equipment will have to comply with new stricter emission limits that will go into effect in Ontario in 2011. For example, generators can currently exhaust up to 1 kilogram (kg) of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per megawatt-hour (MWh) of power production, but the allowable level will drop to 0.4 kg/MWh on January 1. Allowable levels of particulate matter will be reduced from 0.2 kg/MWh to 0.02 kg/MWh and the permitted level of hydrocarbons, excluding methane, will be cut from 1.3 kg/MWh to 0.19 kg/MWh. EMISSIONS AND EFFICIENCY DIVERGE Union Station’s new standby generators will have bi-fuel engines that operate on a mixture of diesel and natural gas, which is expected to be no greater than 40% diesel. Yet, for the purpose of the CoA, they’ll be viewed as if they run solely on diesel. “The MOE does not accept bi-fuel because what happens if you don’t have natural gas available and you are called on to start?” McMillan notes. “If you are going to go for bi-fuel you need to assume the worst case scenario and that’s 100% diesel.” The City chose these engines for their more compact assembly and because emergency power provision is the uppermost reason for the purchase. “Natural gas engines are bigger


Baxter explains. “The equipment is being installed to supply standby power for Union Station regardless of whether there is a DR3 project or not.” Other logistical issues also tend to make decision makers favour diesel when choosing generators for backup power. Many building operators perceive that natural gas generators don’t have sufficient torque to quickly take on large loads, while the building code requirement for on-site fuel storage for standby generators makes diesel something of a default option. Natural gas generators are also costlier. “The industry is less familiar with natural gas generators and people are therefore more cautious about them,” observes Michael Lithgow, the Manager of Corporate Energy and Municipal Energy Conservation Officer for York Region. Meanwhile, diesel engines can be outfitted with synchronous switchgear and emission control equipment in order to meet the MOE’s emission standards, although that will be an extra expense that prospective participants will have to factor into their payback calculations. OBSTACLES OUTWEIGH PAYBACKS The DR3 program’s dual-rate structure pays participants a so-called availability rate for simply being on standby and ready to respond. That is calculated on megawatts of capacity and pro-rated to the length of the contract – one, two or five years – and the participation commitment per year, which will be either 100 or 200 hours. Once called upon, DR3 enrollees will have to

NRCan ASSESSES CURTAILMENT POTENTIAL On the curtailment side of demand response, Toronto office building owners/managers have been invited to participate in a simulation exercise to evaluate peak shaving potential in various scenarios. Natural Resources Canada/CanmetENERGY will conduct the study and is working with the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of Greater Toronto to identify 20 buildings to contribute data. Researchers will use metered electrical data from the participating buildings to assess demand response potential under a number of control sequences such as zone temperature reset, chilled water reset, modification of lighting levels, etc. Results will be used to inform federal, provincial and municipal programs. All data will remain confidential. However, the researchers’ models and final results will be available for anyone interested in learning more about the potential for demand response. For more information, see the web site at

Energy Management divert generation to the grid or shed electricity load within 2.5 hours. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s compensated with a higher rate and tallied according to megawatthours of load theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve displaced. Even the most lucrative payback from a five-year contract for 200 hours per year will not recompense the cost of installing the generator, but organizations that require standby generation anyway can generally make a business case for participation. In York Region, for example, the added capital cost for a DR-capable standby generator at a regional water pumping station was deemed worthwhile when balanced against estimated revenues of $70,000 per year that a DR program could provide. (In this case, a Region-specific program separate from the OPAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s DR3 program.) However, regulatory obstacles proved to be more difficult. The Ministry of the Environment decreed that an environmental screening process would be necessary because the generatorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s capacity exceeds 1 megawatt (MW), even though York Region planned to restrict that capacity to 950 kilowatts for demand response and unleash the full 1.5 MW capacity only in the event that the generator was needed for emergency power to operate the pumping station.

Regional officials then decided not to take the MOEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s required step. â&#x20AC;&#x153;We are not prepared to do that for this site at this time, partly because we have a capital upgrade going on there and we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want to interfere with that, and partly because Environmental Assessments are very time consuming and expensive,â&#x20AC;? Lithgow says. Proponents in Toronto have not considered an Environmental Assessment in their plans, but the requirement would seem to be likely because the two Union Station generators have production capacity greater than 1 MW. â&#x20AC;&#x153;If we are required to go through an Environmental Assessment that would have a fairly major impact on the proposal,â&#x20AC;? Baxter acknowledges. â&#x20AC;&#x153;But we have not anticipated doing an EA on this. At this point, we donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have any blips on the radar.â&#x20AC;? PONDERING TRADEOFFS The City of Calgary recently built a 100-MW single-cycle gas-fired generating plant to respond to peak demand, and Baxter suggests that the tradeoff environmental fallout from running standby generators might be preferable. â&#x20AC;&#x153;There are a very low

number of run-hours per year on this so itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s an appropriate way of dealing with this issue,â&#x20AC;? he maintains. Similarly, plans are moving forward for a new 393-MW natural gas-fired peaking plant in York Region â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a move that the Ontario government has facilitated with a regulation to streamline the approvals process and exempt the plant from the requirement for municipal site plan approval in its host municipality, King Township. Baxter predicts more such choices will have to be made as the provincial government fulfills its pledge to shut down coal-fired power production. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The system still needs a way to match supply and demand,â&#x20AC;? he says. â&#x20AC;&#x153;When you look at Toronto, we are in a transmission constrained environment. I think we are going to need to prove the ability to lower our demand and basically improve the energy reliability of the City of Toronto. Despite current hurdles, McMillan remains optimistic about the potential to harness standby generation. â&#x20AC;&#x153;We want to pursue it whether itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s bi-fuel, natural gas or pure diesel,â&#x20AC;? he affirms. â&#x20AC;&#x153;What we try to stay on top of is the technology that can help us in emissions controls that are cost-effective.â&#x20AC;? pmr


Turnkey Parking Solutions Parking Gates Ticket Dispensers Swing & Slide Gates Revenue & Access Control Smart Card Meters & Pay Stations


Mem. of Can. Parking Association



â&#x20AC;&#x153;No Extra Charge for Nights, Weekends or Holidaysâ&#x20AC;?

Specializing in Underground Garage Drain Cleaning and Pumping of Sump Pits You know us as the complete plumbing, sewer and drain service experts, but did you know Roto-Rooter also specializes in assisting you in maintaining your underground parking facilities? Our unique, low-profile trucks are specifically designed to fit in all underground garages; and our technicians are among the best in the industry. When it has to be done right, it has to be Roto-Rooter.


(416) 503-4444 (905) 830-0400


(705) 792-6666 (905) 579-0003

1-800-GET-ROTO W W W. R O T O R O O T E R G TA . C A

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT November 2010 27 CPE_November_2009.indd 1

rotorooter condo.indd 1 11/16/09 11:50:58 AM

31/03/10 5:32 PM

Energy Management

LED Bulb Replacement Now an Option Lower Costs Anticipated for Evolving Technology By Feng Yang

Advancements in LED lighting now address one of the costlier drawbacks of the energy-saving technology. Although the 100-watt lamps can last up to 50,000 hours in an outdoor commercial application, the earliest forms of LED lighting on the market must be entirely replaced when the bulb’s lifespan is spent. New technology brings a two-component fixture with a detachable LED bulb unit that can be replaced like a conventional lighting system. This reduces the capital and labour costs of replacing lights, in addition to the well documented cost savings related to energy consumption. The cost of a sodium halide lamp is about $20 dollars. When it burns out after approximately 10,000 hours, the cost of labour to change that bulb is about $200. At $100 for

50,000 hours of service, the replaceable LED fixture essentially has the same capital cost, but has significantly less associated labour costs – i.e. $200 over 50,000 hours versus $1,000 over 50,000 hours for sodium halide bulbs. However, the most obvious cost-effectiveness is in energy savings. For example, based on 16 hours of use per day over 365 days at a rate of $0.17 per kilowatt-hour, an 80-watt LED lamp will save nearly $200 per year compared to the 250-watt sodium halide lamp that has the same lumens. For indoor applications, LED lighting can provide a wide range of colour temperature, which is the term used to describe how the human eye sees light, and is measured in Kelvin (K). Light perceived to be yellow has a colour temperature of about 2,700K, while light with a colour temperature of 5,000K is seen as


bluish white. Meanwhile, natural daylight ranges from about 5,000 to 7,000K. LED lighting is available at 2,700K to 5,000K. Recent developments in LED chip technology also make it easier to adjust the brightness of the lighting from 200 to 500 lumens. In particular, the emergence of thin filmchip technology is leading to more resilient bulbs that are less likely to chip or crack, while reducing heat and electrical resistance and further reducing power consumption. Once this thin-film goes into wider production, it’s expected to reduce the price of the product. pmr Feng Yang is the Marketing Director with SmartRay Inc., a distributor of LED technology. For more information, see the web site at www.

Maintenance & Housekeeping

Vandals Get to the Point New Techniques Restore Scratched Glass By Eli Freedman

Scratchiti is a newly coined word to describe the methods of a new generation of vandals, who literally etch their mark into glass. Even graffiti paint now commonly contains etching cream, which burns the surface of the glass leaving an ugly scar in its wake. Short of replacing the glass, damage control options have previously been limited for property managers. Many have simply chosen to ignore the unsightly condition of their property, but that can be a self-defeating approach. Specialists in crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) espouse the aptly dubbed “broken glass theory,” which maintains that neglected graffiti tags or vandalism spur an even greater breakdown in respect for a particular property and can escalate vandalism in the entire area. (See related story, page 14) However, the theorists also hold that vandals view windows and property as their personal galleries. If their artwork is quickly removed,

they will move on to another more accommodating canvas or venue. Glass restoration has always been tricky because it often breaks in the process or becomes distorted due to overheating, but cost-effective solutions are emerging from recent research and development. Special temperature parameters safeguard the glass, while non-toxic and biodegradable water additives used to cool the glass while polishing are less environmentally detrimental than earlier restoration methods. Glass restoration does not always imitate new product. The best techniques available solve the breakage, staining and distortion issues in the vast majority of cases, but extremely etched or burned surfaces still may exhibit distortion effects.

Damage to the thick plate glass commonly found in storefronts and entranceways can be even costlier for property owners. The glass is very thick, does not shatter and generally resists penetration, but projectiles – such as ammunition from pellet guns – can leave a noticeable mark. Left untreated, cracks can spread creating safety hazards and potential liability. Resins provide a way to seal holes and cracks in an environmentally safe, cost-effective way. pmr

Eli Freedman is with Ecovitre Glass Polishing & Restoration, a company specializing in glass repair. For more information, see the web site at www.

Electronic Security & Access Control Solutions for Your Property Portfolio ▪ Access Control Systems ▪ ▪ CCTV / Analog Surveillance Systems ▪ ▪ IP Surveillance Systems ▪ ▪ Entry-phones / Intercoms ▪ ▪ Intrusion Control / Security Systems ▪ ▪ Fire Alarm Systems / Monitoring ▪ ▪ IT Hardware / Software ▪ ▪ Structured Wiring / Data Networks ▪ ▪ Barrier Gates / Automatic Door Operators ▪ ▪ Recreation Room Audio-Visual Systems ▪ ▪ Traffic Control Lights ▪

Your solutions are just a call away!

Energy Corp 511 Millway Avenue, Concord, Ontario L4K 3V4 Phone: 905.761.5626 Fax: 905.761.9759 Email:

EXTREME WINDOW FILMS, INC. 15 Upper Highlands Drive Brampton, ON L6Z 4W1 (905) 495 1568

Ask us how your building could earn up to 9 LEED points and how you could qualify for energy incentives.

Multi-Residential ▪ Condominium ▪ Commercial ▪ Institutional PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT November 2010 29

Environmental Energy Management Management

Labour Lightens for Energy Audits

BIM Delivers Load Profile and Upgrade Scenarios By Michael Laurie

The interaction of various building systems and components underpin a building’s energy load profile, but those multiple factors can be difficult to calculate because they are in a state of continual flux. During the life of a building, the floor plan will change, the number of tenants will vary and so will the ways that occupants use the building’s energy. Examples are numerous. HVAC performance can deteriorate or improve as the system ages and is then replaced. Installing a different thickness of window shades can affect demands for lighting. Introduction of a restaurant tenant can make water usage skyrocket. Computerized building models and technically advanced simulation software can make it easier to consider and calculate these factors in an energy audit. Energy audits draw information from a variety of sources including building specifications, photographs, architectural blueprints and drawings, lists of construction materials and other relevant data – information that then often must be manually entered into the energy audit software program so that the auditor can create an energy model. That program then simulates the energy behaviour of the actual building, allowing the auditor to make observations, predictions and recommendations. Alternatively, some energy auditors use a different approach based on statistical information, which circumvents the labourintensive and error-prone exercise of gathering and entering data into a software system. Resulting simulated models are statistically similar and comparable to the building under study, while the model is designed and the audit is conducted more quickly and easily. However, there are risks of inaccuracies. With multiple contractors, designers and engineers contributing to a project there may be several different versions of the same building plan, each with slight discrepancies that

collectively skew audit results. Or, building geometry can be misinterpreted as AutoCADformatted data is transferred to the energy model software – for example, a computer may not recognize the difference between a window and a rectangular shaped fabric banner hanging against the wall. Statistical modelling yields results that some critics call too generic and unrealistic. Others say it’s too cumbersome to make revisions once the baseline statistics are entered and the parameters are set. Fresh models are sometimes needed to incorporate changes. Software developers have recently adapted Building Information Modelling (BIM) technology to address some of these concerns. The new BIM energy model can simulate a building in an interactive and updatable manner that provides simplicity, flexibility and longevity. Older existing buildings are predominantly those most in need of energy management upgrades, which typically begin with an energy audit and capture of the load profile. Rather than relying on old plans and drawings, a BIM model can be created on-site within hours

Older existing buildings are predominantly those most in need of energy management upgrades. 30 november 2010 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REPORT

using a handheld electronic tablet that delivers a precise as-built rendition. This would include the perspectives and views seen when walking through a real building, with effects that are realistic and immediate. Because the model operates on a parametric platform it can also depict various layouts and configurations or update design and construction changes without human intervention. For example, green retrofits under consideration can be pre-tested in a virtual environment to show potential energy usage patterns among occupants or fluctuations in local energy prices. Decision makers could also look at options for varying levels of LEED certification, complete with side-by-side comparisons of before and after scenarios. Plus, users can more closely match the unique characteristics of a particular building, such as matching thermal zones to the mechanically designed HVAC zones rather than relying on theoretical thermal zone statistics. Once a BIM model has been created, architects, engineers and contractors can add their work to the same database and model file, eliminating design conflicts between groups while tracking an unlimited number of changes. It becomes a living document that reflects each update, making it useful for the entire life of a building. pmr Michael Laurie, P.Eng. is President of PLANiT Measuring, a company that provides on-site building measuring and BIM services. For more information, see the web site at


The Right Product. The Right Price. The Right People. The Right Choice. Over 14,000 Products – In Stock, Everyday!

Eco-Friendly | Cleaning | Fire Safety | WHMIS | Paint | Building | Bathroom & Kitchen | Appliance | Wall & Floor Plumbing | Light Fixtures | Light Bulbs | Electrical | HVAC | Hardware | Seasonal | and More




Manage energy usage and heating/cooling costs Predict necessary maintenance and repairs Prevent fire hazards Enhance worker and tenant safety Improve efficiency of equipment and systems IRISâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thermographers are trained and certified to the highest levels, providing inspections on electrical and mechanical equipment, roof integrity, building envelope, ramp and floor heating systems and water damage.

IRIS is a national PdM service provider offering infrared thermography, vibration analysis, airborne ultrasound and fluids analysis, motor testing, and high voltage/ breaker maintenance.



Plan your building envelope assessments for winter and roof assessments for summer. Appropriate weather conditions are the key to accuracy.

Property Management Report November 2010  

Property Management Report November 2010

Property Management Report November 2010  

Property Management Report November 2010