Community Energy Planning – A District Energy in Regent Park

Introduction and Overview

Regent Park - informally known as Cabbage Town - is Canada’s oldest social housing development. Since its establishment, the community has not undergone any major restorative work until 2005 - the initiation of the Regent Park Revitalization Plan. The community has historically been inhabited by low-income, working class immigrants and newcomers having difficulties adapting to the Canadian environment. Currently under revitalization, the former social housing development is expected to be replaced by mixed use and mixed income community with a combination of commercial, retail, institutional and residential land-uses. The project is anticipated to tackle issues of poverty, substandard housing and isolation from the downtown core. The revitalization plan is anticipated to extend over a period of 10 – 12 years. The redevelopment is expected to cost $450 million. Daniel Corporation is the developer in partnership with Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC). The new buildings are expected to be built to LEED Gold standard. Its new community energy system is designed to make room for renewable energy sources such as solar or geothermal energy to either complement or replace reliance on natural gas. This will lead to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 8,000 tonnes in phase one of the project up to a total of 400,000 tonnes over 30 years. The reduction is expected to be equal to the removal of 66,000 vehicles off the road within a period of one year (CanmetENERGY, 2009). It is anticipated that the Regent Park Community energy system will deliver 11 megawatts of heating and 2,350 tonnes of chilled water during the initial stage of the project. An additional 30 megawatts of heating and 3,700 tonnes of cooling will be added in the future phases. There is also a plan to produce 5 megawatts of power by cogeneration. This system will cost 15 percent less than the traditional energy systems. TCHC owned 60 percent ownership of the community energy project with Corix Utilities owning the remaining 40 percent year (CanmetENERGY, 2009). In 2012, the TCHC acquired Corix’s 40 percent equity interest in the community energy project (Corix Utilities, 2012). In this case study, I explore the benefits of integrating a district energy system into the broader Regent Park Revitalization project.

Community Energy Planning

Energy planning or decisions regarding how energy is made available and used has traditionally been the purview of the individual household (particularly in terms of monitoring usage and deciding on competing energy options) or by regional/national utility companies (Denis & Parker, 2009). In Canada and elsewhere, there is a noticeable shift away from a centrally managed and directed approach to energy planning and distribution towards more local government or community-led approaches. These locally generated energy planning initiatives have been coined “community energy planning” or CEP. Across Canada, more than 200 communities, representing over 50 percent of the population, have a Community Energy Plan (CEP)(Laszlo & Littlejohn, 2016, p. 4). The 2015 National Report on Community Energy Plan Implementation defines ‘community energy planning’ as an initiative and or tool to help define community energy priorities with a view “to improve efficiency, cut emissions, enhance community resilience, manage future risks and drives economic development” (Denis & Parker, 2009; Littlejohn & Laszlo, 2015). Typically, community energy plans focus on one or a combination of the following; energy efficiency; ‘energy conservation; and the switching of energy sources to renewable’. The mix chosen is reflective of the communities, goals for the future, its current values, knowledge and intrinsic capacities (Denis & Parker, 2009, p. 2089). Denis and Parker (2009) review of community energy planning revealed that more communities are choosing policies and programs centred on increasing energy efficiency and conservation while renewable energy commitments received much less attention. This has been attributed to the priorities set by municipalities in their CEPs which point to the influential role of high levels of government in Canada in stimulating changes at the local level. If these levels of government promote policies and fund initiatives that prioritize energy efficiency and conservation over diversification to renewable energy, then it is no surprise that local governments follow suit (Denis & Parker, 2009). Despite these challenges or obstacles to more robust and inclusiveness iteration of CEPs, some of the more common benefits associated with community energy planning initiatives include: economic, environmental, community resilience, health, and social benefits (Littlejohn & Laszlo, 2015, p. 9). Table I bellow expands on these benefit categories. Although community energy plans are identified in the literature as a mechanism to promote renewable energy, the current generation of these plans in Canada is a very modest step in this direction, there is still much more to do to ensure that CEPs are operationalized to meet their full potential.

Table 1: The Benefits of Community Energy Planning

Source: (Laszlo & Littlejohn, 2016, p. 11)

District Energy

District energy strategies are the cornerstone of many community energy plans. According to Markham District Energy Inc. (2017), there are four main reasons why district energy is going mainstream, leading the transformation into smart energy communities. These are; control of the community’s energy future, stability and long-term investment, flexibility and adaptability to changing energy circumstances, technological innovation and policy environment, and infrastructure resiliency. District energy is essentially a thermal energy distribution systems for multiple buildings at the neighbourhood scale. Hot water and chilled water are produced at central plants and distributed to surrounding buildings via a closed-loop underground distribution system known as a thermal grid (City of Toronto, 2017; Markham District Energy Inc., 2017). The thermal energy delivered to the buildings is used for space heating, domestic hot water heating and air conditioning. District energy systems can utilize various low-carbon energy sources such as solar thermal, sewer heat, biogas, cold lake water, biomass and the ground (City of Toronto, 2017). Buildings connected to the thermal grid do not need their own boiler or furnaces, chillers or air conditioners. Commercial buildings, condominiums, hotels, sports facilities, universities, and government complexes are all examples of buildings commonly connected to a thermal grid. District energy is not a new concept. Its origins stem from the hot water-heated baths and greenhouses of ancient Rome. Today, it is an internationally accepted method of heating, cooling and powering communities. Regent Park is one of the more recent communities in Canada to go the route of district energy system as part of its commitment to community energy planning.

Stakeholder Engagement Summary

Regent Park has undergone significant redevelopment in recent years. A new district energy system commenced operation in 2009 as a joint venture between Corix Utilities and Toronto Community Housing Corporation (TCHC) to supply heating and cooling to all new buildings in the revitalization plan (TCHC & Corix Utilities, 2010). The success of the revitalization plan of which the district energy system is a major part, requires the input of key stakeholders. Table 2 below provides a condensed list of key stakeholder groups who will be impacted to varying degrees by the overall revitalization plan of Regent Park. Stakeholder involvement is a very important aspect of any revitalization project. Without buy-in from stakeholders, revitalization projects are destined for delays in construction, law suits by disgruntled citizens and stakeholders, negative media coverage and portrayal, and non-acceptance of the project which could result in the failure of the project.

Table 2: List of Stakeholders and groups impacted by the Regent Park Revitalization Plan

Stakeholder Groups

Relationship to the Project

Corix Utilities

A leader in the energy industry, Corix has partnered with the TCHC to spearhead the District energy plan for Regen Park. The company is said to have invested $24 million in the project (CanmetENERGY, 2009).

Toronto Community Housing

TCHC will manage the Regent Park Community Energy System as a joint venture, in partnership with Corix Utilities. TCHC will maintain 60% ownership (CanmetENERGY, 2009).

Daniels Corporation

Developer and partner with Toronto Community Housing for phase one. Daniels oversees the design of the new buildings and will build all the buildings during the revitalization (CanmetENERGY, 2009)

City of Toronto

 Approved the revitalization of Regent Park in July 2003 and works with TCHC to bring the project to fruition.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)

Works with communities to reduce their energy consumption Regent Park Revitalization is on such community (NRCan & CMHC, n.d.).

Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation

Collaborator on the Equilibrium Community Initiatives with NRCan and the Government of Canada of which Regent park is one (NRCan & CMHC, n.d.)

Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) Green Municipal Fund

Has provided funding in the form of grants and loans to the TCHC to cover eight preparatory studies and future phases of the project.

Toronto District School Board

Manages the Nelson Mandela Park Public School that services the Regent Park Community (Panos, 2014) and Regent Park/Duke of York Junior Public.

TCHC Residents

Old tenants who occupied the older TCHC buildings and now occupy the redeveloped social housing units

New tenants

New tenants to Regent Park who will occupy the new affordable rental units and market units 

Faith based organizations and community agencies e.g. Dixon Hall, Central Neighbourhood House

Community and faith based organizations e.g. Young Street Mission, Christian Resource Centre and Sanctuary Ministries that work with street involved youth, new immigrants and those in need within the community. Other community groups have facilitated community involvement through open meetings that relied on the local animators from the community (Micallef, 2013)

Local businesses and commercial establishments

Establishments that have and will service the community, these range from convenience stores, supermarkets, restaurants, local pharmacies, banks who have expressed interest in servicing (Paikin, 2014).

Toronto Transit Commission

Integrating the new development to existing transit system

Toronto Police Department

Ensuring that old and new residents live in a peaceful environment by cracking down on illicit activities that has plagued Regent Park historically.

Post-secondary institutions e.g., George Brown College, Ryerson and University of Toronto

These institutions through their students and staff have been involved in research around the effects of the revitalization plan and have come on board to partner with community groups to engage and provide access to employment and educational opportunities for community members.

Stakeholders were initially consulted by the City of Toronto and the TCHC to develop a social development plan for Regent Park in 2003. The TCHC also hired Public interest to conduct a series of public consultations on the revitalization project. The company employed Regent Park residents as community animators to ensure that broader set of voices were engaged and involved. Many of these external partners worked closely with the Regent Park Residents’ Council (the predecessor of the Regent Park Neighbourhood Initiative), a committee committed to the broader tenant engagement. Stakeholder engagement activities specific to Regent Park included: tenant organizing, establishment of the Regent Park Neighbourhood Initiative, School Community Action Alliance, Open Space, Changing Landscapes, and the Executive Director’s Table. These community initiatives focused on bringing stakeholders to the table. Apart from overall skepticism regarding the who truly benefits from the broader revitalization plan for Regent Park, and to mitigate any further anxiety about the project Corix, in association with the TCHC has scheduled tours of its district energy centre housed in the basement of the residential building at 252 Sackville Street.

While many have supported Regent Park’s Revitalization, it is not without its critics. A report by Wong (2010) of the Toronto Star indicates that some TCHC residents are fear that they are being forced out of their neighbourhood to make way for wealthier residents. These fears have not been assuaged as some residents who were relocated during the initial phase of the project have not been able to move back. Some others worry that the changing character, particularly its focus of the new higher income earners will increase housing costs over the long-term making it impossible for them to remain in Regent Park.

Policy summary

As interest in sustainable housing and communities continues to grow in Canada, there is a need for progressively higher levels of environmental performance across sectors, e.g., design and construction, transportation, waste management and utilities (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2011). Encouraging energy efficiency, conservation, renewable and alternative energy systems, and a clean energy supply mix is an important part of the provincial government’s commitment to building stronger, healthier and more sustainable communities that can meet the energy needs of the province. Increasing energy efficiency, conservation, and renewable energy are also essential steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change, while managing energy costs (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2015). In line with this provincial commitment to ‘going green’ many new developments in the City of Toronto are looking for ways to enhance their energy performance. Some common initiatives have included fostering an environment that promotes community energy planning, and district energy systems.

To this end, and as part of the broader Regent Park Revitalization project, in 2008, Corix and Toronto Community Housing entered a joint venture to develop, own and manage the Regent Park Community Energy System, which is an integral part of the Regent Park Revitalization. The first phase of the system was successfully completed in January 2009. The system currently provides thermal heat, cooling and hot water to more than 800 rent-geared-to-income units, market condominiums, commercial retail spaces, and City of Toronto buildings. The system has been designed to use almost any form of energy, says Martin Blake, vice-president of project implementation with Daniels. Although the primary fuel will be natural gas, the system is designed so that we can easily incorporate solar energy or geothermal power. The systems can potentially produce up to five megawatts of clean electricity through cogeneration.”(Kenter, 2008). The success of the Regent Park district energy system has been made possible by a number of policy initiatives spearheaded at the all three levels of government, i.e., municipal, provincial and federal. Some of these policies include:

1)     Government of Ontario’s Go Green action plan on climate change 

2)     The City of Toronto’s Climate Change Action Plan

3)     Toronto’s Sustainable Energy Strategy

4)     Energy Reporting and Conservation and Demand Management Plans regulation 397/11 (2011)

5)     Municipal Energy Plan Program

6)     Aboriginal Community Energy Plan Program (2013)

7)     Ontario – Environmental Protection Act (Ontario Regulation 496/07)

8)     Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan (2013)

As a guiding framework, Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan sets out the blueprint that fosters community energy planning and projects that receive their heating and cooling needs through district energy system. The Long-Term plan is designed to balance the following five principles: cost-effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, community engagement and an emphasis on conservation and demand management before building new generation (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2015). Some key elements of the Ontario’s Long-term Plan include: prioritization of energy conservation initiatives; annual reporting on energy demand and supply conditions; cessation of new nuclear facility construction; phase-in of renewable energy sources and technologies; use combined heat and power projects that focus on efficiency or regional capacity needs; sourcing clean energy imports; enhanced regional planning (e.g., community energy plans); rate mitigation (e.g. reduced feed-in-tariffs prices); transmission enhancements; Aboriginal engagement; energy innovation (e.g., smart metering); and expanding natural gas infrastructure to service more communities in rural and northern Ontario. Commitment to and implementation of priority areas or key elements listed in the Long-Term plan by all municipalities within Ontario will ensure the continued delivery of a cost-effective, reliable and clean energy supply (Ontario Ministry of Energy, 2015). This provincial policy environment sets the stage for how new developments are undertaken in Toronto.

Utilities summary

When Toronto’s Regent Park community was designed more than 50 years ago, it relied on a centrally located boiler to provide heat to all the surrounding structures (Kenter, 2008). Prior to the revitalization of Regent Park, residents depending on their housing option, i.e. rent-geared-to income, market rent or affordable rental units, either had their utilities included in the rent or either made payment directly to Toronto Hydro (if paying electricity), and Enbridge (if paying for gas). Low-income tenants in rent-geared-to-income units had the option of applying to the electric hydro relief program to reduce their electricity cost (Toronto Community Housing, 2017). This arrangement created a two-tier system that many residents objected to, stating that it is unfair and inequitable. Under this arrangement, some tenants “pay an artificially low fixed rate for utilities, while other tenants, are billed directly by Toronto Hydro for whatever power they use. The result is wildly different hydro costs among tenants” leaving on TCHC property (Spurr, 2015). Comments by Martin Blake of Daniel Spectrum – the developer for the revitalization project – resonates with complaints made by TCHC residents regarding the high cost of the utilities which accounts for a large share of housing related cost (Kenter, 2008).

A Staff Report to the City of Toronto Council noted that utility costs (hydro, water, gas and solid waste services) are increasing at rates significantly higher than inflation. Hydro costs for instance have increased 43 percent since 2012 while water costs have increased by 39 percent over the same period. TCHC's utilities costs are projected to grow from $142 million in 2016 to $267 million in 2025, representing average annual growth of 7.2 percent. Some of these costs are transferred to the tenants except for rent-geared-to-income tenants who, by Provincial Legislation cannot be charged over and above provincially-mandated scales (City of Toronto, 2016). While all new buildings will receive their energy supply through a district energy system, older buildings which have not been retrofitted or those scheduled for demolition in future phases will continue to be plagued by rising utility costs. According to a report by CHF Canada and Ontario Not for Profit Housing Association (2010) some of the utilities issues affecting Regent Park and other social housing developments include;

1)     Most residents in rent-geared-to-income units are paying more than 30% of their income for housing once the cost of utilities or utility charges is factored in. This is especially problematique for low-income, disabled, mentally ill, and sole-support families whose housing allowances are insufficient to cover shelter and other basic necessitates;

2)     Residents in affordable and market rent units have also complained about the difficulties they experience in meeting their utility costs at current scales. Some of these costs are associated with older buildings that may not be properly insulated, old heating and cooling equipment etc.;

3)     There is a disconnect between who pays for energy efficiency and who benefits in units that are individually metered; 

4)     Rising energy costs are having a negative impact on the budgets of social housing providers like the TCHC. These agencies have limited capacity effect change in the cost of energy unless they undertake innovative energy solutions as is the case with Regent Park. While district energy is anticipated to reduce the development’s energy cost by 15 percent, the upfront cost of the system is high;

5)     Energy efficiency standards had not been incorporated into the property management and development activities prior to the revitalization. In addition, many residents did not have aa concrete sense of the cost-cutting potential of energy conservation and efficiency; and

6)     For many residents at Regent Park, energy efficiency is an important, but not immediate, issue. As a result, energy efficiency upgrades will only be undertaken, if more time and resources are available.

As part to the revitalization, a new energy system that is more energy and cost efficient has been installed. A district energy system is anticipated to provide competitively-priced heating, cooling and hot water to all buildings in the community while slashing carbon dioxide emissions. The buildings will use 40 per cent less energy than the consumption levels set in Model National Energy Code Standards (Kenter, 2008). One challenge of district energy (inclusive of thermal energy) is the accurate measurement of its distribution, and ultimately, how to accurately account for individual consumption and usage based billing. Without accurate measurement systems installed, thermal energy systems will not be able to allocate costs effectively. This may result in lower returns on investments for suppliers, increased end-user consumption (waste), or unfair bills to end consumers (QMC, 2016). Other barriers can hinder interest in developing district energy systems, e.g. higher upfront capital cost of district energy, and uncertainty for district energy owners as to whether they will be able to recover this cost from customers, particularly if some buildings within range choose not to connect to the district energy system. This barrier can be exacerbated by the potentially higher cost of low-carbon technology (Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, 2012, p. 17).

Data summary

Based on Natural Resources Canada Comprehensive Database on energy use, it is evident that the Province of Ontario relies heavily on natural gas followed by electricity to meet its energy needs. As a result, the province also emits considerably more greenhouse gases (GHG) due to it burning of natural gas. In 2014, natural gas accounted for 87.8 percent of GHG emissions by energy source (Government of Canada, 2004). At the municipal level, electricity and natural gas end-use accounts for approximately 60 percent of all of the City of Toronto’s greenhouse gas emissions (City of Toronto, 2009). That breaks down into natural gas, used primarily for space heating and domestic hot water, which accounts for approximately 58 percent of the aforementioned 60 percent, and electricity, which accounts for the remaining 42 percent (City of Toronto, 2009). Table 3 below provides a sector by sector analysis of energy use in Toronto and the corresponding greenhouse gas

emissions. It illustrates that that the commercial sector is the largest user of electricity, while the residential sector is the largest natural gas consumer.

Source: Toronto’s Sustainable Energy Strategy (City of Toronto, 2009, p.11).

A more recent study by the City of Toronto Environment and Energy Division provides an update on the City's progress towards meeting its greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets using data collected for the year 2013. Based on the staff report, city-wide emissions in Toronto have dropped by approximately 24 percent since 1990 levels and about 18 percent since 2004 levels. On a corporate level, the City has reduced its emissions by 46 percent from 1990 levels and 25 percent from 2004. This is similar to the emission reduction levels reported in 2014 based on 2012 data, highlighting that yearly reductions are more incremental now that the phase out of the use of coal to generate electricity is complete (Environment and Energy Division (EED) & City of Toronto, 2013). 

Though the residential sector accounted for 22 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in 2013, the residential sector has the largest potential for reductions of its natural gas consumption through renewable thermal energy generation. It has been estimated that, in the residential sector, renewable thermal energy—including geothermal heating, solar hot water, solar air, biogas and biomass—can displace 125 Mm3 of natural gas annually by 2050 (City of Toronto, 2009). With specific reference to Regent Park Public sector buildings (3 buildings in total), 2014 greenhouse gas emissions numbers ranged from 2000 to 11,000 kg (Government of Ontario, 2017). The City’s district energy push is anticipated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 8,000 tonnes for their entire Regent Park Revitalization plan within the first phase of the project and 400,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas over the 30-year period.

Implementation & Analysis

Climate change and increasing sense of energy insecurity are critical issues facing the world. Efficient, resilient, sustainable, community-based energy systems, such as district energy

systems (DES), fueled mostly by renewables, are an important tool for addressing both climate

change and energy security at the municipal level (Simpson, 2013, p. 2). In the face of such unpredictability, communities across Canada are taking ownership of their energy future. Instead of being dependent on energy supplies that are produced and delivered from outside the community or even from outside their province, Canadian communities are demanding better – a smarter, resilient, reliable, and locally developed energy strategy. Community energy planning is now common and in some provinces, mandated (Markham District Energy Inc., 2017). Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow (QUEST) developed a 10-point Community Energy Implementation Framework, a guide to help communities move community energy plans from a vision to implementation. Due to space limitations, this case study will only list the 10 strategies (Laszlo & Littlejohn, 2016). They are:

1)     Develop a compelling rationale for undertaking the CEP;

2)     Collaborate with a political champion and engage council;

3)     Develop a governance model that supports a community energy transition;

4)     Determine which department and staff person(s) will oversee the CEP implementation;

5)     Engage staff across the local government, identify staff champions and embed the CEP into staff job descriptions;

6)     Define wow the CEP will generate value for community stakeholders;

7)     Engage community stakeholders and recognize their implementation progress;

8)     Monitor and report on CEP implementation;

9)     Develop an implementation budget and work within your means; and

10)  Embed the CEP into plans and policies.

The City of Toronto, prior to the publication of these guides by QUEST, showed their commitment to the full implementation of CEP by its adoption in 2009 of the Power to Live Green: Toronto's Sustainable Energy Strategy which builds on the City’s sustainable energy foundation by significantly conserving, renewing, and smartly distributing electricity and natural gas to bring us closer to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, while maintaining energy reliability and affordability (City of Toronto, 2009). The City has gone further by developing a district energy framework as well as district energy ready guidelines. These are part of the City’s commitment to transforming energy supply and demand that are sustainable over the longer-term. Key elements of the City’s district energy-ready building guideline are: ability to supply thermal energy from ground level; adequate space at or below ground level for a future energy transfer station; an easement between the mechanical room and the property line to allow for thermal piping; two-way pipes placed in the building to carry thermal energy from the district system to the section in the building where the future energy transfer station will be located; a low temperature hydronic heating system that is compatible (i.e. large temperature differential or ∆T) with a district energy system to reduce the pipe sizes and associated valves, fittings, etc.; and appropriate thermal energy metering (City of Toronto, 2017). 

The district energy system operating within Regent Park is currently in operation, with newer buildings in later phases of the development also being connected to this system which is housed in the basement of 252 Sackville Street. The successful implementation of the Regent Park’s district energy system is partly due to external opportunities outside of the control of the City of Toronto. These included grants provided by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and Canadian Mortgage and Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation (CMHC) through its Equilibrium Community Initiative. A positive funding environment such as the above could be considered a driver to overcoming financial barriers and capital cost of implementing district energy systems by supporting feasibility studies and providing expert advice. Regent Park’s district energy system was also in alignment with federal, provincial, and municipal climate change plans and priorities which focusses on greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Underlying these happenstances, is municipal leadership. District energy requires the support and direction of municipal government to succeed. The implementation of the Regent Park’s energy system has not been not without its challenges. While the system has operated without any major hiccups, there were come complaints about persistent noise emanating from the energy centre, the issue is expected to be resolved with the installation of a noise muffler. Other none- system related issues include the buy-back of Corix 40 percent equity interest in the energy project which results in the TCHC sole ownership of the Regent Park Energy Inc. The TCHC has had many issues regarding financial management monitoring and evaluation of its housing stock, community engagement and overall service provision. With these challenges to the organization in mind, residents are left to w wonder if the organization is capable to managing the energy system so that it delivers on all its  energy targets.

References

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2011). Canadian Housing Observer 2011: Sustainable Housing and Communities (No. 67508) (pp. 93–111). Toronto: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Retrieved from https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/hoficlincl/observer/upload/Chapter_7_EN.pdf

CanmetENERGY. (2009). Community Energy Case Studies - Regent Park. Leadership in ecoInnovation. Retrieved from http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/canmetenergy/files/pubs/RegentPark(ENG).pdf

CHF Canada, & Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. (2010). Addressing Energy Poverty: Reforming Utility Allowance and Charges within Ontario’s Rent-Geared-to-Income Subsidy System. Retrieved from http://www.chfcanada.coop/eng/pdf/ontdocs/Utility%20Allowance%20Submission_May%207_jg.pdf.

City of Toronto. (2009). The power to live green: Toronto’s Sustainable Energy Strategy. Toronto: City of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/environment_and_energy/key_priorities/files/pdf/2009-10_report.pdf

City of Toronto. (2016). Tenants First: A Way Forward for Toronto Community Housing and Social Housing in Toronto (No. AFS# 22336). Toronto: City of Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94222.pdf

City of Toronto. (2017). District Energy Systems - Programs - Better Buildings Partnership | City of Toronto. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=81d86d820a926410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Corix Utilities. (2012, January 13). Toronto Community Housing Acquires Full Ownership of Regent Park Energy. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://www.corix.com/about-corix/news/2012/2012/01/13/toronto-community-housing-acquires-full-ownership-of-regent-park-energy

Denis, G. S., & Parker, P. (2009). Community energy planning in Canada: The role of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8), 2088–2095.

Environment and Energy Division (EED), & City of Toronto. (2013). Toronto’s 2013 Greenhouse Gas Inventory (No. (AFS #22169)). Toronto: City of Toronto.

Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. (2012). Building Momentum Provincial Policies for Municipal Energy and Carbon Reductions (ANNUAL ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRESS REPORT). Retrieved from http://docs.assets.eco.on.ca/reports/energy/2012/2012-Energy.1.pdf

Government of Canada, N. R. C. (2004, December 15). Comprehensive Energy Use Database [Government]. Retrieved April 14, 2017, from http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/menus/trends/comprehensive_tables/list.cfm

Government of Ontario. (2017). Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for the Broader Public Sector [Text]. Retrieved April 17, 2017, from https://www.ontario.ca/data/energy-use-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-broader-public-sector

Kenter, P. (2008, July 9). Regent Park Community Energy System features centralized power plant. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/en-US/Home/News/2008/7/Regent-Park-Community-Energy-System-features-centralized-power-plant-DCN028758W/

Laszlo, R., & Littlejohn, D. (2016). Community Energy Implementation Framework. Toronto: QUEST – Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow. Retrieved from http://gettingtoimplementation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Final-Framework-December72016_online.pdf

Littlejohn, D., & Laszlo, R. (2015). Community Energy Planning getting to Implementation in Canada: National Report on CEP Implementation. Toronto: QUEST – Quality Urban Energy Systems of Tomorrow. Retrieved from http://gettingtoimplementation.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/National-Report-on-CEP-Implementation.pdf

Markham District Energy Inc. (2017). Our Community: Markham District Energy Inc. Retrieved April 15, 2017, from http://www.markhamdistrictenergy.com/who-benefits/community/

Micallef, S. (2013). Regent-Park.pdf. MetCalf Foundation. Retrieved from http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Regent-Park.pdf

NRCan, & CMHC. (n.d.). Regent Park Revitalization (Toronto Community Housing). Retrieved from https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/odpub/pdf/67072.pdf

Ontario Ministry of Energy. (2015). Infosheet: Energy Conservation, Efficiency and Supply [Government]. Retrieved from http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/en/municipal-energy/infosheet-energy-conservation-efficiency-and-supply/

Paikin, S. (2014, April 3). The Regent Park Redevelopment: Part Three. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from http://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/the-regent-park-redevelopment-part-three---

Panos, J. (2014, September 1). An Education in Gentrification. Retrieved March 30, 2017, from https://briarpatchmagazine.com/articles/view/an-education-in-gentrification

QMC. (2016, May). Thermal Energy Metering: Regulations and Best Practices for the Canadian Market. QMC. Retrieved from http://qmeters.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/QMC_ThermalSubmetering_Whitepaper_Final.pdf

Simpson, K. G. (2013). Implementing district energy systems: municipal approaches to overcoming barriers. ROYAL ROADS UNIVERSITY.

Spurr, B. (2015, April 21). TCHC tenants overwhelmed by hydro bills | Toronto Star. Thestar.com. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/04/21/tchc-tenants-overwhelmed-by-hydro-bills.html

TCHC, & Corix Utilities. (2010, June). Regent Park Community Energy System. Retrieved from http://www.districtenergy.org/assets/pdfs/2010AnnualConference/PROCEEDINGS/MONDAY-TRACK-A/1A2MACARTNEYRegent-Park-Community-Energy-System-PresentationIDEA.pdf

Toronto Community Housing. (2017). Utilities. Retrieved April 16, 2017, from https://www.torontohousing.ca/residents/your-home/Pages/utilities.aspx

Wong, J. (2010, September 12). Regent Park: Revitalization or gentrification? Toronto Star. Toronto. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/09/12/regent_park_revitalization_or_gentrification.html