H 2 O Water Benchmarking Pilot Report. Performance of the Canadian Office Sector PREPARED BY

Transcription

1 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report Performance of the Canadian Office Sector H 2 O PREPARED BY

2 About REALpac The Real Property Associatin of Canada (REALpac) is Canada s premier industry association for investment real property leaders. Our mission is to collectively influence public policy, to educate government and the public, to ensure stable and beneficial real estate capital and property markets, and to promote the performance of the real property sector in Canada. REALpac members currently own in excess of $200 Billion CAD in real estate assets located in the major centres across Canada. Membership is comprised of the largest owners, developers, and managers of commercial real estate in Canada including real estate investment trusts (REITs), publicly traded and large private companies, banks, brokerages, crown corporations, investment dealers, life companies, lenders, and pension funds. Assets include retail, office, industrial, hotel, multi-residential (apartments) and seniors housing. REALpac operates in several areas including advocacy, research, financial best practices, standard setting, publishing, conferences and networking events. Visit us at About Halsall Associates Halsall Associates is a national consulting engineering company with a passion for sustainability. Halsall is a market leader in helping clients optimize building performance. Finding solutions that maximize the value of city planning and building is core to our business. We have worked on over 500 green building projects, including new building development projects, existing building benchmarking and retrofits, and tenant fit-ups. Visit us at Contact Us We welcome your feedback. Please direct any questions, comments, or suggestions to: Julia St. Michael Manager, Research & Environmental Programs T: x 237 F: E: jstmichael@realpac.ca Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Halsall Associates for the Real Property Association of Canada and is based on a Canada-wide Water Benchmarking Pilot Survey that involved the participation of REALpac members. We would like to thank all survey participants for the time and effort they contributed towards the completion of this important research project. Disclaimer The information contained herein has been compiled for REALpac from sources believed to be reliable, but no representation or warranty, express or implied, is made by REALpac, their directors, officers, and staff or any other person as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. The information provided in this report is for comparative and information purposes only. Opinions, estimates, conclusions, or other information expressed or contained herein constitute the author s judgment as of the publication date, are subject to change without notice and are provided in good faith but without representation or warranty as aforesaid. One University Avenue Suite 1410 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5J 2P Yonge Street Suite 2300 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4P 1E4 research@realpac.ca T: TF: toronto@halsall.com T: Neither REALpac nor its directors, officers, and staff or any other person assumes responsibility for the use of, effect of, or appropriateness of the language, wording, or information contained in this publication or any typographical or printing errors or omissions. REALpac does not warrant the accuracy of the data, reporting templates and processes, or resulting normalized water use values as this is self-reported, unaudited data. This data may not represent the market as a whole as it may be self-selected and could contain errors. REALpac, as well as its directors, officers, and staff or any other person assumes no liability for damage or loss arising from the use of information contained herein. REALpac is not providing development, investment, environmental, legal, or tax advice. Readers are urged to consult their own professional advisors for further confirmation and information. Publication Data The REALpac 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report: Performance of the Canadian Office Sector, released November 29th, 2013 Copyright REALpac is the owner of all copyright in this publication. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, transmitted or otherwise used in whole or in part in any form or by any means, without permission from the publisher. Further, no person shall use this publication, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, to create any precedent for resale or license for remuneration. H

3 Contents 1. Introduction Methodology Data Set Characteristics Analysis and Results Actual Water Use Intensity Normalized Water Use Intensity Trends and Comparisons in Water Use Intensity Conclusion and Next Steps 27 Figure 1: Regional Distribution - Number and Percentage of Buildings by Region 07 Figure 2: Building Size Number and Percentage of Buildings by Gross Floor Area (ft ) 08 Figure 3: Building Age Number and Percentage of Buildings by Construction Year Figure 4: Occupant Density - Number and Percentage of Buildings by Category (occupants/1,000 ft ) 09 Figure 5: Average Weekly Operating Hours - Breakdown of Buildings by Category 09 Figure 6: Building Class - Breakdown of Buildings by Category 10 Figure 7: Cooling Towers - Breakdown of Buildings by Category 10 Figure 8: Irrigated Area - Breakdown of Buildings by Category 11 Figure 9: Atypical or Exceptional Water Uses Breakdown of Buildings by Category 11 Figure 10: Green Building Certifications - Number and Percentage of Buildings Certification Type HO Figure 11: Actual Water Use Intensity, Figure 12: Normalized Water Use Intensity, Figure 13: Distribution of Normalized Water Use Intensity, Figure 14: Percent Difference Between Actual and Normalized Water Use Intensity 16 (in order of increasing normalized water use intensity) Figure 15: Average Water Use Intensity by Region 17 Figure 16: Average Water Use Intensity by Building Size (Gross Floor Area in ft ) 18 2 Figure 17: Average Water Use Intensity by Building Age (Year of Construction) 19 Figure 18: Average Water Use Intensity by Occupant Density (occupants/1,000 ft2) 20 Figure 19: Average Water Use Intensity by Average Weekly Operating Hours Category 21 Figure 20: Average Water Use Intensity by Building Class Category 22 Figure 21: Average Water Use Intensity by Cooling Tower Category 23 Figure 22: Average Water Use Intensity by Irrigation Category 24 Figure 23: Average Water Use Intensity for Buildings by Exceptional Water Use Category 25 Figure 24: Average Water Use Intensity by Green Building Certification Type 26

4 2O Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

5 1 30% 25% Introduction The REALpac 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report: Performance of the Canadian Office Sector (the Report ) includes the results of REALpac s first Water Benchmarking Pilot Survey (the Survey ). The purpose of the survey was to test and refine REALpac s water benchmarking methodology, which will ultimately be used to provide commercial office building owners and managers an opportunity to benchmark their building water consumption against peers in the industry. A total of 83 office properties participated in the Survey by submitting complete, whole building water use data for one or more of the calendar years between 2009 and This data was used to test REALpac s water benchmarking methodology and was analyzed to provide a detailed examination of the data trends and a baseline for building water performance across Canada. The results, analyses, and trends in the baseline data are discussed in depth in this first Report, with a specific focus on the 2011 data set. The insights gained indicate a positive and promising movement within the office sector with many owners and building managers interested and active in monitoring and reducing their water use Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 05

6 2 Methodology In late 2011, REALpac, in collaboration with Halsall Associates, developed a methodology to benchmark water use performance for Canadian commercial office properties. The draft methodology for water use normalization was reviewed and presented to REALpac members in the summer of This document lead to the launch of the Pilot Survey in August of 2012, again in collaboration with Halsall, where REALpac members were asked to participate and submit their office building water data for analysis. The methodology was refined during the Sur vey period based on feedback from key stakeholders and data from 83 commercial buildings totalling almost 36 million square feet of gross floor area. The goal of the Pilot Survey, and of a water benchmarking program for office buildings, is to allow for meaningful and robust water use intensity reporting and benchmarking between buildings across the country. In REALpac s methodology, actual water use is normalized for: Typical occupant density, Typical occupied hours, Landscape irrigation, Atypical water-consuming functions, and L ocation/climate (if the building includes a water-consuming cooling system, using the Toronto climate as the baseline). Normalization allows for a like-for-like comparison of water consumption for buildings with different reporting periods, climate, occupancy, and building systems. The resulting water performance metrics (reported as water use intensity, WUI ) better reflect the efficiency of Water Benchmarking Pilot Report the building s water consuming systems and allows the benchmarking of building water use performance. Technical discussions regarding each normalization process and calculation will be included in the methodology (to be released in early 2014). To participate in the 2012 Pilot Survey, building owners, managers, and/or consultants were asked to use a template provided by REALpac to collect building characteristics data (e.g. location, age, exterior gross area, gross floor area, number of occupants, average weekly operating hours, vacancy rate, water consuming systems) and whole building water use data from one or more of the 2009, 2010 or 2011 calendar years, following the descriptions in the methodology. Once participant data was provided to REALpac, both the actual water use intensity and normalized annual water use intensity in liters per square foot per year ( L/ft2/yr ) were calculated using the formulas contained in the methodology for inclusion in the Survey. Data included in this report has been aggregated to protect the privacy of building owners and the identity of individual buildings. Neither the building data nor the water use data has been audited by a third-party, although extensive review has been performed to check for errors or omissions.

7 3 Data Set Characteristics Buildings participating in the survey represent both large and small office buildings. The number of buildings discussed in the Report totals 82 and represents almost 36 million square feet of gross floor area. While complete, whole building water use information was obtained from one or more of the 2009, 2010, or 2011 calendar years, most data supplied represented the 2011 calendar year (82 buildings). Although the 2009 and 2010 data was used to test the methodology and assumptions, this Report focuses on the data submitted for the 2011 calendar year. The following charts illustrate the various characteristics of the 2011 data set. Location Figure 1, below, shows the proportions of buildings in the data set that reside in different locations. A majority of the buildings in the data set are located in Ontario (56%). The remainder are located in the Prairie Region (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba) (22%), British Columbia (15%), and in Other locations such as the Northwest Territories, Quebec, and Nova Scotia (9%). Figure 1: Regional Distribution Number and Percentage of Buildings by Region 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 07

8 Size Figure 2, below, shows the proportions of buildings in the data set that fall into different categories of size (gross floor area), ranging from small (less than 100,000 ft2) to large (over 1,000,000 ft2). Almost three-quarters of the buildings in the data set have a gross floor area under 500,000 ft2 (74%); most buildings in the data set are between 100,000 and 249,999 ft2 (35%). The average building size is just over 430,000 ft2. Figure 2: Building Size Number and Percentage of Buildings by Gross Floor Area (ft2) Age Figure 3, below, shows the proportion of buildings that fall into different categories of age according to the date of original construction, ranging from oldest (constructed before 1970) to newest (constructed in 2000 or after). Almost three-quarters of the buildings in the data set were built prior to 1990 (77%); most were built between 1980 and 1989 (41%). The average age of buildings in the data set is 30 years old. Figure 3: Building Age Number and Percentage of Buildings by Construction Year Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

9 Occupant Density Figure 4, below, illustrates the proportion of buildings which fall into different categories of occupant density (occupants/1,000 ft2). Although 12% of buildings did not report their occupancy density, a majority of the remaining buildings (75%) have an occupant density of 3.9 occupants/1,000 ft2 or under. For buildings that reported their occupant density, the average is 3.1 occupants/1,000 ft2. Figure 4: Occupant Density Number and Percentage of Buildings by Category (occupants/1,000 ft2) Weekly Operating Hours Figure 5, below, illustrates the proportion of buildings which fall within different categories of average weekly operating hours. For this Survey, weekly operating hours were calculated for the entire building; there was no allowance for adjustments to individual spaces. Over three-quarters (87%) of the buildings reported average weekly operating hours at or below 65 hours per week. Figure 5: Average Weekly Operating Hours Breakdown of Buildings by Category 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 09

10 Building Class Figure 6, below, shows the proportion of buildings that fall into different categories of building class. Class A and AAA buildings comprise a majority of the data set (61%). Figure 6: Building Class Breakdown of Buildings by Category Cooling Towers Figure 7 illustrates that a vast majority of buildings in the data set have a water-consuming cooling tower (88%). Most of the buildings without water-consuming cooling towers are serviced by a district cooling system. Few of the buildings with cooling towers, however, provided sub-metered data of their actual cooling tower water use. Figure 7: Cooling Towers Breakdown of Buildings by Category Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

11 Irrigation Figure 8, below, illustrates that buildings in the data set seemed closely divided between those with irrigation (48%) and those without irrigation (33%), yet 19% of the buildings did not report. None of the buildings with irrigation, however, provided sub-metered data of their actual irrigation water use. Figure 8: Irrigated Area Breakdown of Buildings by Category Atypical or Exceptional Water Uses Figure 9, below, shows the proportion of buildings which have reported the existence of metered exceptional water uses. These are areas or space types that may use more water than would be expected from a typical commercial office space. Examples of atypical water uses include retail spaces, food courts, fitness centers, or other areas that may exhibit highintensity water use. Most buildings (82%) did not report any metered exceptional uses, although there may be many unmetered exceptional uses in these buildings, which, according to the methodology, would not be reported. Figure 9: Atypical or Exceptional Water Uses Breakdown of Buildings by Category 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 11

12 Green Building Certification Figure 10 shows the proportion of buildings that have achieved green building certification by type of certification. A majority of buildings (67%) in the data set do not have any green building certification. Buildings that have obtained either LEED or BOMA BESt certification total 33% (10% have achieved both LEED and BOMA BESt certification, 5% have achieved LEED certification exclusively, and 18% have achieved BOMA BESt certification exclusively). LEED certifications represented in the data set are comprised of a mixture of New Constriction, Core & Shell, and Existing Buildings: Operations & Maintenance. LEED and BOMA BESt certifications represented are comprised of all levels of certification. Figure 10: G reen Building Certifications Number and Percentage of Buildings by Certification Type Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

13 4 Analysis and Results 4.1 Actual Water Use Intensity Figure 11, below, shows actual water use intensity for each building in the survey with 2011 data. The lowest actual water use intensity is 26 L/ft2/yr and the highest is 329 L/ft2/yr (over 12 times larger than the lowest WUI). The mean value for the range is 91 L/ft2/yr and the median is 81 L/ft2/yr. The top quartile of buildings used less than 57 L/ft2/yr of water and over 90% of the buildings have an actual WUI below 150 L/ft2/yr. Figure 11: A ctual Water Use Intensity, Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 13

14 4.2 Actual Water Use Intensity Figure 12 shows the 2011 WUI normalized for irrigation, atypical use, occupancy, and climate. The range of normalized WUI is larger than for actual WUI with the highest normalized WUI (508 L/ft2/yr) over 36 times larger than the lowest normalized WUI (14 L/ft2/yr). Compared to actual WUI, the mean normalized value increased from 91 to 103 L/ft2/yr while the median value decreased from 81 to 77 L/ft2/yr. The top quartile of buildings used less than 56 L/ft2/yr of water and over 83% of the buildings have a normalized WUI below 150 L/ft2/yr. Figure 12: N ormalized Water Use Intensity, Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

15 The distribution of normalized water use intensity across the data set (Figure 13) highlights that the majority of buildings are performing between L/ft2/yr (71%), with the greatest concentration of buildings performing between L/ft2/yr (27%). There are 10 buildings that have a WUI greater than 200 L/ft2/yr. Figure 13: D istribution of Normalized Water Use Intensity, Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 15

16 Figure 14 shows the percent change between actual and normalized WUI values for each building (with corresponding normalized WUI values). The difference between actual and normalized WUI ranged from a 53% decrease to a 177% increase. Although half of the buildings in the data set (54%) had their WUI decrease due to normalization, the average absolute change between actual and normalized WUI increased by only 12 L/ft2/year. Interestingly, normalization tended to decrease WUI of already low-consuming buildings and increase WUI of already high-consuming buildings. Figure 14: Percent Difference Between Actual and Normalized Water Use Intensity (in order of increasing normalized water use intensity) Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

17 4.3 Trends and Comparisons in Water Use Intensity Region When WUI performance is compared by region there is a pronounced trend WUI, (both actual and normalized) is greatest for buildings in British Columbia and decreases steadily moving east (Figure 15). Ten out of the 12 buildings with the highest normalized WUI are located in British Columbia and the Prairie Region. This may be due to the fact that many of the larger buildings in the data set (750,000 ft2 and greater) are located in Ontario, with few located in the western provinces, and these buildings are more likely to have a green building certification. These green certified buildings in Ontario have most likely implemented water conservation measures. The Survey data also includes fewer buildings with green building certifications in the westernmost provinces. For more information about the impact of green building certification on WUI, see Figure 24. Figure 15: A verage Water Use Intensity by Region 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 17

18 Building Size Figure 16 shows a comparison of building size and WUI where both actual and normalized consumption increases as building size increases, up to 750,000 ft2. Buildings between 750, ,999 ft2 have the lowest average actual and normalized WUI at 59 and 49 L/ft2/yr, respectively, while buildings between 250, ,999 ft2 have the largest average actual and normalized WUI at 130 and 163 L/ft2/yr, respectively. Figure 16: A verage Water Use Intensity by Building Size (Gross Floor Area in ft2) Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

19 Age Figure 17 shows a trend in WUI related to the year of construction; both actual and normalized WUI is lowest for the newest buildings and increases steadily with age. Figure 17: A verage Water Use Intensity by Building Age (Year of Construction) 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 19

20 Occupant Density Another trend is seen with occupant density where both actual and normalized WUI decreases as occupant density increases, ranging from 129 and 186 L/ft2/yr, actual and normalized respectively, for buildings with an occupant density at 2.3 or below to 77 and 72 L/ft2/yr, actual and normalized respectively, for buildings with occupant density of 4.0 or greater. Figure 18: A verage Water Use Intensity by Occupant Density (occupants/1,000 ft2) Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

21 Operating Hours WUI does not differ greatly for different weekly operating hours, although buildings with operating hours of more than 65 hours per week have a lower actual and normalized WUI compared to buildings with operating hours at or below 65 hours per week (Figure 19). Figure 19: A verage Water Use Intensity by Average Weekly Operating Hours Category 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 21

22 Building Class There is only a small difference in WUI between building classes, although A and AAA class buildings have slightly higher WUI compared to B class and/or Unreported buildings (Figure 20). Figure 20: A verage Water Use Intensity by Building Class Category Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

23 Cooling System As expected, WUI for buildings with water-consuming cooling towers is approximately double that of buildings without cooling towers (Figure 21). Since little sub-meter data for cooling systems was provided, this is one area of water performance normalization that may require further review and validation as additional data becomes available. Figure 21: A verage Water Use Intensity by Cooling Tower Category 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 23

24 Irrigated Area Interestingly, the data shows that buildings with irrigation perform similarly to those without irrigation in actual water use, and perform slightly better in normalized use (Figure 22). However, since buildings did not provide any sub-metered data specifically for irrigation, the reasons for this trend are not clear. It is worth noting that the trend is also uncertain due to the high percentage (19%) of buildings that did not report either the presence or absence of irrigation. Determining the impact that irrigation water use has on total WUI requires collection of sub-metered data, which is recommended for future analysis. Figure 22: A verage Water Use Intensity by Irrigation Category Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

25 Atypical or Exceptional Water Use Only 18% of the surveyed buildings reported exceptional water uses such as fitness centers, food courts, or retail. It was surprising that these buildings had a lower actual and normalized WUI, on average, than buildings without exceptional uses. There may be more exceptional uses in these buildings than reported as the methodology requests sub-metered water data to be reported. Almost three-quarters of the buildings that reported exceptional water uses are LEED or BOMA BESt certified the correlation between WUI and green building certification is explained in the next section. Figure 23: A verage Water Use Intensity for Buildings by Exceptional Water Use Category 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 25

26 Green Building Certification Most striking, perhaps, is the clear relationship between WUI and green building certification. Those buildings not having green certifications show the highest WUI (both actual and normalized), while buildings with LEED certification (exclusively) have the lowest WUI. Figure 24: Average Water Use Intensity by Green Building Certification Type Water Benchmarking Pilot Report

27 5 Conclusion and Next Steps The 2012 Pilot Survey is a first attempt at gathering national data on whole building water consumption. This fresh look at the Canada-wide data is positive and promising as it shows owners, tenants, and building managers are interested and active in monitoring water use. REALpac works to establish broad industry frameworks in the area of sustainable buildings for the Canadian real property community. We strive to draw insights from a community of experts when trying to set priorities and influence policies, and to provide a forum within which to exchange ideas and promote best practices. The development of the REALpac water normalization methodology and template, the organization and management of the 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Survey, and the release of the 2012 Pilot Report, are activities aligned within this sustainability mandate as the intention of the entire program is to move the industry forward in water use measuring, monitoring, and performance benchmarking. Results from the Survey and Report show wide ranges in annual water use intensity across regions and varying building characteristics demonstrating the variety and diversity of building water performance and the need for a normalized approach, yet further effort may still be required to validate the methodology. The lack of sub-metered water use data, for example, points to the need for more detailed information and deeper understanding of exceptional space types and irrigation areas and how they contribute to overall building water performance. Since little sub-metered data is available, particularly for cooling systems and irrigation water uses, these areas may require further review as water normalization evolves. In addition, collecting a larger sample size of buildings in the future could help rule out the likelihood that a biased sample is the cause of some of the unexpected patterns observed. This Survey and Report provide an initial baseline measurement for the industry to begin to understand where we stand collectively, and individually, and for use as a foundation for future initiatives and improvements. The REALpac Water Benchmarking Survey will be conducted annually, and will be followed by an updated report periodically with comparative analyses of trends and results. By increasing participation in the REALpac Water Benchmarking Survey and broadening the scope of the data collected, REALpac aims to fill existing knowledge gaps and deepen the level of analysis in future reports to provide an even more valuable resource for the industry. Building owners and managers can participate in REALpac s annual Survey and have their buildings included in the resulting reports, to gain useful information and tools to: Track water use and building performance over time, Make informed asset management decisions, Inform and guide capital budgeting programs, D evelop more focused training programs for building operations professionals, D evelop employee incentives and compensation programs which incorporate the proven water performance of a building or portfolio, and P rioritize future initiatives to be taken with respect to water reduction targets and initiatives Water Benchmarking Pilot Report 27

28 2012 Water Benchmarking Pilot Report Performance of the Canadian Office Sector One University Avenue Suite 1410 Toronto, Ontario Canada M5J 2P1 T: TF: Yonge Street Suite 2300 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4P 1E4 T: