Conservation and Demand Management Plan Report Card 2016: June 3, 2016

CONSERVATION AND DEMAND
MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORT CARD
2016

June 3rd, 2016
Fill in the information below by deleting the placeholders and replacing it with the appropriate
keywords.
Change text to WHITE after report is finished to hide this page.
Ctrl+a then F9 to update all fields with the new keywords.
Northwest Catholic District School Board
NCDSB
School Board
2016
2011/2012
2012/2013
2013/2014
2014/2015
YEAR 5

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................i
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2 RESULTS ACHIEVED – AS REPORTED TO THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY ............................................... 3
2.1 Analysis of Energy Intensity as Filed with The Ministry of Energy ............................................................3
3 ENERGY STAR® BENCHMARKING ................................................................................................................ 6
4 ONTARIO’S LANDSCAPE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Current Trends and Practices in Ontario’s Energy Landscape ..................................................................... 8
4.2 Conservation and Energy Diversification .................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Cap and Trade System ................................................................................................................................. 9
4.4 MicroFIT Projects Suspended by the IESO ............................................................................................... 10
5 ENERGY USE AND ENERGY INTENSITY – BASED ON UTILITY DATA ............................................... 11
5.1 Energy Intensity – Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 11
5.2 Energy Use – All Facilities - 2014/2015 .................................................................................................... 12
5.3 Energy Intensity – All Facilities - 2014/2015 ............................................................................................ 13
5.4 Energy Intensity – All Facilities - 2011/2012 to 2014/2015 ...................................................................... 14
5.5 Energy Intensity – Analysis – Location-by-Location ................................................................................ 15
5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emission – All Facilities ................................................................................................. 18
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – All Facilities- 2011/2012 to 2014/2015 ...................................................... 19
6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – BASED ON ENERGY STAR® DATA ................................................. 20
7 PROJECTS UNDER CDM PLAN – SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 21
7.1 Previous Energy Conservation Projects ..................................................................................................... 21
7.2 Supervisory Analytics ................................................................................................................................ 22
7.3 Future Projects Filed in CDM Plan ............................................................................................................ 30
7.4 Additional Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 31
APPENDIX A - School Board SECTOR RANKING 2011/2012, 2012/2013, AND 2013/2014 ............................... 33
APPENDIX B – ENERGY INTENSITY – EACH FACILITY –2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014, AND 2014/2015
..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
APPENDIX C – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – EACH FACILITY –2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014,
AND 2014/2015 .......................................................................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX D – ENERGY STAR® SCORES – ALL FACILITIES .......................................................................... 55
APPENDIX E - UTILITY ACCOUNT INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX F – ENERGY STAR PROPERTY INFORMATION ........................................................................... 57
APPENDIX G – ENERGY CONSERVATION INCENTIVES ................................................................................. 65
APPENDIX H – ELECTRICITY REGULATORY CHARGES................................................................................. 66
APPENDIX I – ENERGY UNITS .............................................................................................................................. 68
APPENDIX J – GLOSSARY OF TERMS.................................................................................................................. 69
APPENDIX K – ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ACRONYMS .......................................................................... 73
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The information disclosed in this Conservation and Demand Management Plan Report Card,
organized and assembled by a team of VIP energy experts, clarifies and expands upon the
requirements of O. Reg. 397/11 under the Government of Ontario’s Green Energy Act, 2009. The
objective of this report is to educate and assist its readers in making more informed energy
conservation decisions.
School Boards can become much more proactive in lowering their costs and reducing harmful
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions through improved management of their energy consumption
and expenditures. This report card supports these endeavours by identifying trends in facility
utility data and providing the reader with a sense of how their facilities have performed, both in
the current and past years. This report card covers all Northwest Catholic District School Board
facilities, while also providing strategic direction through a brief discussion of the current
energy landscape in Ontario.
Highlights:
Highlight #1 – Overall Energy Performance
1) Northwest Catholic District School Board has stated it intends to improve energy
performance by reducing overall energy intensity by two (2) percent by 2017/2018.
Energy Intensity – All Facilities
Northwest Catholic District School
Board
300
ekWh/m2
200
100
0
2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015
a) There has been no material change (0.2 ekWh/m2 decrease) in energy intensity from
2011 levels.
b) While Northwest Catholic District School Board has improved its energy intensity from
levels seen in 2012/2013 to 2013/2014, action must be taken if they wish to achieve
their long term energy goals. VIP energy recommends that they re‐evaluate their
current approach to energy management. A re‐prioritization of planned conservation
Page | i
projects in light of current results is required. Switching from project based energy
improvements to strategic implementations with confirmed and measured savings will
be a key step in achieving these conservation goals.
Highlight #2 – Ranking Compared to Other School Boards
2) Market Sector Energy Performance Comparison1: The energy performance of Northwest
Catholic District School Board has been compared and ranked against other School Boards.

Provincial Benchmarking – Energy Intensity Ranking

Board  Provincial Ranking* based on
Average Energy Intensity
70
with Weather Normalization
60 (ekWh/HDD/m²).
 Better energy performance
Provincial Ranking
50
is indicated by lower ranking
40
numbers.
26
30  Data is based on Ministry of
20 16 Energy reported data.
11
10 *
Out of 71 ranked School Boards in 2011, 69 in 2012,
0 and 70 in 2013
2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014
a) After falling to 26th overall ranking in 2012/2013, NCDSB’s ranking rose in 2013/2014 to
# 11 overall, its highest position over the reporting period.
b) NCDSB’s normalized energy consumption has consistently been below sector averages.
1
NOTE: This data is representative of information presented by the Ministry of Energy and reflect the information
filed by School Boards. Some filings contain very material errors, due to many causes, including incomplete utility
data, utility billing corrections, template data entry errors, etc. The above numbers, however, do show what the
Ministry of Energy ‘sees’ and what other parties ‘see’ when they access the Ministry data.
Page | ii
Highlight #3‐ Analytical Overview
3) VIP has conducted an analytical study of Northwest Catholic District School Board’s monthly
electricity and natural gas billing consumption data for two of its schools, Our Lady of the
Way School and St. Francis School. The statistical tools used in this study paint a clear picture
of consumption patterns. Further, these techniques can be used to understand both
predicted and unforeseen consumption events.
Our Lady of the Way School
Electricty CUSUM Analysis Natural Gas CUSUM Analysis

St. Francis School
Electricty CUSUM Analysis Natural Gas CUSUM Analysis

a) Our Lady of the Way School has seen consistent declines in both natural gas and
electricity usage. These savings combine for an approximate $10,500 of avoided
consumption compared to predicted values.
b) St. Francis School has seen large fluctuations in its electricity usage which have
counteracted the savings seen in natural gas. Gas showed a reoccurring conservation
measure over the winter periods which had diminishing returns. These savings combine
for an approximate $5,800 of avoided consumption compared to predicted values.
Page | iii
Highlight # 4 – Energy Star® Ratings
4) Energy Star® Scores are a new and nationally recognized benchmark for the energy
performance of buildings in Canada.
VIP Energy has analyzed the building details for Northwest Catholic District School Board and
produced an Energy Star® Score for its best performing facility and its poorest performing
facility. Scores range from 1 to 100 with a score of 50 being exactly the average. Additional
detail regarding the Energy Star benchmarking system is presented in Section 3 ENERGY
STAR® BENCHMARKING.

a) Energy Star Scores® for all qualifying NCDSB facilities can be found in APPENDIX D –
ENERGY STAR® SCORES – ALL FACILITIES.
b) Dryden and Fort Frances Board Offices do not currently qualify for Energy Star® Scores
at this time due to their building size and categorizations.

Page | iv
Highlight #5 – Energy Star® Score trends
5) VIP has calculated the Energy Star® Scores for the 3 years covered by this study to gain an
alternate insight into changes into Northwest Catholic District School Board’s energy
performance
It should be noted that these scores allow a statistically significant comparison to be made
with School Boards anywhere in North America who have posted an Energy Star® Score.

National Benchmarking – Energy Star® Score
100  The Energy Star® Scores place
90 84 82
Northwest Catholic District
ENERGY STAR® Score
80
70
School Board’s best performing
57 facility, Our Lady of the Way
60 52
50 41 School, and worst performing
36
40 facility, St Francis School, in the
30 80th percentile and the 30th
20 percentile, respectively,
10
compared to similar facilities
0
2012 2013 2014 across Canada (when normalized
for climate and hours of
Our Lady of the Way School St Francis School
operation)2.

a) Our Lady of the Way School has greatly improved its Energy Score over the reporting
period.
b) St. Francis School’s scores have fallen since 2012, and showing a drop of 21 points.
2
Energy Star® data for the year 2011 has been excluded from this report due to inconsistencies in the availability of
utility bill data.
Page | v
Highlight #6 – Greenhouse Gas / Cap and Trade
6) VIP has incorporated the measurement and tracking of Greenhouse Gas Emissions into this
report card to prepare organizations for the Provincial Cap & Trade System proposed for
implementation in 2017.

Emissions By Commodity – All Facilities Energy Cost By Commodity – All Facilities
Fuel Oil
Fuel Oil Electricity
15%
20% 20%
Gas
24% Electricity
61%
Gas
60%
a) Fossil fuel usage accounts for the majority of the emissions from Northwest Catholic
District School Board’s facilities but represents only a fraction of the operating energy
costs.
b) Northwest Catholic District School Board must carefully consider the balance between
emissions reductions, increasing energy costs and the impacts of Cap and Trade
legislation.
Page | vi
Highlight #7 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions
7) On a Provincial comparison, the Ontario Ministry of Energy Public Sector Energy
Consumption legislation provides a means to compare energy performance and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
By calculating and tracking GHG emissions, Northwest Catholic District School Board may
wish to improve its position for future changes to the Cap and Trade thresholds as well as
the possible benefits of any future GHG reduction credits that may be applicable.

Provincial Metric – Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
GHG Emissions ‐ All Facilities
800.0
600.0
Metric Tons CO2e
 Data is based on utility billing
400.0 data to calculate the
Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
200.0

‐
2012 2013 2014
a) GHG emissions have risen 17% since 2011.
Page | vii
Energy Market Trends
A proactive approach to energy management strategies includes a scanning of trends that are
emerging in the Energy Sector, both from a National and a Provincial perspective. Rising energy
costs will negatively affect all energy consumers. There are, however some trends developing
which organizations need to be aware of and understand how they will affect the operation of
their facilities.
Energy Market – Emerging Trends
Issue Impact on Northwest Catholic District School Board
Energy Star® Scores are becoming a  NCDSB’s facilities have a wide range of
nationally recognized benchmark scores, from 82 to 36 in 2014.
practice for the energy performance  GHG emissions have risen 17% since 2012, as
of buildings in Canada. calculated by Energy Star®.
 This issue is discussed in greater detail in the
ENERGY STAR® BENCHMARKING Section on
page 6.
Province of Ontario is proposing the  Northwest Catholic District School Board can
introduction of a Cap & Trade expect to see an increase in their natural gas
System to encourage Greenhouse cost of approximately 3¢/m³.
Gas Emission reduction.  Using 2014/2015 consumption of 200,000
m³, that equates to an increase cost to
Northwest Catholic District School Board of
approximately $6,000 annually.
 Companies will be rewarded for reducing
their carbon footprint. If you pollute less, you
pay less.
 This issue is discussed in greater detail in
ONTARIO’S LANDSCAPE REVIEW.
The Independent Electricity System  Carefully review any plans for installing
Operator organization has photovoltaic renewable generation in light of
suspended funding for MicroFIT long potential delays in MicroFIT project
Projects. approval.

Page | viii
1 INTRODUCTION
The Province of Ontario engaged thousands of Ontarians, who worked
together to create Ontario’s Long‐Term Energy Plan – Achieving Balance. This
plan, released in December 2013, contains Ontario’s long‐term vision for the
province’s electricity system. Quoting the Province:
“The plan balances five principles to guide decision‐making:
cost effectiveness
reliability
clean energy
community engagement
an emphasis on conservation and demand management before building new generation”
Ontario’s Ministry of Energy required Ontario public agencies to file Conservation and Demand
Management Plans – CDM Plans – on or before July 1st, 2014/2015. Northwest Catholic District
School Board (NCDSB) complied and filed its five (5)‐year plan in 2014/2015.
Throughout the last year, NCDSB has been working to achieve the goals embedded in their CDM
Plan.
The purpose of this CDM Report Card is to provide objective, third‐party feedback on how has
performed and to help us plan future actions so NCDSB may outperform the minimum
requirements of Ontario’s long‐term energy plans.
NCDSB’s CDM Report Card is a hands‐on tool, designed to help:
 keep our long‐term energy & environment strategies and goals in mind,
 focus our attention on the near‐term actions required to achieve those long‐term
goals, and
 provide comparative analysis between both our own facilities and similar facilities
within our sectors.
In addition, this tool will help NCDSB keep track of the energy and environment actions we have
taken since July 2014 and the results those actions have delivered. Some actions will deliver
impressive conservation results and cost savings. Those actions will provide direction for
NCDSB’s ‘best next steps’. Some initiatives undertaken will not deliver results we expect. These
Page | 1
will help NCDSB identify areas for improvement. Either way, simple presentation of actions,
results, and recommendations for next steps will ensure that NCDSB makes steady progress and
achieve their long‐term goals.
This CDM Report Card breaks the five (5)‐year CDM Plan into manageable one (1)‐year pieces
with each year building on the performance of prior years. The format allows quick and easy
review by our key stakeholders:
 board members,
 senior management,
 energy committees, and
 the public.
In addition, our CDM Report Card can be attached to other larger reports such as the annual
budget or the strategic plan. Each year, the CDM Report Card will be revised capture initiatives
you have performed and provide external updates on topics of importance to Ontario energy
users, including but not limited to:
 government policy changes,
 incentive and funding programs,
 commodity pricing,
 transportation/transmission and distribution/delivery utility updates, and
 new energy & environment opportunities.
Page | 2
2 RESULTS ACHIEVED – AS REPORTED TO THE MINISTRY OF ENERGY
2.1 Analysis of Energy Intensity as Filed with The Ministry of Energy
The following tables and graphs contain the normalized energy‐intensity numbers the Ministry
of Energy presents pursuant to the data it has received from Ontario’s School Board under their
397/11 reporting of energy use per facility. The Ministry of Energy has normalized the intensity
data against heating degree‐days (HDD) to better compare the performance of facilities across
differing climate zones3. This report covers the years 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014, and
2014/2015. While School Board have filed data under their templates this summer, the Ministry
has yet to present the energy intensity numbers for the 2014 year. This data is released to the
Public in the spring of the following year.
In APPENDIX A ‐ School Board SECTOR RANKING 2011/2012, 2012/2013, AND 2013/2014, a listing
of Ontario School Boards is presented detailing the individual annual rankings. Comparing Public
Sector Ministry of Energy Consumption Data from other Ontario School Boards:

(ekWh/HDD/m2)
Ontario School Boards (2011/2012)
1
7
13
Northwest Catholic District School 43.2
19
Board ranked #16 of 70 during 25
2011/2012, with energy intensity of 31
43.2 ekWh/HDD/m2 (13% lower than 37
43
the average)
49
55
61
67
‐ 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00
All School Boards
Average

3
NOTE: This data is representative of information presented by the Ministry of Energy and reflect the information
filed by School Boards. Some filings contain very material errors, due to many causes, including incomplete utility
data, utility billing corrections, template data entry errors, etc. The above numbers, however, do show what the
Ministry of Energy ‘sees’ and what other parties ‘see’ when they access the Ministry data.
Page | 3

(ekWh/HDD/m2)
Ontario School Boards (2012/2013)
1
7
Northwest Catholic District School 13
2012/2013, with energy intensity of 25 53.6
53.6 ekWh/HDD/m2 (9% lower than 31
the average) 37
43
49
55
61
67
‐10.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 90.00 110.00
All School Boards
Average

(ekWh/HDD/m2)
Ontario School Boards (2013)
1
7
13 42.0
2013/2014, with energy intensity of 25
42.0 ekWh/HDD/m2 (19% lower 31
37
than the average)
43
49
55
61
67
‐10.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 90.00
All School Boards
Average

Page | 4
This data accounts for changes in heating degree‐days (HDD), however, the year‐over‐year
variance in energy intensity may be due, in part, to changes in cooling degree‐days (CDD). After
falling to #26 overall ranking in 2012/2013, normalized intensity rose in 2013/2014 to bring
NCDSB’s ranking to #11 of all ranked school boards. NCDSB’s energy intensity has consistently
been approximately 10% under the Ontario average.
Page | 5
3 ENERGY STAR® BENCHMARKING
The Energy Star® (trademarked ENERGY STAR®) is an international standard for energy
efficient originating in the United States. Created in 1992 by the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of Energy, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Taiwan, and
the European Union have adopted the program. The objective of the ENERGY STAR® score is
to provide a fair assessment of the energy performance of a property, relative to its peers,
taking into account the climate and business activities at the property. A statistical analysis
of the peer building population is performed to identify the aspects of building activity that
are significant drivers of energy use and then to normalize for those factors. The result of this
analysis is an equation that predicts the energy use of a property, based on its experienced
business activities. The energy use prediction for a building is compared to its actual energy
use to yield a 1 to 100 percentile ranking of performance, relative to the national population.
Due to discrepancies in the availability of utility bills in 2011, this year was excluded from the
Energy Star® analysis in this report.

Page | 6
In 2014 NCDSB’s best performing 100
facility had an Energy Star® Score of 90 84 82
82, and NCDSB’s poorest 80
ENERGY STAR® Score
performing facility had an Energy 70
57
Star® Score of 36. 60 52
50
41
Historically, NCDSB’s overall Energy 40 36
Star® Score has been falling. 30

NCDSB’s worst performing facility 20
saw its score fall from an 52 in 2012 10
to 36 in 2014. This change in scores 0
2012 2013 2014
is predominantly due to a rise in
Our Lady of the Way School St Francis School
natural gas usage at this facility.
NCDSB’s highest scoring facility fell 2012 2013 2014
from a 94 in 2012 to an 80 in 2014, ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY
Location
STAR® STAR® STAR®
but remains in the upper tiers of all Score Score Score
comparable schools. Our Lady of the Way
57 84 82
School
St Francis School 52 41 36
Energy Star Scores® for all qualifying NCDSB facilities can be found in APPENDIX D – ENERGY
STAR® SCORES – ALL FACILITIES.
Page | 7
4 ONTARIO’S LANDSCAPE REVIEW
4.1 Current Trends and Practices in Ontario’s Energy Landscape
In recent years Ontario’s energy landscape has
been increasingly shaped by climate change
concerns and by efforts to reduce the
environmental impacts of the energy we use.
From the elimination of coal‐fired power
generation to conservation and demand
management (CDM) plans, Ontario’s government has taken on the task of being a world leader
in climate change mitigation. While this effort is not without its costs, which have been reflected
in the increasing price of electricity, Ontario has met and is on track to meet its emissions goals
for 2014, 2020 and beyond.
Looking forward, we see several issues of consequence in Ontario’s energy sector. These include;
the implementation of a Cap and Trade System (CTS), the further diversification of Ontario’s
electrical grid, increased conservation efforts, and transportation emissions reductions. Later in
2016, Ontario will be releasing a five‐year action plan outlining the implementation of their
strategies to meet upcoming emissions targets.
4.2 Conservation and Energy Diversification
Ontario has already heavily invested in conservation and demand management strategies to
reduce peak loads and reduce strain on the electrical infrastructure. With the proposed CTS set
to bring in over $1 billon in proceeds in the first year, which the government has pledged to
reinvest in Green projects, the amount and availability of conservation incentives is likely to grow.
New retrofit incentives, hybrid and electric vehicle incentives, the extension of existing programs
and the addition of new incentives for researchers and start‐ups are among the key projects the
Ontario government says it will target with these new funds.
Conservation efforts in recent years have allowed for the shutdown of coal‐generation without
the need to heavily invest in new generation. While refurbishments at the Bruce Nuclear Power
Plant will likely cover the bulk of any new generation, and replace the supply from the ageing
Pickering reactors, the role of renewables in our electrical supply will continue to grow. Private
companies taking advantage of the attractive FIT and Green Energy Act offerings have increased
the amount of intermittent solar and wind supply, raising the share of renewables in the system
Page | 8
to approximately 10% in 2016. Replacing cheap, clean hydropower with wind or solar causes the
hourly price of electricity to rise and is a source of some of the increase seen in our electricity
pricing. As the grid adapts to the new loads, it would be expected that the continued rise in
expensive renewable contracts would result in increased electrical prices in the coming years.
4.3 Cap and Trade System
In 2008, Quebec formally joined the Western Climate Initiative (WCI)
and merged their CTS with California’s to form a single carbon market.
Cap and trade allows the market to decide where emissions can be
reduced with the least cost, while cutting down on the pollution that is
causing climate change. Ontario has proposed legislation to join the
WCI and create a CTS for Ontario. The proposed system may begin its
first phase in January of 2017, and is rumored to closely follow the
guidelines used by both California and Quebec. The following
information is based on the practices set in place by the WCI, California,
Quebec, and the proposed Ontario CTS, and may not reflect actual Ontario legislation.
The "cap" puts a limit on how many tonnes of CAP AND TRADE SYSTEMS
Sets a limit on the amount of emissions an individual
greenhouse gas pollution that businesses, institutions entity within the CTS can produce in a given year. If
this limit is exceeded the individual must pay a fine
and households can emit. This cap is set at a specific or can purchase credits from other participants in the
CTS who emitted less than their allotted amounts.
amount, which drops each year to encourage lower Emission credits and caps will be lowered each year
emissions. Ontario is setting the economy‐wide cap at to motivate individuals to reduce their emissions.
Additional credits and those provided by other
142 mega tonnes per year in the first year of the participants can be purchased through an auction in
which the government will set the minimum value of
program and will decline to 125 mega tonnes per year a credit.
First year threshold for participation is expected to
by 2020. Companies must have enough allowances be 25,000 metric tonnes per year of GHG emissions.
Emissions caps can apply to electricity (including
(also known as permits or credits) to cover their imports) and industry; plus distribution and
emissions if they exceed the cap. importation of fuels used for consumption in the
transportation and building sectors.
Ontario CTS could include institutions, natural gas
To comply, companies can generally: distribution and large commercial facilities. Phasing
in of these additional sectors at a later date is also a
possibility.
 Invest in clean technologies to become more Agriculture and similar industry will likely be
allowed to contribute as suppliers of emissions
efficient credits.
 Burn less fossil fuels
 Purchase additional credits
Page | 9
The "trade" refers to a market where companies can buy or sell carbon credits, also known as
allowances. These credits are linked to every tonne of greenhouse gas they emit (or do not emit).
For example, if a company emits more GHGs than permitted by the cap, it could purchase credits
to come into compliance. These credits would be available for purchase from a company that
reduced its GHG emissions levels to below the cap.
The Importance of Accurate Reporting for Cap & Trade
 Companies will be rewarded for reducing their carbon footprint. If you pollute less, you
pay less.
 Companies reporting incorrect ekWh/ft2 could be penalized
What You Can Do to Prepare for Cap & Trade
 Make sure you energy reporting is accurate
 Verify accuracy of bills
Have The LDC’s Made Mistakes?
 Add real time metering and sub metering
 Collect data on your own, Don’t rely on the LDC
 Have an Energy Conservation Plan
 Identify wasted energy and areas for improved energy use
4.4 MicroFIT Projects Suspended by the IESO
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has temporarily suspended applications to
the MicroFIT program that awards fixed price contracts to independent generators of renewable
electricity. The program was designed to entice small business and individuals to install small
scale renewable generation of 10 kW or less by providing attractive pricing on the sale of
generated electricity. This program has come under heavy scrutiny since its inception with critics
claiming that pricing levels were too high and would lead to higher electricity prices. The program
has also suffered from large backlogs as applicant have rushed to take advantage of these rates.
While no fixed date has been set for the resumption of the program, the IESO expects the
program to resume by sometime this summer. The new version of the program will contain
revision s to the pricing model, stricter obligations for metering and verification, and increased
provisions for enforcing contractual requirements. Any planned renewable investments should
be reviewed in light of these upcoming changes and potential delays in attaining MicroFIT
contracts.
Page | 10
5 ENERGY USE AND ENERGY INTENSITY – BASED ON UTILITY DATA
5.1 Energy Intensity – Analysis
The following tables and graphs –pages 12 to 14 – are based on utility billing data for each School
Board gathered by VIP Energy and entered into the VIP ‘portal’. The consumption data was
aggregated and energy intensity was calculated based on current ‘footprint’ data.
This information covers the years 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014, and 2014/2015.
Compared to Ministry of Energy reporting for the 2013/2014 year:
 Ministry of Energy calculates NCDSB’s energy intensity at 266.8 ekWh/m2
 VIP Energy’s portal calculates NCDSB’s energy intensity at 264.8 ekWh/m2
The difference of 2.0 ekWh/m2 represents less than 1% of the total and does not represent a
significant change.
Comparing VIP portal calculations for years 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2013/2014, and 2014/2015.
• 2011/2012 was 222.8 ekWh/m2
• 2012/2013 was 249.0 ekWh/m2
• 2013/2014 was 264.8 ekWh/m2
• 2014/2015 was 222.6 ekWh/m2
The decrease of approximately 19%, 2014/2015 over 2013/2014, is better than the energy
performance VIP has seen in other School Boards.
Page | 11
5.2 Energy Use – All Facilities ‐ 2014/2015

Energy Consumption Report – ekWh
September 2014 – August 2015

2014/2015 2014/2015
Month
ekWh HDD
September 135,804.8 183

October 353,242.2 349
November 475,671.7 641
December 563,246.5 720
January 637,303.6 101
February 544,133.4 970
March 433,709.1 684
April 282,672.7 454
May 158,092.5 279
June 111,719.4 140
July 86,840.7 51
August 80,737.1 62
Annual Totals 3,863,173.7 4,635

Page | 12
5.3 Energy Intensity – All Facilities ‐ 2014/2015

Energy Intensity Report – ekWh/m2

2014/2015 2014/2015
Month
ekWh/m2 HDD
September 7.8 183

October 20.4 349
November 27.4 641
December 32.4 720
January 36.7 101
February 31.3 970
March 25.0 684
April 16.3 454
May 9.1 279
June 6.4 140
July 5.0 51
August 4.7 62
Annual Totals 222.6 4,635

Page | 13
5.4 Energy Intensity – All Facilities ‐ 2011/2012 to 2014/2015

Energy Intensity Report – ekWh/m2

2011/ Variance 2012/ Variance 2013/ Variance 2014/
Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
ekWh/m2 # % ekWh/m2 # % ekWh/m2 # % ekWh/m2
September 11.2 -1.3 -11 % 10.0 -1.6 -16 % -0.5 -6% 7.8 8.2
October 15.4 2.3 15 % 17.7 -0.1 -1 % 2.8 16% 20.4 21.3
November 21.1 4.0 19 % 25.1 4.7 19 % -2.4 -8% 27.4 28.7
December 32.5 2.0 6% 34.5 4.0 11 % -6.1 -16% 32.4 34.0
January 35.4 4.4 12 % 39.7 9.0 23 % -12 -25% 36.7 38.5
February 30.9 1.5 5% 32.4 5.6 17 % -6.7 -18% 31.3 32.8
March 25.2 6.3 25 % 31.5 2.3 7% -8.9 -26% 25.0 26.2
April 17.5 6.4 37 % 23.9 -1.1 -5 % -6.5 -29% 16.3 17.1
May 10.6 3.1 29 % 13.7 -2.0 -15 % -2.6 -22% 9.1 9.5
June 7.3 0.8 11 % 8.1 -1.6 -20 % -0.1 -2% 6.4 6.7
July 5.9 -0.1 -1 % 5.9 -1.2 -21 % 0.4 9% 5.0 5.2
August 9.7 -3.2 -33 % 6.5 -2.0 -31 % 0.2 4% 4.7 4.9
Annual Totals 222.8 26.2 12 % 249.0 15.8 6 % 264.8 -42.4 -16% 222.6

Page | 14
5.5 Energy Intensity – Analysis – Location‐by‐Location
The following tables and graphs were built using utility billing data for each facility. VIP Energy
gathered the utility data from a number of sources and entered it into the VIP ‘portal’. Energy
intensity was calculated by totalling energy‐use data for all fuel sources and dividing the resulting
‘ekWh’ by current ‘footprint’ data.
Test #1 Annual Energy Consumption ‐ ranking:
2014/2015 ekWh A comparison of the Energy Consumption

1,000,000
for the individual locations gives us the
800,000 ability to identify and rank each facility’s
600,000 annual energy consumption. Logically, the
highest energy consuming facility is also
400,000
usually the largest. However, in this case,
200,000
St. Francis School has the highest
0 consumption while being only the third
largest facility. St. Francis occupies only
16.5% of the overall portfolio footprint
while accounting for 23% of all energy
consumption.
2014/2015
Location
ekWh
Dryden Board Office 50,036.50
Fort Frances Board Office 69,458.70
Our Lady of the Way
228,576.30
School
St. Michael's School 498,704.10
St. Patrick's School 577,431.90
Sacred Heart School 722,246.10
St. Joseph's School 822,670.90
St. Francis School 894,049.30

Totals 3,863,173.80
Page | 15
Test #2 Energy Intensity – 3‐Year Average – Ranking:
The following graphs provide

400.0
‘clear pictures’, showing how
350.0
energy intensity at each facility 300.0
ranks relative to the energy 250.0
ekWh/m2
intensity at all other facilities. 200.0
Northwest Catholic District 150.0
School Board can expect to 100.0

50.0
obtain the most‐effective energy
0.0
savings by concentrating on the
facilities that have the highest
energy intensity. Further analysis
will be required to determine the
best places to make energy‐

improvement investments and
to estimate the extent of savings 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 Average
Location
ekWh/m² ekWh/m² ekWh/m² ekWh/m²
that can be achieved at each
St.
facility. Michael's 189.7 213.4 205.1 202.7
School
Our Lady
Considering the 3‐year average of the
207.2 213.9 187.5 202.9
Way
‘picture’ and the facility‐by‐ School
facility details, the facility that St.
Joseph's 232.9 236.6 190.7 220.1
ranked the least efficient in School
St.
terms of energy intensity is Fort Patrick's 230.1 241.7 220.2 230.7
School
Frances Board Office. This facility Dryden
Board 274.2 281.1 207.6 254.3
had an energy intensity of 358.6 Office
ekWh/m², 40% more than the Sacred
Heart 306.4 310 206.3 274.2
average NCDSB facility. School
St.
Francis 277.2 327.4 320.3 308.3
School
Fort
Frances
384.2 400.2 291.4 358.6
Board
Office
Page | 16
Test #3 Energy Intensity – year‐over‐year ‐ ranking:
The figure below, shows energy intensity for each of the past three years, with the years
presented ‘side by side’. This red flags facilities where large increases in energy intensity
happened year over year. The data shows that energy intensity at most facilities has dropped
since 2012/2013. Sacred Heart School has seen a significant drop in energy intensity, showing
over a 33% overall reduction. St. Francis School has had the worst performance since 2012/2013,
with a 16% increase in energy intensity.

2012/2013 Variance 2013/2014 Variance 2014/2015
Location
ekWh/m2 # % ekWh/m
2
# % ekWh/m2
Sacred Heart School 306.4 3.6 1% 310 -103.7 -33% 206.3

Dryden Board Office 274.2 6.9 3% 281.1 -73.5 -26% 207.6
Fort Frances Board Office 384.2 16 4% 400.2 -108.8 -27% 291.4
St. Joseph's School 232.9 3.7 2% 236.6 -45.9 -19% 190.7
Our Lady of the Way School 207.2 6.7 3% 213.9 -26.4 -12% 187.5
St. Patrick's School 230.1 11.6 5% 241.7 -21.5 -9% 220.2
St. Michael's School 189.7 23.7 12% 213.4 -8.3 -4% 205.1
St. Francis School 277.2 50.2 18% 327.4 -7.1 -2% 320.3

Page | 17
5.6 Greenhouse Gas Emission – All Facilities

Greenhouse Gas Report – Total CO2e

2014/2015
Month
CO2e
September 14.9
October 59.4
November 78.9
December 94.8
January 108.0
February 91.3
March 67.3
April 41.2
May 18.4
June 10.3
July 7.7
August 7.3
Annual Total 599.4

Page | 18
5.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions – All Facilities‐ 2011/2012 to 2014/2015


Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 30.4 -8.5 -28 % 21.9 -4.3 -19 % 17.6 -2.8 -16 % 14.9
October 41.5 4.5 11 % 46.1 -1.3 -3 % 44.8 14.6 33 % 59.4
November 57.8 11.3 20 % 69.1 15.2 22 % 84.3 -5.4 -6 % 78.9
December 89.4 11.5 13 % 100.8 11.1 11 % 111.9 -17.1 -15 % 94.8
January 99.2 16.5 17 % 115.8 30.5 26 % 146.2 -38.3 -26 % 108.0
February 89.6 3.8 4% 93.5 18.1 19 % 111.6 -20.3 -18 % 91.3
March 72.3 19.9 27 % 92.2 7.0 8% 99.2 -31.9 -32 % 67.3
April 46.7 20.6 44 % 67.3 -3.7 -6 % 63.6 -22.4 -35 % 41.2
May 23.9 10.5 44 % 34.4 -7.1 -21 % 27.3 -8.8 -32 % 18.4
June 15.1 1.6 11 % 16.7 -4.3 -26 % 12.5 -2.1 -17 % 10.3
July 12.2 -0.1 -1 % 12.1 -3.5 -29 % 8.5 -0.8 -10 % 7.7
August 18.2 -4.5 -25 % 13.7 -5.3 -39 % 8.3 -1.0 -12 % 7.3
Annual Total 596.4 87.1 15 % 683.5 52.4 8 % 735.9 -136.4 -19 % 599.4

Page | 19
6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – BASED ON ENERGY STAR® DATA
In the past, information regarding greenhouse gases in this report have been solely derived from
utility bills collected by VIP Energy and conversion factors used by the Ministry of Energy in their
397/11 reporting templates (as presented in the previous section). Due to strong industry
indicators, we have elected to additionally present data derived from Energy Star®’s Portfolio
Manager, an industry recognized energy management tool. Due to differing conversion factors
used by the Ministry of Energy and Energy Star® Portfolio Manager, the amounts shown below
may differ from those previously presented. This section is included because it is highly likely that
this is the data that will be used in any upcoming cap and trade systems within Ontario. The
information in this section most accurately represents the emissions quantities that will be
attributed to your facilities in the event of a cap and trade system.
GHG Emissions ‐ All Facilities The data reflects trends seen in

800.0 facility energy intensity in the
previous section with a significant
600.0 rise in 2013 and little change in
Metric Tons CO2e
2014. When comparing to the

400.0 tables and graphs in the previous
section, we observe a significant
200.0 difference in both quantity and
trend of GHG emissions. This is
‐ largely due to higher emissions
2012 2013 2014
factors used for both electricity and
natural gas. Overall, Energy Star®
Location 2012 2013 2014

Portfolio Manager shows a 17% rise
All Facilities 659.4 758.5 768.7 in GHG emissions since 2012.
Page | 20
7 PROJECTS UNDER CDM PLAN – SUMMARY4
7.1 Previous Energy Conservation Projects
Historically, NCDSB has addressed Energy Conservation and Demand Management on a project‐
by‐project basis. Capital projects were implemented based on equipment’s expected useful life
or in response to equipment emergency breakdowns. Utility savings, realized as a result of the
implementation of these individual projects, have not historically been uniquely reported
formally, but have been considered as a component of general operations. Thus, they have been
reported through utility expenses in the Accounting System. Sustainability and long‐term energy
reduction goals, through this CDM Plan, will become integral components of the business
reporting system.
Utility costs were viewed as a fixed overhead cost. The management of these costs relied on an
exception‐based investigation approach. In other words, utility costs were only reviewed if a
utility bill was much higher, or lower, than typical.
In 2013, NCDSB embarked upon a strategic energy auditing project. The purpose of these audits
was to identify and analyze potential energy conservation and demand management
opportunities. These efforts have been instrumental in assisting NCDSB in aligning the CDM Plan
with the School Board’s Business Plan.
4
These project plans are listed on page 6 of the CDM Report
Page | 21
7.2 Supervisory Analytics
Energy consumption tends to create a pattern that often to repeats itself. Combining advanced
statistical tools with a working understanding of the various factors that influence energy
consumption, a baseline model of energy consumption can be created for each fuel type a facility
consumes. This predicted model of consumption can then be used as a reference to identify when
energy consumption varies. Significant variance signifies some kind of energy consumption event
(increase or decrease).
VIP has taken the liberty of performing this exercise on two of Northwest Catholic District School
Board’s facilities, Our Lady of the Way and St. Francis Schools, to gain further insight into the
energy consumption and conservation activities over the reporting period. A summary of the
results of this study are presented below.
Please note that this model is only correlated against weather and the effect of other
consumption variables are not included. That said, weather is a primary driver of consumption
and the models presented here track energy consumption with a high degree of confidence.
Our Lady of the Way
Electricity ‐ Baseline
Observations:
 Electricity baseline model (actual versus predicted consumption) has an R2 of 0.8558
(85.6 % fit).
 There is a strong relationship between weather and electrical consumption.
Page | 22
Electricity – M&V Chart
Observations:
 The Measurement and Verification chart shows consumption trending away from
predicted values around the end of 2012.
 M&V shows several months of sustained less than predicted consumption.
Electricity – CUSUM Chart
Observations:
 The CUSUM Chart shows consumption increases and reductions (slope rises or falls).
 There was a reoccurring consumption decrease from January 2013 to the end of the
reporting period.
Page | 23
o The magnitude of this consumption decrease was approximately 65,000 kWh
or approximately $9,750 (assuming electricity at 15 ¢/kWh).
 The rise in consumption in mid‐2012 may have been due in part to estimated billing.
Natural Gas ‐ Baseline
Observations:
 Natural Gas baseline model (actual versus predicted consumption) has an R2 of 0.8456
(85.5 % fit).
 There is a strong relationship between weather and natural gas consumption.
Natural Gas – M&V Chart
Observations:
 The Measurement and Verification chart shows only minor variations from predicted
values
Page | 24
Natural Gas – CUSUM Chart
Observations:
 There was a reoccurring small consumption decrease beginning in March 2013.
o The magnitude of this consumption increase was approximately 2,000 m3 or
approximately $500 (assuming natural gas at 25¢/m3).
St. Francis School
Electricity ‐ Baseline
Observations:
 Electricity baseline model (actual versus predicted consumption) has an R2 of 0.9423
(94.2 % fit).
 There is a strong relationship between weather and electrical consumption.
Page | 25
Electricity – M&V Chart
Observations:
 The Measurement and Verification chart shows that consumption was less than
predicted in 2012, with greatest savings in the summer.
 Beginning in 2013 consumption exceeded predictions and did not revert to model
prediction until February of 2014 where it tended to be only slightly less than
predicted, indicating minor energy conservation.
Electricity – CUSUM Chart
Observations:
Page | 26
 There was a non‐reoccurring consumption decrease from June 2012 to April 2013,
after which consumption increased until February 2014 when it stabilized and slightly
declined afterwards.
o The magnitude of the early decrease was nearly completely negated by the
increases seen afterwards, resulting in a net savings of approximately
12,000 kWh or $1,800 (assuming electricity at 15¢/kWh).
o Trends appear to have stabilized at a slightly lower than predicted level.
Natural Gas ‐ Baseline
Observations:
 Natural Gas baseline model (actual versus predicted consumption) has an R2 of 0.9813
(98.1 % fit).
 There is a strong relationship between weather and natural gas consumption.

Page | 27
Natural Gas – M&V Chart
Observations:
 The Measurement and Verification chart shows only minor variations from predicted
values aside from the savings seen in the winter months.
Natural Gas – CUSUM Chart
Observations:
 There was a consumption decrease beginning in the late fall of 2012 and reoccurring
each subsequent winter with diminishing returns.
Page | 28
o The magnitude of this consumption decrease was approximately 16,000 m3 or
approximately $4000 (assuming natural gas at 25¢/m3).

General Supervisory Analytics Observations
1. There appears to be sustained conservation effort at Our Lady of the Way school,
resulting in significant savings.
2. St. Francis School has shown initial improvements but is trending towards increased
consumption in electricity. Natural gas conservation has been consistent over the
period but are overshadowed by the electricity increases.
3. Use of these tools allow Northwest Catholic District School Board to monitor and
measure the cause‐and‐effect between energy conservations measures and the
actual impact on consumption.
4. The study period should be updated to include 2015 and 2016 information to
evaluate any further conservation measures.
o Other driver variables should be explored to see if the model could be
improved.
o Including a greater number of NWCDSB facilities will aid in identifying and
verifying energy conservation efforts and opportunities.

Page | 29
7.3 Future Projects Filed in CDM Plan5
Future Energy Reduction Projects Summary
Year Facility Planned Activity
Incandescent - Lamp Replacement
Fort Francis Board Office Water Cooler - Energy Star Replacement
Replace Windows in Front of Building
Dryden Board Office CFL / T8 / Incandescent - Lamp Replacement
Water Cooler - Energy Star Replacement
St. Michael’s School T8 / CFL / Incandescent - Lamp Replacement
MH 250W Fixture Replacement with LED
2013
Replace Incandescent Exit Light with LED
2014 St. Patrick’s School T8 / CFL / Incandescent - Lamp Replacement
MH 250W Fixture Replacement with LED
T12 - Lamp Replacement
St. Francis School CFL / T8 / Incandescent - Lamp Replacement
Sacred Heart CFL / T8 / Incandescent - Lamp Replacement
St. Joseph’s School CFL / T8 / Incandescent - Lamp Replacement
Dryden Board Office Operator Mechanical Equipment Training
St. Michael’s School Replace NON-Energy Star Appliances
Replace Electric with Gas Domestic Water Heater
Energy and Resource Awareness
St. Patrick’s School Domestic Water Heater Rotation / Shut Down
2014 Building Automation Training
2015
St. Francis School Solar Panel System Preventative Maintenance
Install Faucet Aerators
Operator BAS and Mechanical Equipment Training
Sacred Heart Energy and Resource Awareness
Operator BAS and Mechanical Equipment Training
St. Joseph’s School Install Faucet Aerators
Fort Francis Board Office Replace NON-Energy Star Appliances
St. Michael’s School Replace Older Exhaust Fans with High Efficient Motors
St. Patrick’s School Install Motion Sensors
St. Francis School Metal Halide 400W Fixture Replacement with LED 60W
2015 Replace SF-1 with High Efficient MAU
2016 Balance and Change Belt and Pulley for Multi-Unit AHU
Sacred Heart Metal Halide 400W Fixture Replacement with LED 60W
HRV Additions, EF-2 Decommission, SF-2 Rebalance
Washroom - 114/115ERV Electrical Duct Heater Removal
St. Joseph’s School MH 400W Fixture Replacement with LED
Replace Older Exhaust Fans with High Efficient Motors
5
These project plans are listed on page 37 of the CDM Report
Page | 30
7.4 Additional Recommendations
To be compliant with O. Reg. 397/11 and to take full advantage of government programs and
incentives:
Monitoring & Tracking Vital Components
The task of convincing today’s skeptics that your actions have created energy use and cost savings
can be a daunting one. The challenge is – there are so many variables, many of which are
controlled by other parties. The key to success is breaking the complexity of energy use down
into its most‐vital components, then measuring and analysing each of those components. This
report card covers a number of vital components. In addition, the following list shows samples
of monitoring and tracking initiatives that allow energy users to gain advantage:
 Metering, including self‐metering & sub‐metering of selected equipment
 Utility bill verification
 Utility rate schedule options
 Energy cost component tracking – for example, tracking the Global Adjustment for
electricity
 Detailed engineering studies – monitoring and testing equipment operation
 Energy project tracking – with or without incentive funding [incentive summary – see
APPENDIX G – ENERGY CONSERVATION INCENTIVES.
 Real‐time monitoring of facility air – temperature, humidity, “hot spots” & “cold spots”
 Weather [temperature, wind, etc.] and the extent of its correlation with energy
consumption
In addition, from an environmental perspective, monitoring and verification enables the creation
of greenhouse gas emission reduction credits – a valuable asset once cap and trade systems are
implemented.
Energy Audits and Existing Building Commissioning
Energy audits in combination with existing building commissioning comprise a systematic process
for investigating, analysing and optimizing the performance of building systems. Identifying
unique energy savings measures and specific areas of opportunity through energy auditing is the
first step towards optimizing buildings energy systems. Commissioning of existing systems then
Page | 31
goes further in‐depth to the controls, performance and synchronicity of the system, allowing for
greater efficiency and longer system life.
Energy Awareness Programs
When people use energy resources wisely, through simple, good habits like turning off lights
when lights are not needed, their communities move toward sustainability. Sustainability is more
about culture than major projects and leading‐edge technologies. To promote a more sustainable
future, it is essential to present a positive picture of a better future and capture people’s interest.
Then, people must receive the knowledge they will require to grow the good habits that bring
about energy conservation and sustainability.
Energy awareness programs pave the path for sustainability. Properly prepared and delivered,
energy awareness programs educate, energize, and support people who are inspired to conserve
energy and build sustainable communities.
Page | 32
APPENDIX A ‐ SCHOOL BOARD SECTOR RANKING 2011/2012, 2012/2013,
AND 2013/2014
Normalized Energy Intensity – Summary of 397/11 reporting –School Board Sector –
(2011/2012)
Average Energy Average Energy
Ranking School Boards Intensity Intensity
(ekWh/HDD/ft²) (ekWh/HDD/m²)
1 Superior‐Greenstone District School Board 2.9 31.2
2 Ottawa Catholic School Board 3.2 34.6
3 Kenora Catholic District School Board 3.2 35.0
4 Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel‐Ontario 3.3 36.0
5 Lakehead District School Board 3.4 36.6
6 Superior North Catholic District School Board 3.5 37.3
7 Conseil scolaire de district du Grand Nord de l'Ontario 3.7 39.3
8 Conseil scolaire public du Nord‐Est de l'Ontario 3.7 40.0
9 Nipissing‐Parry Sound Catholic District School Board 3.7 40.1
10 Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Grandes Rivières 3.8 40.4
11 Upper Canada District School Board 3.8 41.1
12 Rainy River District School Board 3.8 41.2
13 Durham District School Board 3.9 41.6
14 Keewatin‐Patricia District School Board 3.9 42.0
15 Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Aurores boréales 3.9 42.3
16 Northwest Catholic District School Board 4.0 43.2
17 Sudbury Catholic District School Board 4.0 43.3
18 Rainbow District School Board 4.0 43.5
19 Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario 4.1 43.6
20 St. Clair Catholic District School Board 4.1 44.0
21 Near North District School Board 4.1 44.4
22 York Catholic District School Board 4.2 45.0
23 Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board 4.2 45.1
24 Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board 4.2 45.3
25 Ottawa‐Carleton District School Board 4.2 45.5
26 York Region District School Board 4.3 45.9
27 Conseil scolaire de district catholique Franco‐Nord 4.3 46.3
28 Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Centre‐Est de l'Ontario 4.3 46.5
29 District School Board Ontario North East 4.3 46.8
30 Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l'est Ontarien 4.4 47.0
31 Huron‐Superior Catholic District School Board 4.4 47.1
32 Northeastern Catholic District School Board 4.5 48.0
33 Halton Catholic District School Board 4.5 48.0
34 District School Board Of Niagara 4.5 48.2
35 Simcoe County District School Board 4.5 48.7
36 Renfrew County Catholic District School Board 4.5 48.8
37 Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington District Catholic School Board 4.5 48.8
38 Algoma District School Board 4.6 49.0
39 Grand Erie District School Board 4.7 50.1
40 Bruce‐Grey Catholic District School Board 4.7 50.2
41 Renfrew County District School Board 4.7 50.5
Page | 33
42 Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board 4.7 50.7
43 Bluewater District School Board 4.8 51.3
44 Durham Catholic District School Board 4.9 52.2
45 Greater Essex County District School Board 4.9 52.6
46 Thames Valley District School Board 4.9 52.7
47 Trillium Lakelands District School Board 5.0 53.5
48 Niagara Catholic District School Board 5.0 53.8
49 Hamilton‐Wentworth District School Board 5.0 54.2
50 London District Catholic School Board 5.1 54.5
51 Upper Grand District School Board 5.1 55.3
52 Dufferin Peel Catholic District School Board 5.2 56.2
53 Hastings and Prince Edward District School Board 5.2 56.3
54 Conseil scolaire de district du Viamonde 5.3 56.6
55 Windsor‐Essex Catholic District School Board 5.4 58.1
56 Wellington Catholic District School Board 5.4 58.3
57 Limestone District School Board 5.4 58.3
58 Lambton Kent District School Board 5.4 58.4
59 Avon Maitland District School Board 5.4 58.6
60 Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario 5.5 59.0
61 Toronto Catholic District School Board 5.5 59.4
62 Waterloo Region District School Board 5.6 59.8
63 Hamilton‐Wentworth Catholic District School Board 5.6 59.8
64 Huron Perth Catholic District School Board 5.6 60.3
65 Toronto District School Board 5.7 61.8
66 Waterloo Catholic District School Board 5.9 63.0
67 Algonquin & Lakeshore Catholic District School Board 5.9 63.7
68 Peel District School Board 6.0 64.5
69 Conseil scolaire de district des écoles catholiques du Sud‐Ouest 6.0 64.8
70 Halton District School Board 6.8 72.9
Average 4.6 49.6
Source: Ministry of Energy

Page | 34
(2012/2013)
39 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board 5.7 61.2
Page | 35
58 Conseil scolaire de district du Viamonde 6.4 68.7
66 Conseil scolaire public du Nord‐Est de l'Ontario 6.9 74.0
Average 5.5 58.8

Page | 36
(2013/2014)
40 Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board 4.9 52.7
Page | 37
Average 4.8 51.7

Page | 38
APPENDIX B – ENERGY INTENSITY – EACH FACILITY –2011/2012, 2012/2013,
2013/2014, AND 2014/2015

Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Patrick’s School
Energy Consumption Report ‐ ekWh/m2
September 2011 ‐ August 2015

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 9.3 -0.7 -7 % 8.6 0.2 2% 8.8 0.0 0% 8.8
October 9.0 5.1 57 % 14.1 0.1 0% 14.1 2.5 18 % 16.7
November 11.7 10.6 91 % 22.3 4.7 21 % 27.0 -3.6 -13 % 23.3
December 22.2 6.9 31 % 29.2 7.6 26 % 36.7 -5.4 -15 % 31.4
January 33.4 3.1 9% 36.4 5.5 15 % 41.9 -8.9 -21 % 33.0
February 27.5 3.5 13 % 31.0 5.5 18 % 36.6 -6.1 -17 % 30.4
March 23.6 4.2 18 % 27.8 3.3 12 % 31.0 -5.3 -17 % 25.8
April 16.4 5.3 32 % 21.7 -1.5 -7 % 20.3 -3.2 -16 % 17.1
May 13.2 1.3 10 % 14.5 -3.5 -24 % 11.1 0.9 8% 11.9
June 8.2 1.6 19 % 9.8 -3.6 -37 % 6.2 2.7 44 % 8.8
July 6.2 1.9 30 % 8.1 -4.5 -55 % 3.6 3.0 83 % 6.6
August 7.5 -0.9 -12 % 6.6 -2.2 -33 % 4.4 2.0 45 % 6.4
Annual Totals 188.2 41.9 22 % 230.1 11.6 5 % 241.7 -21.5 -9 % 220.2

Page | 39
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Dryden Board Office

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 14.1 -0.5 -3 % 13.6 -0.5 -4 % 13.1 0.2 2% 13.3
October 16.0 2.1 13 % 18.1 0.0 0% 18.2 -5.1 -28 % 13.1
November 24.4 -0.3 -1 % 24.1 3.9 16 % 28.0 -14.1 -50 % 13.9
December 32.4 1.3 4% 33.8 5.2 15 % 39.0 -21.4 -55 % 17.6
January 34.8 4.9 14 % 39.7 3.1 8% 42.8 -21.3 -50 % 21.5
February 29.5 5.0 17 % 34.6 0.7 2% 35.3 -9.3 -26 % 26.0
March 21.7 8.0 37 % 29.7 -0.5 -2 % 29.2 -1.5 -5 % 27.7
April 13.3 10.3 77 % 23.6 -3.2 -14 % 20.4 -1.3 -6 % 19.1
May 12.7 5.2 41 % 17.9 -1.6 -9 % 16.4 -1.1 -7 % 15.2
June 13.5 0.0 0% 13.4 -0.7 -5 % 12.7 0.3 2% 13.0
July 13.6 -1.1 -8 % 12.5 0.4 3% 12.9 0.6 5% 13.5
August 12.1 1.0 8% 13.1 0.1 1% 13.3 0.4 3% 13.7
Annual Totals 238.2 36.0 15 % 274.2 6.9 3% 281.1 -73.5 -26 % 207.6

Page | 40
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Sacred Heart School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 25.3 -14.4 -57 % 10.9 -0.4 -3 % 10.5 -5.5 -52% 5.0
October 27.9 -6.7 -24 % 21.2 -2.3 -11 % 18.9 19.3 102% 38.2
November 30.7 -2.5 -8 % 28.1 9.5 34 % 37.6 -4.8 -13% 32.8
December 27.0 17.6 65 % 44.6 -0.7 -2 % 43.9 -14.9 -34% 29.0
January 31.0 17.5 57 % 48.6 18.4 38 % 67.0 -33.9 -51% 33.1
February 38.8 -1.6 -4 % 37.2 7.1 19 % 44.3 -16.5 -37% 27.8
March 35.5 6.0 17 % 41.5 0.9 2% 42.3 -27.8 -66% 14.5
April 22.1 8.2 37 % 30.3 -4.0 -13 % 26.3 -15.7 -60% 10.6
May 9.9 6.4 65 % 16.3 -8.7 -53 % 7.6 -3 -39% 4.6
June 8.9 0.7 8% 9.6 -5.2 -55 % 4.4 -0.4 -9% 4.0
July 7.2 1.7 24 % 8.9 -5.6 -63 % 3.3 -0.1 -3% 3.2
August 8.1 1.1 13 % 9.2 -5.3 -57 % 4.0 -0.6 -15% 3.4
Annual Totals 272.4 34.0 12 % 306.4 3.7 1% 310.0 -103.9 -34% 206.2

Page | 41
Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Michael’s School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 5.5 3.4 62 % 8.9 -2.6 -29 % 6.4 4.1 64% 10.5
October 6.9 7.8 113 % 14.8 0.4 3% 15.2 1.9 13% 17.1
November 7.7 13.0 169 % 20.7 -2.5 -12 % 18.1 9.8 54% 27.9
December 39.1 -12.9 -33 % 26.3 7.2 27 % 33.4 8.7 26% 42.1
January 36.5 -5.3 -14 % 31.2 4.1 13 % 35.3 -6.9 -20% 28.4
February 23.8 0.2 1% 24.1 5.2 21 % 29.2 -6.4 -22% 22.8
March 16.8 5.2 31 % 22.0 4.6 21 % 26.6 -3.2 -12% 23.4
April 13.2 3.9 30 % 17.1 2.7 16 % 19.9 -6.3 -32% 13.6
May 9.6 1.4 15 % 11.0 1.4 12 % 12.4 -4.3 -35% 8.1
June 5.9 0.0 0% 6.0 0.9 15 % 6.8 -2 -29% 4.8
July 3.6 0.1 3% 3.8 1.0 27 % 4.8 -1.7 -35% 3.1
August 4.0 0.0 0% 4.0 1.4 34 % 5.3 -2 -38% 3.3
Annual Totals 172.8 16.9 10 % 189.7 23.7 13 % 213.4 -8.3 -4% 205.1

Page | 42
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Fort Frances Board Office

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 18.2 0.6 4% 18.8 -3.6 -19 % 15.2 -8.6 -57% 6.6
October 25.4 3.3 13 % 28.7 -2.1 -7 % 26.6 -15.5 -58% 11.1
November 36.5 1.2 3% 37.7 5.4 14 % 43.1 -19.2 -45% 23.9
December 49.6 2.6 5% 52.2 7.8 15 % 60.0 -28.1 -47% 31.9
January 52.7 4.6 9% 57.4 8.4 15 % 65.8 -21.3 -32% 44.5
February 45.4 4.8 10 % 50.2 4.3 9% 54.5 -11.2 -21% 43.3
March 34.9 11.1 32 % 46.0 1.5 3% 47.5 -0.9 -2% 46.6
April 26.7 6.4 24 % 33.1 -1.9 -6 % 31.2 -2.7 -9% 28.5
May 19.0 3.0 16 % 22.0 -0.7 -3 % 21.3 -3 -14% 18.3
June 17.0 -2.3 -14 % 14.7 0.4 3% 15.1 -3.6 -24% 11.5
July 16.4 -5.3 -33 % 11.1 0.2 2% 11.3 1.8 16% 13.1
August 14.5 -2.1 -15 % 12.3 -3.8 -31 % 8.5 3.6 42% 12.1
Annual Totals 356.3 27.9 8 % 384.2 16.0 4 % 400.2 -108.7 -27% 291.4

Page | 43
Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Francis School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 10.9 -2.2 -20 % 8.7 1.4 16 % 10.1 0.1 1% 10.2

October 18.6 1.4 8% 20.1 4.1 20 % 24.2 -4.3 -18% 19.9
November 30.2 -1.6 -5 % 28.6 7.7 27 % 36.3 0.5 1% 36.8
December 42.8 -5.8 -14 % 36.9 10.4 28 % 47.3 -9.1 -19% 38.2
January 44.8 -0.1 0% 44.7 14.0 31 % 58.7 3.8 6% 62.5
February 35.7 2.7 8% 38.4 9.1 24 % 47.6 3 6% 50.6
March 27.1 9.3 34 % 36.4 4.1 11 % 40.5 -0.7 -2% 39.8
April 20.4 9.0 44 % 29.4 -2.3 -8 % 27.1 1.4 5% 28.5
May 12.3 3.5 28 % 15.8 0.8 5% 16.6 -4 -24% 12.6
June 5.4 2.4 44 % 7.9 0.6 8% 8.4 -0.6 -7% 7.8
July 4.0 -0.3 -8 % 3.6 2.5 69 % 6.1 1.3 21% 7.4
August 3.4 3.3 99 % 6.7 -2.3 -34 % 4.4 1.6 36% 6.0
Annual Totals 255.6 21.7 8 % 277.2 50.1 18 % 327.4 -7 -2% 320.3

Page | 44
Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Joseph’s School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 5.4 4.9 91 % 10.3 -5.1 -49 % 5.3 1.1 21% 6.4
October 12.5 4.8 38 % 17.3 -1.3 -7 % 16.0 -3.2 -20% 12.8
November 19.7 5.2 26 % 24.9 4.2 17 % 29.2 -6.3 -22% 22.9
December 33.2 0.0 0% 33.1 0.0 0% 33.1 -4.7 -14% 28.4
January 33.7 4.4 13 % 38.1 4.8 12 % 42.8 -12 -28% 30.8
February 29.5 1.3 5% 30.9 2.6 9% 33.5 -4.8 -14% 28.7
March 20.7 9.3 45 % 30.0 0.2 1% 30.2 -5.3 -18% 24.9
April 15.4 6.0 39 % 21.4 0.4 2% 21.8 -8 -37% 13.8
May 9.3 2.5 27 % 11.8 -0.2 -2 % 11.6 -3.1 -27% 8.5
June 7.0 -0.1 -1 % 6.9 -0.6 -9 % 6.3 -0.4 -6% 5.9
July 6.0 -2.5 -41 % 3.6 0.1 4% 3.7 0.3 8% 4
August 20.4 -15.9 -78 % 4.6 -1.5 -33 % 3.0 0.6 20% 3.6
Annual Totals 212.9 20.0 9% 232.9 3.7 2% 236.6 -45.8 -19% 190.7

Page | 45
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Our Lady of the Way School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
September 4.2 7.6 180 % 11.8 -3.2 -27 % 8.6 -1.3 -16 % 7.3
October 11.5 4.3 37 % 15.8 -1.0 -6 % 14.8 -0.4 -3 % 14.4
November 21.6 0.9 4% 22.5 -0.5 -2 % 22.0 -4.3 -19 % 17.7
December 29.4 0.9 3% 30.3 0.5 2% 30.7 -1.5 -5 % 29.3
January 31.8 -1.4 -4 % 30.4 2.7 9% 33.1 2.1 6% 35.2
February 21.6 4.5 21 % 26.1 5.0 19 % 31.1 -6.6 -21 % 24.4
March 25.5 -3.0 -12 % 22.5 3.4 15 % 25.9 -7.6 -29 % 18.3
April 14.2 3.7 26 % 17.9 -1.7 -9 % 16.3 -2.2 -14 % 14.0
May 7.7 1.5 20 % 9.2 1.5 17 % 10.7 -1.5 -14 % 9.3
June 6.6 0.3 5% 6.9 -0.6 -9 % 6.3 1.4 22 % 7.7
July 7.2 -0.4 -6 % 6.8 0.5 7% 7.3 -1.8 -25 % 5.5
August 9.2 -2.2 -24 % 7.0 0.0 0% 7.1 -2.6 -37 % 4.4
Annual Totals 190.5 16.7 9% 207.2 6.6 3% 213.9 -26.3 -12 % 187.5

Page | 46
APPENDIX C – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – EACH FACILITY –2011/2012,
2012/2013, 2013/2014, AND 2014/2015

Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Patrick’s School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 2.6 -0.1 -3 % 2.5 -0.2 -6 % 2.3 0.1 5% 2.5
October 2.3 2.7 116 % 5.0 -0.2 -3 % 4.8 0.7 15 % 5.5
November 3.4 5.2 151 % 8.6 2.2 26 % 10.8 -1.9 -17 % 8.9
December 8.4 3.4 41 % 11.8 3.6 30 % 15.4 -3.0 -20 % 12.3
January 13.3 1.4 10 % 14.7 2.7 18 % 17.4 -4.1 -23 % 13.3
February 11.1 1.7 15 % 12.8 2.3 18 % 15.2 -3.3 -22 % 11.9
March 9.1 2.3 25 % 11.4 1.3 11 % 12.6 -3.0 -23 % 9.7
April 6.1 2.3 37 % 8.4 -0.4 -5 % 8.0 -2.1 -27 % 5.8
May 4.4 0.7 16 % 5.1 -1.5 -28 % 3.7 -0.3 -7 % 3.4
June 2.5 0.2 9% 2.8 -1.0 -37 % 1.8 0.2 14 % 2.0
July 1.6 0.5 29 % 2.1 -1.1 -51 % 1.0 0.4 41 % 1.5
August 2.0 -0.2 -11 % 1.8 -0.5 -27 % 1.3 0.2 12 % 1.4
Annual Total 66.9 20.0 30 % 86.9 7.3 8% 94.2 -16.0 -17 % 78.3

Page | 47
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Dryden Board Office

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 0.3 0.0 -3 % 0.3 0.0 -7 % 0.3 -0.1 -18 % 0.3
October 0.4 0.1 14 % 0.5 0.0 3% 0.5 -0.3 -49 % 0.3
November 0.8 0.0 -4 % 0.8 0.2 24 % 0.9 -0.6 -65 % 0.3
December 1.1 0.0 4% 1.2 0.2 19 % 1.4 -0.9 -65 % 0.5
January 1.2 0.2 17 % 1.4 0.1 9% 1.6 -0.9 -58 % 0.7
February 1.0 0.2 22 % 1.2 0.0 3% 1.3 -0.4 -35 % 0.8
March 0.7 0.3 49 % 1.0 0.0 -3 % 1.0 -0.1 -12 % 0.9
April 0.3 0.4 125 % 0.8 -0.1 -16 % 0.6 -0.1 -19 % 0.5
May 0.3 0.2 77 % 0.5 -0.1 -13 % 0.5 -0.1 -26 % 0.3
June 0.3 0.0 3% 0.3 0.0 -8 % 0.3 -0.1 -18 % 0.2
July 0.3 0.0 -8 % 0.3 0.0 3% 0.3 -0.1 -17 % 0.2
August 0.3 0.0 8% 0.3 0.0 1% 0.3 -0.1 -18 % 0.3
Annual Total 7.2 1.5 21 % 8.7 0.3 4% 9.0 -3.7 -41 % 5.3

Page | 48
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Sacred Heart School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 18.9 -12.4 -65 % 6.5 -0.5 -8 % 6.0 -4.7 -78 % 1.3
October 21.0 -6.0 -28 % 15.0 -2.5 -16 % 12.6 17.4 138 % 30.0
November 23.4 -2.4 -10 % 21.0 7.4 35 % 28.4 -3.4 -12 % 25.0
December 20.2 14.9 74 % 35.1 -1.2 -4 % 33.9 -11.6 -34 % 22.2
January 23.7 14.1 59 % 37.8 15.7 41 % 53.5 -28.2 -53 % 25.4
February 30.6 -2.3 -8 % 28.3 6.3 22 % 34.5 -13.2 -38 % 21.3
March 27.6 4.9 18 % 32.5 0.7 2% 33.1 -23.6 -71 % 9.6
April 15.9 7.0 44 % 22.8 -3.3 -14 % 19.5 -13.0 -67 % 6.5
May 5.3 5.4 101 % 10.7 -6.9 -65 % 3.7 -2.5 -67 % 1.2
June 4.9 0.5 10 % 5.4 -4.0 -73 % 1.4 -0.4 -25 % 1.1
July 4.4 0.8 19 % 5.2 -4.2 -80 % 1.1 -0.2 -21 % 0.8
August 4.7 0.6 13 % 5.4 -4.1 -76 % 1.3 -0.4 -30 % 0.9
Annual Total 200.6 25.2 13 % 225.8 3.3 1% 229.1 -83.8 -37 % 145.4

Page | 49
Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Michael’s School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 1.3 1.3 106 % 2.6 -0.8 -32 % 1.7 1.4 83 % 3.2
October 1.6 3.2 204 % 4.8 0.3 7% 5.1 0.8 15 % 5.9
November 1.7 5.4 310 % 7.1 -0.6 -8 % 6.6 4.0 60 % 10.5
December 14.6 -5.1 -35 % 9.6 3.4 35 % 12.9 3.8 30 % 16.8
January 14.1 -2.6 -18 % 11.5 2.2 19 % 13.7 -2.6 -19 % 11.1
February 8.7 0.2 2% 8.9 2.3 26 % 11.2 -2.7 -24 % 8.5
March 5.9 2.1 35 % 7.9 2.3 29 % 10.2 -1.3 -12 % 9.0
April 4.3 1.6 38 % 6.0 1.4 23 % 7.3 -2.6 -35 % 4.7
May 2.9 0.6 19 % 3.5 0.8 22 % 4.2 -1.8 -44 % 2.4
June 1.6 0.0 -1 % 1.6 0.4 27 % 2.0 -0.9 -45 % 1.1
July 0.9 0.0 4% 0.9 0.3 32 % 1.2 -0.6 -52 % 0.6
August 1.0 0.0 3% 1.0 0.5 45 % 1.5 -0.8 -53 % 0.7
Annual Total 58.6 6.8 12 % 65.4 12.4 19 % 77.8 -3.3 -4 % 74.5

Page | 50
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Fort Frances Board Office

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 0.3 0.0 4% 0.3 -0.1 -19 % 0.2 -0.1 -51 % 0.1
October 0.4 0.1 13 % 0.5 0.0 -7 % 0.4 -0.2 -53 % 0.2
November 0.6 0.0 3% 0.6 0.1 14 % 0.7 -0.3 -37 % 0.4
December 0.8 0.0 5% 0.8 0.1 15 % 1.0 -0.3 -36 % 0.6
January 0.8 0.1 9% 0.9 0.1 15 % 1.1 0.1 11 % 1.2
February 0.7 0.1 10 % 0.8 0.1 9% 0.9 0.3 32 % 1.2
March 0.6 0.2 32 % 0.7 0.0 3% 0.8 0.2 30 % 1.0
April 0.4 0.1 24 % 0.5 0.0 -6 % 0.5 0.2 39 % 0.7
May 0.3 0.0 16 % 0.4 0.0 -3 % 0.3 0.1 25 % 0.4
June 0.3 0.0 -14 % 0.2 0.0 3% 0.2 0.0 -9 % 0.2
July 0.3 -0.1 -33 % 0.2 0.0 2% 0.2 0.1 48 % 0.3
August 0.2 0.0 -15 % 0.2 -0.1 -31 % 0.1 0.1 68 % 0.2
Annual Total 5.7 0.4 8% 6.2 0.3 4% 6.4 0.1 2% 6.5

Page | 51
Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Francis School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 4.1 -0.9 -22 % 3.1 0.4 14 % 3.6 -0.1 -3 % 3.5
October 7.5 0.7 9% 8.2 1.8 22 % 10.0 -2.0 -20 % 8.0
November 13.0 -0.7 -5 % 12.3 3.5 29 % 15.8 0.2 2% 16.1
December 19.0 -2.8 -15 % 16.2 4.6 28 % 20.8 -3.3 -16 % 17.5
January 19.9 -0.2 -1 % 19.8 6.1 31 % 25.9 2.5 10 % 28.5
February 15.8 1.3 9% 17.1 4.3 25 % 21.4 1.7 8% 23.2
March 11.8 4.3 37 % 16.1 2.0 13 % 18.1 -0.4 -2 % 17.7
April 8.7 4.0 46 % 12.8 -1.0 -8 % 11.8 0.5 4% 12.3
May 4.9 1.6 32 % 6.5 0.3 4% 6.8 -1.9 -28 % 4.9
June 1.8 0.9 49 % 2.6 0.4 16 % 3.0 -0.7 -24 % 2.3
July 1.3 -0.3 -21 % 1.1 1.0 92 % 2.0 0.0 1% 2.1
August 1.1 1.3 112 % 2.4 -0.9 -38 % 1.5 0.3 17 % 1.7
Annual Total 108.9 9.3 9% 118.1 22.6 19 % 140.7 -3.2 -2 % 137.6

Page | 52
Northwest Catholic District School Board – St. Joseph’s School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 2.3 2.5 109 % 4.8 -2.7 -56 % 2.2 0.9 43 % 3.1
October 6.5 3.2 49 % 9.6 -0.8 -8 % 8.8 -1.5 -17 % 7.4
November 11.3 3.6 32 % 14.8 2.3 16 % 17.2 -2.1 -12 % 15.0
December 20.2 0.4 2% 20.6 0.2 1% 20.7 -0.9 -4 % 19.8
January 20.6 3.2 15 % 23.8 2.9 12 % 26.8 -5.6 -21 % 21.1
February 17.9 1.5 8% 19.4 2.0 10 % 21.3 -1.6 -8 % 19.7
March 12.2 6.3 51 % 18.5 0.2 1% 18.7 -1.9 -10 % 16.8
April 8.8 4.1 47 % 12.9 0.0 0% 13.0 -4.3 -33 % 8.6
May 4.7 1.7 35 % 6.3 0.0 0% 6.3 -1.7 -27 % 4.6
June 2.9 0.1 2% 2.9 -0.1 -3 % 2.9 -0.3 -11 % 2.5
July 2.4 -1.0 -40 % 1.4 0.2 13 % 1.6 0.0 0% 1.6
August 7.7 -5.9 -76 % 1.8 -0.4 -25 % 1.4 0.1 8% 1.5
Annual Total 117.3 19.6 17 % 137.0 3.8 3% 140.7 -19.0 -14 % 121.7

Page | 53
Northwest Catholic District School Board – Our Lady of the Way School

Month 2012 2013 2014 2015
CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e # % CO2e
September 0.6 1.0 159 % 1.6 -0.4 -25 % 1.2 -0.3 -23 % 1.0
October 1.8 0.7 38 % 2.5 0.1 2% 2.5 -0.4 -15 % 2.2
November 3.6 0.3 8% 3.9 0.1 2% 4.0 -1.4 -34 % 2.7
December 5.1 0.5 10 % 5.6 0.3 5% 5.9 -0.8 -14 % 5.0
January 5.4 0.3 6% 5.7 0.6 10 % 6.3 0.5 8% 6.7
February 3.9 1.1 28 % 4.9 0.8 16 % 5.7 -1.0 -17 % 4.8
March 4.5 -0.4 -10 % 4.1 0.6 15 % 4.7 -1.9 -40 % 2.8
April 2.2 1.0 44 % 3.1 -0.3 -8 % 2.9 -0.9 -32 % 1.9
May 1.1 0.3 29 % 1.4 0.4 25 % 1.8 -0.6 -35 % 1.1
June 0.9 0.0 3% 0.9 0.0 -2 % 0.9 0.0 -5 % 0.8
July 0.9 -0.1 -12 % 0.8 0.2 27 % 1.0 -0.4 -41 % 0.6
August 1.2 -0.3 -26 % 0.9 0.1 16 % 1.0 -0.4 -42 % 0.6
Annual Total 31.1 4.3 14 % 35.4 2.5 7% 37.8 -7.6 -20 % 30.2

Page | 54
APPENDIX D – ENERGY STAR® SCORES – ALL FACILITIES
2012 2013 2014

Location ENERGY ENERGY ENERGY
STAR® Score STAR® Score STAR® Score
St. Michael's School 78 89 75
Our Lady of the Way School 57 84 82
St. Joseph's School 37 70 72
St. Patrick's School 32 35 45
Sacred Heart School 36 31 43
St. Francis School 52 41 36
Page | 55
APPENDIX E ‐ UTILITY ACCOUNT INFORMATION
Account Account
Location Account Number Commodity Utility
Opened Closed
701101‐703448 Electric Atikokan Hydro 12/1/2010 In Use
St. Patrick's School
125‐4330 104‐8773 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/16/2010 In Use
805121‐802218 Electric Sioux Lookout Hydro 11/30/2010 In Use
Sacred Heart 8163810 Fuel Oil No 1 Andre Tardiff Agency Ltd. 9/1/2011 In Use
School 805123‐802232 Electric Sioux Lookout Hydro 12/13/2010 In Use
806775‐805756 Electric Sioux Lookout Hydro 1/14/2013 7/9/2013
SA020214 Natural Gas Union Gas 7/1/2014 In Use
Dryden Board 125‐7399 129‐4015 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/15/2010 In Use
Office 200102894638‐10477571 Electric Hydro One 4/26/2013 In Use
07782‐65017 Electric Hydro One 6/24/2011 4/26/2013
St. Michael's 125‐7399 273‐5052 Natural Gas Union Gas 10/12/2011 In Use
School 753351‐857678 Electric FFPC 1/1/2010 In Use
755629‐857026 Electric FFPC 11/15/2009 In Use
St. Francis School 125‐7399 104‐5168 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/2/2010 In Use

762865‐858258 Electric on Site Solar FFPC 12/11/2013 In Use
755655‐857050 Electric FFPC 11/15/2009 In Use

Fort Frances Board SA020228 Natural Gas Union Gas 7/1/2014 In Use
Office
10223‐84006 Electric Hydro One 10/26/2010 In Use

St. Joseph's School 200052271752‐11149862 Electric Hydro One 5/2/2013 In Use
Our Lady of the 125‐7399 268‐8099 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/22/2010 In Use
Way 200034722533‐10842058 Electric Hydro One 4/26/2013 In Use
Page | 56
APPENDIX F – ENERGY STAR PROPERTY INFORMATION

Property Name St. Patrick’s School
Street Address 160 Hemlock Avenue
City/Municipality Atikokan
State/Province Ontario
Postal Code P0T 1C0
Country Canada
Year Built 2000
Property Type ‐ Self‐Selected K‐12 School
Construction Status Existing
Gross Floor Area 2,622 m²
Occupancy (%) 100%
Number of Buildings 1
Gymnasium Floor Area 0 m²
High School No
Number of Workers on Main Shift 20
Student Seating Capacity 280
Months in Use
Not Entered
Weekend Operation No
Number of Computers 50
Cooking Facilities No
Number of Walk‐in Refrigeration/Freezer
Units 2
Percent That Can Be Heated 100%
Percent That Can Be Cooled 100%
School District Northwest CDSB
Page | 57

Property Name Dryden Board Office
Street Address 75 Van Home Avenue
City/Municipality Dryden
Postal Code P8N 2B2
Country Canada
Year Built 1980
Property Type ‐ Self‐Selected Office
Gross Floor Area 241 m²
Occupancy (%) 100%
Weekly Operating Hours 40
Page | 58

Property Name Sacred Heart School
Street Address 41 Eighth Avenue
City/Municipality Sioux Lookout
Postal Code P8T 1B7
Country Canada
Year Built 1994
Occupancy (%) 100%
High School No
Months in Use
Not Entered
Units 2
Page | 59

Property Name St. Michaels School
Street Address 820 fifth Street East
City/Municipality Fort Frances
Postal Code P9A 1V4
Country Canada
Year Built 1980
Occupancy (%) 100%
High School No
Months in Use
Not Entered
Units 2
Page | 60

Property Name Fort Frances Board Office
Street Address 555 Flinders Avenue
Postal Code P9A 3L2
Country Canada
Year Built 1980
Property Type ‐ Self‐Selected Office
Gross Floor Area 167 m²
Occupancy (%) 100%
Weekly Operating Hours 40
Page | 61

Property Name St. Francis School
Street Address 675 Flinders Avenue
Postal Code P9A 3L2
Country Canada
Year Built 1955
Occupancy (%) 100%
High School No
Months in Use
Not Entered
Units 2
Page | 62

Property Name St. Joseph’s School
Street Address 185 Parkdale road
City/Municipality Dryden
Postal Code P8N 1S5
Country Canada
Year Built 1943
Occupancy (%) 100%
High School No
Months in Use
Not Entered
Units 2
Page | 63

Property Name Our Lady of the Way
Street Address 17 Boucherville Road
City/Municipality Stratton
Postal Code P0W 1N0
Country Canada
Year Built 1987
Occupancy (%) 100%
High School No
Months in Use
Not Entered
Units 1
Page | 64
APPENDIX G – ENERGY CONSERVATION INCENTIVES
Available Energy Conservation Incentives for Municipalities, University & Colleges, School Boards,
and Hospitals [the “MUSH” sector].
Eligible Measures MUSH
IESO
Energy Audits
Union Gas
IESO
Functional Performance Testing
Union Gas
IESO
Existing Building Commissioning
Union Gas
Measurement and Verification Program IESO
Detailed Engineering Studies IESO
IESO
Custom Projects
Union Gas
Equipment Retrofits* Lighting IESO
IESO
HVAC Union Gas
Enbridge Gas
IESO
Boilers Union Gas
Enbridge Gas
IESO
Domestic Hot Water Union Gas
Enbridge Gas
Utility Bill Analysis+ IESO
In‐House Metering Program+ IESO
Demand Response IESO
*Retrofit equipment must meet minimum efficiency levels and/or be listed
under specific energy efficiency standards (Energy Star®, DLC, etc.)
+
These measures can be used to increase incentives from other measures, or
as part of larger projects associated with Custom incentives, EBCx, or DES.
Page | 65
APPENDIX H – ELECTRICITY REGULATORY CHARGES
1. The Wholesale Market Service Charge covers services provided by the Independent Electricity
System Operator (IESO) to operate the wholesale electricity market and maintain the reliability
of the high voltage power grid. It also covers certain costs incurred by local utilities to connect
renewable generation (such as wind and solar power). Although the Wholesale Market Service
Charge is set by the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) to allow these costs to be passed on to
consumers, we do not set all of the costs that are recovered through that charge. Below are the
charges we approve.
Included within this charge:
 Physical Limitations and Losses: When electricity is delivered over a transmission line,
it is normal for a small amount of power to be consumed, or lost, as heat. Also covered
are other costs incurred by the IESO to operate the high voltage power grid.
 Energy Reliability: Sometimes the balance between generation and demand is
affected by an unexpected event, such as equipment failure or a surge in consumption.
The IESO buys reserve electricity that is available on short notice to restore the balance.
 IESO Administration Fee: The IESO charges an administrative fee to manage the high
voltage power system and operate the wholesale electricity market in Ontario. Every
year the OEB sets the fee that the IESO can charge.
 OPA Administration Fee: This fee pays the administration costs of the Ontario Power
Authority (OPA)6, who’s mandate includes planning for electricity generation, demand
management, conservation and transmission in the province. Every year, the OEB sets
this fee. It does not include the costs payable under contract for electricity generation
supply or for OPA conservation and demand management programs.
 Rural and Remote Electricity Rate Protection: It helps offset the higher cost of
providing service to consumers in those areas. The OEB calculates this charge every
year according to rules set by the government.
 Renewable Connections: Utilities can recover some costs for connecting renewable
generation facilities, subject to OEB approval
6
The Ontario Power Authority merged with the Independent Electricity System Operator on January 1, 2015
Page | 66
2. The Standard Supply Service Charge covers part of a utility’s administrative costs to provide
electricity to customers that buy their power from the utility (i.e. customers that are not served
by a retailer). This charge, set by the OEB, is the same for all utilities across the province.
3. Debt Retirement Charge (DRC) This 0.7¢/kWh charge is set by the Ontario Ministry of Finance to
pay down the remaining debt of the former Ontario Hydro. The government announced its plans
to remove the DRC cost from residential electricity bills after December 31, 2015.
4. Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB) The Ontario Clean Energy Benefit takes 10% off your
electricity cost ‐ up to 3,000 kWh/month of electricity use. Some exceptions apply. For more
information, visit Ontario.ca/OCEB or call 1‐888‐668‐4636. To learn more about how Ontario is
building a strong, clean electricity system, visit Ontario.ca/energyplan. The OCEB will be ending
on December 31, 2015.
Page | 67
APPENDIX I – ENERGY UNITS

How Much is a Kilowatt Hour of Electricity?

Page | 68
APPENDIX J – GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Baseload Power: Generation sources designed to operate more or less continuously through the
day and night and across the seasons of the year. Nuclear and many hydro generating stations
are examples of baseload generation.
Bioenergy: Energy produced from living or recently living plants or animal sources. Sources for
bioenergy generation can include agricultural residues, food‐process by‐products, animal
manure, waste wood and kitchen waste.
Degree Days: A unit used to determine the heating or cooling requirements of buildings,
representing a fall of one degree below (Heating Degree Day) or above (Cooling Degree Day) a
specified average outdoor temperature (usually 18°C or 65°F) for one day.
Demand Response (DR): Programs designed to reduce the amount of electricity drawn from the
grid during peak demand periods. Customers could be responding to changes in the price of
electricity during the day, incentive payments and/or other mechanisms.
Distribution: A distribution system carries electricity from the transmission system and delivers
it to consumers. Typically, the network would include medium‐voltage power lines, substations
and pole‐mounted transformers, low‐voltage distribution wiring and electricity meters.
Energy Star®: A U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) voluntary program that helps
businesses and individuals save money and protect our climate through superior energy
efficiency.
Feed‐in Tariff (FIT): A guaranteed rate that provides stable prices through long‐term contracts
for energy generated using renewable resources.
Global Adjustment (GA): The GA is the difference between the total payments made to certain
contracted or regulated generators and demand management projects, and market revenues.
The GA serves a number of functions in Ontario’s electricity system; it provides more stable
electricity prices for Ontario’s consumers and generators; it maintains a reliable energy supply;
and, it recovers costs associated with conservation initiatives that benefit all Ontarians. The GA
is calculated each month by taking into account the following components: Generation contracts
administered by the Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation; OPG’s nuclear and baseload
hydroelectric generation; and OPA contracts with generators and suppliers of conservation
Page | 69
services. Consumers on the regulated price‐plan (RPP) pay a fixed price set every six months by
the Ontario Energy Board which includes the GA, while customers who have a retail contract pay
the contract price for their electricity plus the Global Adjustment.
Greenhouse Gas (GHG): Gas that contributes to the capture of heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is the most prominent GHG. It is released into the Earth’s atmosphere as a result
of the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil or natural gas. GHGs are widely acknowledged as
contributing to climate change.
Grid Parity: The point at which new generation technologies become cost competitive with
conventional technologies.
Integration: The way an electricity system combines and delivers various generation sources,
conservation and demand management to ensure consumers have dependable and reliable
electricity.
Intermittent Power Generation: Generation sources that produce power at varying times, such
as wind and solar generators whose output depends on wind speed and solar intensity.
Kilowatt (kW): A standard unit of power that is equal to 1,000 watts (W). Ten 100‐watt light
bulbs operated together require one kW of power.
Kilowatt‐hour (kWh): A measure of energy production or consumption over time. Ten 100‐watt
light bulbs, operated together for one hour, consume one kWh of energy.
Load or Demand Management: Measures undertaken to control the level of energy use at a
given time, by increasing or decreasing consumption or shifting consumption to some other time
period.
Local Distribution Company (LDC): A utility that owns and/or operates a distribution system for
the local delivery of energy (gas or electricity) to consumers.
Megawatt (MW): A unit of power equal to 1,000 kilowatts (kW) or 1 million watts (W).
Megawatt‐hour (MWh): A measure of energy production or consumption over time: a one MW
generator, operating for 24 hours, generates 24 MWh of energy.
Page | 70
MicroFIT: A program that allows Ontario residents to develop a very small or micro renewable
electricity generation project (10 kilowatts or less in size) on their properties. Under the MicroFIT
Program, they are paid a guaranteed price for all the electricity they produce for at least 20 years.
Net Metering: A program made available to customers with renewable energy installations which
allow them to generate electricity for their own use before it is made available to the electricity
grid. When renewable energy is made available to the electricity grid from the renewable
installation, the customer receives a credit on their electricity bill.
North of Dryden: The North of Dryden area refers to the part of the Ontario transmission system
bounded by Dryden to the southwest, Red Lake to the northwest, and Pickle Lake to the
northeast, as well as a group of remote First Nation communities, an operating mine and the
mine development area known as the Ring of Fire north of the existing transmission system.
Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB): A five‐year program that provides a benefit equal to 10%
of the total cost of electricity on eligible consumers’ bills, including tax, limited to the first 3,000
kWh of electricity consumed each month. The program is scheduled to end December 31, 2015.
Peaking Capacity: Generating sources typically used only to meet the peak demand (highest
demand) for electricity during the day; typically provided by hydro or natural gas generators.
Peak Demand: Peak demand, peak load or on peak are terms describing a period in which
demand for electricity is highest.
Photovoltaic: A technology for converting solar energy into electrical energy (typically by way of
photovoltaic cells or panels comprising a number of cells).
Program Administrator Cost (PAC) Test: The PAC Test measures conservation program benefits
and costs, from the perspective of a program administrator. For the PAC test, avoided energy
costs only include avoided costs associated with the electricity system.
Smart Grid: A Smart Grid delivers electricity from suppliers to consumers using modern
information and communications technologies to improve the reliability and efficiency of the
electricity system. It empowers consumers with the ability to manage their energy consumption
— saving energy, reducing costs and providing choices.
Page | 71
Supply Mix: The different types of resources that are used to meet electricity demand
requirements in a particular jurisdiction. Normally the mix is expressed in terms of the proportion
of each type within the overall amount of energy produced.
Terawatt‐hour (TWh): A unit of power equal to 1 billion kilowatt‐hours. Ontario’s electricity
consumption in 2012 was around 141.3 TWh.
Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test: The TRC Test measures benefits and costs from a societal
perspective. For the TRC Test only, avoided supply costs include avoided energy costs associated
with electricity, natural gas, water, fuel oil and propane savings, where applicable. Incentive
costs are a transfer from a program‐sponsoring organization to participating customers, and
consequently do not impact the net benefit from a societal perspective.
Transmission: The movement of electricity, usually over long distance, from generation sites to
consumers and local distribution systems. Transmission of electricity is done at high voltages.
Transmission also applies to the long distance transportation of natural gas and oil.
Page | 72
APPENDIX K – ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ACRONYMS
CDD Cooling Degree Day
CDM Conservation and Demand Management
DSM Demand‐Side Management
EA Environmental Assessment
ECO Environmental Commissioner of Ontario
EV Electric Vehicle
FIT Feed‐in Tariff
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GWh Gigawatt‐hour (one billion or 109 watt‐hours)
HDD Heating Degree Day
HOEP Hourly Ontario Energy Price
ICI Industrial Conservation Initiative
IESO Independent Electricity System Operator
IPSP Integrated Power System Plan
IRRP Integrated Regional Resource Plan
Km Kilometre
kW Kilowatt
kWh Kilowatt‐hour
LDC Local Distribution Company
LED Light‐Emitting Diode
LTEP Long‐Term Energy Plan
3
m Cubic Metre
MOECC Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
MTO Ministry of Transportation
MW Megawatt (one million or 106 watts)
MWh Megawatt‐hour (one million or 106 watt‐hours)
OEB Ontario Energy Board
OPA Ontario Power Authority
PJ Petajoule (one quadrillion or 1015 joules)
RIP Regional Infrastructure Plan
RPP Regulated Price Plan
TOU Time‐of‐Use
TWh Terawatt‐hour (one trillion or 1012 watt‐hours)
Page | 73

Conservation and Demand Management Plan Report Card 2016: June 3, 2016

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Conservation and Demand Management Plan Report Card 2016: June 3, 2016

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

‐ 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00

‐10.00 10.00 30.00 50.00 70.00 90.00 110.00

Star® Score has been falling. 30

September 135,804.8 183

September 7.8 183

2014/2015 ekWh A comparison of the Energy Consumption

The following graphs provide

School Board can expect to 100.0

Sacred Heart School 306.4 3.6 1% 310 -103.7 -33% 206.3

GHG Emissions ‐ All Facilities The data reflects trends seen in

2014. When comparing to the

Location 2012 2013 2014

2011/ Variance 2012/ Variance 2013/ Variance 2014/

September 10.9 -2.2 -20 % 8.7 1.4 16 % 10.1 0.1 1% 10.2

2012 2013 2014

805121‐802218 Electric Sioux Lookout Hydro 11/30/2010 In Use

Sacred Heart 8163810 Fuel Oil No 1 Andre Tardiff Agency Ltd. 9/1/2011 In Use

School 805123‐802232 Electric Sioux Lookout Hydro 12/13/2010 In Use

806775‐805756 Electric Sioux Lookout Hydro 1/14/2013 7/9/2013

SA020214 Natural Gas Union Gas 7/1/2014 In Use

Dryden Board 125‐7399 129‐4015 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/15/2010 In Use

Office 200102894638‐10477571 Electric Hydro One 4/26/2013 In Use

07782‐65017 Electric Hydro One 6/24/2011 4/26/2013

St. Michael's 125‐7399 273‐5052 Natural Gas Union Gas 10/12/2011 In Use

School 753351‐857678 Electric FFPC 1/1/2010 In Use

755629‐857026 Electric FFPC 11/15/2009 In Use

St. Francis School 125‐7399 104‐5168 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/2/2010 In Use

755655‐857050 Electric FFPC 11/15/2009 In Use

10223‐84006 Electric Hydro One 10/26/2010 In Use

St. Joseph's School 200052271752‐11149862 Electric Hydro One 5/2/2013 In Use

126‐9128 109‐5093 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/9/2010 In Use

34231‐87001 Electric Hydro One 11/30/2010 5/2/2013

200034722533‐11263818 Electric Hydro One 4/26/2013 In Use

Our Lady of the 125‐7399 268‐8099 Natural Gas Union Gas 12/22/2010 In Use

Way 200034722533‐10842058 Electric Hydro One 4/26/2013 In Use

29820‐32853 Electric Hydro One 6/24/2011 4/26/2013

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi