Bridging the code harmonization & climate resilience gap

As a recognized national leader in embodied carbon policy, Ryan Zizzo has spent years shaping the frameworks that guide sustainable construction across Canada. From his impactful work on CAGBC’s Zero Carbon Steering Committee to his technical contributions to the 2030 National Building Code and CSA Group committees, his expertise sits at the intersection of policy, innovation, and practical implementation. In a recent discussion, the Mantle Climate Founder & CEO shared his insights on navigating complex carbon accounting, the urgent need for true interprovincial building code harmonization, and the critical policy shifts required to future-proof Canada’s real estate assets against climate change.

As a leader shaping the current embodied carbon policy landscape, how do you help project teams navigate complex carbon accounting to meet evolving green building standards, and what barriers stand in the way of widespread adoption?

The carbon accounting ecosystem, especially guidelines, tools, and data sources, is evolving quickly. Even for a team of full-time sustainability consultants, it can be difficult to keep up. At Mantle Climate, we share new resources across the firm in real time to support active projects. We also populate a new resource database so everyone can see what tools and guidelines are available.

Widespread adoption of emissions management is often hampered by silos and a lack of harmonization across the industry. When everyone is doing things their own way, it makes benchmarking, comparisons, and ultimately, reductions more difficult. This is why many in the industry, myself included, have been advocating for a centralized database of building energy and emissions reporting – including both operational and embodied emissions. This would be valuable at the municipal, provincial, and federal level, allowing users to filter results as desired for their given purpose.

Another barrier is that emissions assessment methodologies often leave room for interpretation when it comes to specific modelling approaches and data sources. The same assessment by Firm A and Firm B might provide very different results, even if they follow the same methodology. One way to combat that would be to develop a third-party review and/or verification process for emissions quantification. This takes a page from the world of environmental product declarations (EPDs). It’s not enough for a firm to run a life cycle assessment of a product and summarize it as an EPD, they must make sure they follow a specific product category rule (PCR) [the methodology], but then additionally must have their results externally verified by a peer reviewer. This final step is lacking on most emission assessments and would provide a lot of value if implemented.

Beyond reducing emissions, what urgent policy frameworks, rating system updates, or standards are needed across Canada’s supply chain to scale climate-resilient construction?

To scale climate-resilient construction, we need better building codes that are harmonized across the country. This doesn’t mean one size fits all, but we need a single source of truth that includes various options depending on the risk profile of a given location and/or building type. This should take the form of one model national building code that is adopted by all provinces and territories. Adding tiers for various levels of risk mitigation also helps and can allow for minimum levels to be required (“Tier 1”) and higher levels linked to incentives (“Tiers 2, 3, or 4”). The provinces have already agreed to work towards harmonization of building codes via the Reconciliation Agreement on Construction Codes (RACC), which was signed by all provinces, territories, and the federal government, and came into effect on June 1, 2020. Unfortunately, this aspirational agreement hasn’t fully achieved its goals as Ontario’s most recent building code did not adopt the tiered energy efficiency and operational carbon requirements of the National Building Code. We need to do better and demand harmonization. Building differently in every region is a huge interprovincial trade barrier that we can remove if we want. Now is the time.

As a recognized Green Building Champion, what are the most common blind spots asset managers miss when trying to future-proof buildings, and what is the next major hurdle the Canadian industry must clear to achieve true market transformation?

Asset managers need to develop climate transition plans that include both mitigation and adaptation efforts. The plan provides a guidebook to build back better when systems fail and need replacement. For example, if your old natural gas boiler fails, you are much more likely to replace it with a new high efficiency electric boiler or heat pump (that is raised a few feet above the flood plain) if you’re already prepared with that plan and design in place. Being prepared with a design package for what your ‘desired future state’ looks like can be the difference between implementing that new vision or simply replacing like-for-like since it’s the easiest and quickest option.

For true market transformation, we need two things: the first is a Buildings Emissions Performance Standard (BEPS) and the second is building climate resilience scores. BEPS set maximum allowable annual emissions for each building based on location, size, and building type. If a building emits more, they pay for every additional ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. This incentivizes building owners to decarbonize their energy systems over time to stay below the limit and avoid the fines. This is already in place in New York City as Local Law 97. Toronto and other Canadian jurisdictions are looking at similar policies, but none have formally implemented them to date.

Adding a climate resilience score to each building would help tenants and residents better understand their climate risk and to demand buildings that are more resilient. Such a score should include consideration of both the location-based risks and building-specific resilience features – for example, if critical systems are raised above flood plains, have resilient and long-lasting back-up power systems, are designed for passive survivability and cooling, and have robust emergency management plans in place. Together, BEPS and resilience would transform the industry towards decarbonization and resilience.

Explore CAGBC’s Transition Planning Guide.

Learn more