fraser health management plan 2015-16 (semp) · fraser health strategic energy management plan...

Fraser Health Strategic Energy

Management Plan (SEMP)

2015-16

The FH 2015-16 SEMP is a foundational document of the Energy & Environmental Sustainability within Lower Mainland Facilities Management and reports on past, current, and forecasted energy consumption and conservation projects within Fraser Health. Issued: September 4, 2015

Energy Management Team: Energy Manager: Robert Bradley

Energy Coordinator: Jeson Mak Energy Specialist: Kori Jones

Energy Volunteers: Green+ Leaders

Executive Support Energy Committee: Environmental Sustainability Advisor Committee (ESAC)

VP Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM): Peter Goldthorpe

Energy & Environmental Sustainability Director, LMFM: Mauricio Acosta

Signature:

OUR PASSION OUR MANDATE OUR POTENTIAL

This document is developed by the Energy & Environmental Sustainability (EES) team within Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM). The EES team are within a consolidated department, and therefore collectively serve all four of the Lower Mainland Health Authorities. While each Health Authority has a dedicated Energy Manager, Energy Management is a coordinated effort with a shared vision, goals, targets, and approach. This enhances efficiency and leverages the collective knowledge of the team for the benefit of each health organization. As such, the Preface to the PHSA SEMP is from an LMFM perspective. This document consists of the following two distinct sections, each with its own Table of Contents.

LMFM Strategic Energy Management Plan Preface Fraser Health (FH) SEMP

LMFM Strategic Energy Management Plan Preface



Page - i -

Table of Contents

I. CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. IV

I.I FOUR HEALTH AUTHORITIES WORKING TOGETHER ...................................................................... IV I.II LMFM UPDATES ................................................................................................................... IV I.III COORDINATING OUR SUSTAINABILITY WORK ............................................................................... IV I.IV COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................................. V I.V EES STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... V I.VI EES VISION, MISSION, & VALUES .............................................................................................VII

i.vi.i Our Vision ............................................................................................................... vii i.vi.ii Our Mission ........................................................................................................... vii i.vi.iii Our Values ............................................................................................................ vii

I.VII GREENCARE ..........................................................................................................................VII I.VIII DEMAND VS SUPPLY .............................................................................................................. VIII I.IX WHY IS ENERGY MANAGEMENT IMPORTANT? ........................................................................... VIII

i.ix.i Multiple Stakeholders ........................................................................................... viii

II. COMMITMENT TO ENERGY MANAGEMENT ............................................................. XII

II.I WHAT IS STRATEGIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT? ............................................................................ XII II.II PURPOSE OF SEMP ................................................................................................................ XII II.III GOALS .................................................................................................................................. XII II.IV TARGETS ............................................................................................................................... XII II.V STRATEGIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. XIV

ii.v.i Scenario Planning ................................................................................................... xiv ii.v.ii SWOT Analysis....................................................................................................... xv

III. A FRAMEWORK FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT ......................................................... XIX

III.I PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... XIX III.II PLAN DO CHECK ACT CYCLE .................................................................................................... XIX III.III 10 COMPONENTS OF : HOLISTIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT ............................................................. XX III.IV ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA) ............................................................................ XXI III.V FIVE BUCKETS ..................................................................................................................... XXIII III.VI EXECUTION: A FOUR-STEP APPROACH .................................................................................... XXIV III.VII A BASIS FOR PRIORITIZATION .................................................................................................. XXV

iii.vii.i Energy Usage in Healthcare Facilities ............................................................... xxvi

IV. LMFM-WIDE INITIATIVES .................................................................................... XXVIII

IV.I EXISTING BUILDINGS .......................................................................................................... XXVIII iv.i.i Energy Studies .................................................................................................... xxviii iv.i.ii Energy Efficiency Upgrades ............................................................................... xxviii iv.i.iii Continuous Optimization ................................................................................. xxviii iv.i.iv Energy Efficient Equipment .............................................................................. xxviii

IV.II NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS ...................................................................... XXVIII iv.ii.i Energy Efficient New Construction ...................................................................... xxix iv.ii.ii EES Green Playbook ........................................................................................... xxix


Page - ii -

iv.ii.iii ELIM Initiative ................................................................................................... xxix iv.ii.iv Energy Efficiency Guidelines ............................................................................... xxx

IV.III ENGAGEMENT & BEHAVIOUR CHANGE ................................................................................... XXXII iv.iii.i The GreenCare Community ............................................................................... xxxii iv.iii.ii The Green + Leaders ......................................................................................... xxxii iv.iii.iii Behaviour Change Campaigns ........................................................................ xxxii

IV.IV SYSTEMIC CHANGE ............................................................................................................ XXXIII iv.iv.i Energy Policy .................................................................................................... xxxiii iv.iv.ii Sustainable Purchasing ................................................................................... xxxiii

IV.V INNOVATION & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................................ XXXIV iv.v.i Green Revolving Fund (GRF) .............................................................................. xxxiv iv.v.ii Emerging Best Practices .................................................................................... xxxv

V. LMFM APPENDICES .......................................................................................... XXXVIII

V.I ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY .................................................................................... XXXVIII V.II LMFM STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................................................................... XXXVIII V.III LMFM STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY .................................................................... XXXVIII


Page - iii -

List of Figures and Tables

Figure LMFM-1: Current EES Organization Chart ......................................................................................... v Figure LMFM-2: EES Strategic Framework .................................................................................................. vi Figure LMFM-3: GreenCare Logo ............................................................................................................... vii Figure LMFM-4: Multiple Drivers for Energy Management ...................................................................... viii Figure LMFM-5: The Natural Step Strategic Planning Approach ............................................................... xiv Figure LMFM-6: Programs and Projects Visual Aid .................................................................................... xix Figure LMFM-7: Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle for Energy Management .......................................................... xx Figure LMFM-8: Holistic Energy Management Groupings .......................................................................... xx Figure LMFM-9: Example SEGEMA Results ............................................................................................... xxii Figure LMFM-10: Typical NRCan Healthcare Energy Use Breakdown, Acute Care ................................. xxvi Figure LMFM-11: Typical NRCan Healthcare Energy Use Breakdown, Extended Care ............................ xxvi Figure LMFM-12: Green Playbook Excerpt, EES Early Involvement ......................................................... xxix Figure LMFM-13: Screen Shot from ELIM ................................................................................................. xxx Figure LMFM-14: Sample GreenCare web page ..................................................................................... xxxii Figure LMFM-15: Model of Passive House Hospital under design in Frankfurt, Germany9......... xxxv Figure LMFM-16: SHBI Mazzetti, Regenerative Approach ..................................................................... xxxvi Figure LMFM-17: SHBI Mazzetti - Cost Model ....................................................................................... xxxvi Figure LMFM-18: SHBI Mazzetti, System Synergies............................................................................... xxxvii Table LMFM-1: LMHA Key Issues, Priorities, & Drivers ................................................................................ x Table LMFM-2: Combined Drivers for Energy Management ...................................................................... xi Table LMFM-3: Energy and Climate Neutral Goals and Targets ................................................................xiii Table LMFM-4: Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis ................................................................................. xv Table LMFM-5: Opportunities and Threats Analysis .................................................................................. xvi Table LMFM-6: Overview of Energy Conservation Projects and Initiatives ............................................. xxiv Table LMFM-7: Prioritization Themes ....................................................................................................... xxv Table LMFM-8: Example Energy Efficiency (EE) Strategies for Largest End Uses ................................... xxvii Table LMFM-9: LMHA Key Stakeholders .............................................................................................. xxxviii


Page - iv -

I. CONTEXT

i.i FOUR HEALTH AUTHORITIES WORKING TOGETHER

Beginning in 2010, the following four health organizations began formally working together to manage and deliver administrative and clinical support services:

Fraser Health Authority (FHA)

Providence Health Care (PHC)

Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA)

Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) This partnership allows us to consolidate operations across the four health organizations for greater efficiency, so our health care dollars can be effectively focused on patient care. This partnership, informally known as the Lower Mainland Consolidation (LMC), is an innovative approach to improve efficiency across health organizations in select non-clinical and clinical support areas. For purposes of this document, the relevant department within the LMC is facilities management, referred to as Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM). The new Lower Mainland Facilities Management team has a mandate that includes 27 acute care hospitals and over 50 residential / other care facilities, which serve over 2.5 million British Columbians living in 37 municipalities and regional districts.

i.ii LMFM UPDATES

Some reorganization occurred within the LMFM Department in 2014. This has led to the Energy Environment and Sustainability (EES) Team and the Facilities Maintenance and Operations (FMO) department reporting up to the same person (Executive Director of Operations, Energy & Technical Services). However, this position is currently still vacant. We anticipate that once this position is filled, it will create further drive for greater collaboration and integration between FMO and EES. Our previous Executive Director, Alan Grossert, has taken on the role of ED, Facilities Planning & Projects. Alan has been a great champion for our work, so we anticipate that his new role will facilitate improved integration with the Strategic Planning and Capital Projects teams. Another change which occurred, post consolidation was the development of a Chief Facilities Operating Office (CFOO) position. All LMFM departments now roll up to the CFOO (Paul Becker). Paul is very supportive and knowledgeable of the work that the EES Team does, so we anticipate that he will continue to be a valuable sponsor and help us achieve further success in the work that we are undertaking.

i.iii COORDINATING OUR SUSTAINABILITY WORK

Consolidation enabled the creation of an EES group within LMFM dedicated to reducing the environmental impact of all the Lower Mainland health organizations. This has allowed for new opportunities to coordinate environmental and sustainability work across VCH, FHA, PHC and PHSA in a unified manner for greater impact.


Page - v -

“The Lower Mainland Health Organizations will act as leaders with respect to environmental stewardship while engaging the health care community in a collaborative approach towards sustainability”

The EES Team, led by Mauricio Acosta, includes individuals focused solely on Energy Management for each Health Authority, as well as individuals focused on broader sustainability topics such as waste reduction. A current EES Organization Chart is shown in Figure LMFM-1 below.

Figure LMFM-1: Current EES Organization Chart

It is the goal of the EES group to unite the four health organizations in our commitment to reduce health care’s impact on the environment, while increasing the health and wellbeing of British Columbians by maintaining the important link between health and the environment. Changes to the EES team this year included the following:

Energy Manager on maternity leave ( Alex Hutton, leave starting February 18th, 2015)

New acting Energy Manager (Sabah Ali, starting February 18th, 2015)

New temporary Energy Coordinator (Blair McFarlane, starting June 1st, 2015)

i.iv COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY

The only policy to be adopted by all four health organizations as a result of the consolidation and the efforts of the EES team is the Sustainability Policy:

This policy provides a high level statement of commitment for efforts to improve the sustainability of the four health organizations.

i.v EES STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

In 2012 the EES group developed a strategic framework to turn the policy statement into a more concrete basis for action. The framework starts at a high level by making the link to sustainability components within each of the four LMHA’s individual strategic frameworks and highlighting our strategic partners and collaborators within the Health Authority and with external organizations. It then

Blair McFarlane

Sabah Ali

Angie Woo


Page - vi -

cascades down from the EES vision, mission, and values to our strategic areas of focus with associated goals, targets, and priority actions. Figure LMFM-2 shows the ten areas of focus and their relationship to the familiar “triple bottom line” or “three pillars” framework for sustainability (adapted slightly to be more relevant to healthcare). All areas impact environmental stewardship and all areas impact at least one of the other two pillars.

Figure LMFM-2: EES Strategic Framework

In order to focus our limited resources, the 10 areas are prioritized in the EES Strategic Framework. The first three areas are tier 1 priority, and not surprisingly they are the ones that most directly impact economic stewardship, since the business case for the programs and initiatives in these areas are most compelling. The first three areas each have a specific program designed to achieve the goals. The key program within Culture of Stewardship is the Green+Leaders Program, and the key program related to Zero Waste is the Recycling and Renewal Program. The Energy Conservation and Climate Neutral area of focus encompasses the entire Energy Management program and associated initiatives and is the main focus of this document. Currently the EES Strategic Framework is going through a refresh process with the goal of increasing our collaboration across the LMHA’s and to identify the best path align with our key stakeholders.


Page - vii -

EES Vision: Transforming Health Care for a Thriving Environment

i.vi EES VISION, MISSION, & VALUES

In light of the strategic framework developed in 2012, the EES group revisited the mission, vision and values that will guide our work in 2015 and 2016.

i.vi.i Our Vision

Through a process of reflection and exploration we collectively developed a new vision statement that better reflects our desire to more clearly connect with and influence our core business of health care, as well as a desire to focus on what is possible.

i.vi.ii Our Mission

Seeing the Earth as one system, we respectfully recognize that the health of individuals and the environments they inhabit are inseparable; thus GreenCare’s mission is an extension of health care goals: “GreenCare engages internal and external partners in the health care community through collaboration, innovation, & transparency to create sustainable and environmentally-responsible health care practices & systems.”

i.vi.iii Our Values

The EES team commits to engaging our work in a way that is:

Respectful of the interdependence among all living systems

Holistic

Collaborative

Innovative

Balanced

Transparent

Optimistic

i.vii GREENCARE

GreenCare is the brand name for all the environmental sustainability activities across the Lower Mainland health organizations. This includes work done by all members of our EES group: our recycling programs, our Green+Leaders staff champions, our energy management team, through our online staff engagement forum, and through the various departments with whom we collaborate.

Figure LMFM-3: GreenCare Logo


Page - viii -

i.viii DEMAND VS SUPPLY

Within the realm of Energy Management, the EES team has made a clear distinction between the demand and supply side of the “energy equation.” Demand side referring to efforts to reduce the demand for energy (i.e. energy conservation) and supply side referring to efforts to improve the efficiency and reduce the GHG intensity of the energy supplied to meet the demand. Responsibility for Demand Side Energy Management within LMFM is divided between three Energy Managers who are supported by the Energy Specialists and Energy Coordinators. The Energy Mangers are as listed below,

Fraser Health Authority - Robert Bradley

Vancouver Coastal Health – John Manougian

Provincial Health Service Authority – Sabah Ali

Providence Health Care – Sabah Ali In past years, responsibility for supply side efforts was led by the Community Energy Manager; however, this position was left vacant in 2014 and the responsibilities were divided up between the Energy Managers and the EES Director. The focus of this report is primarily on demand side conservation, as supported by the BC Hydro Energy Manager program.

i.ix WHY IS ENERGY MANAGEMENT IMPORTANT?

As noted previously, energy management has been prioritized within the EES portfolio because there is a business case for energy conservation, as well as environmental benefits. However, this is not the complete picture, and these are not the only relevant drivers pertaining to energy management.

i.ix.i Multiple Stakeholders

In reality there are multiple stakeholders whose drivers influence the importance of Energy Management for the EES team and the specific priorities within the broad topic of Energy Management. Figure LMFM-4 shows the key stakeholders whose drivers are summarized below.

Figure LMFM-4: Multiple Drivers for Energy Management

Energy Management

Utility Provider

Goals

Provincial Mandate (Bill 44) Health

Authority Drivers


Page - ix -

i.ix.i.i Provincial Mandate

An important component of why energy management is a priority is the fact that, as government funded organizations, each LMHA must abide by the Provincial Government of British Columbia’s GHG Reduction Targets Act (Bill 44), passed in 2007. Under the Act, our GHG emissions are to be reduced below our 2007 levels as follows:

6% by 2012

18% by 2016

33% by 2020

80% by 2050

The Bill 44 also laid the foundation for the Emission Offsets Regulation and the Carbon Neutral Government Regulation, both enacted in December 2008, which guide our efforts.

i.ix.i.ii BC Hydro Mandate

BC Hydro in mandated by the BC Energy Plan to meet 66% of electricity resource needs through conservation by 2020. As such, BC Hydro encourages energy conservation (with a focus on electrical), through their various incentive programs, including the Energy Manager program, which substantially subsidizes the cost to the health authority of employing a full time Energy Management professional.

i.ix.i.iii Fortis BC Mandate

FortisBC is also a financial supporter of energy conservation efforts, focused on natural gas; however, their focus is primarily on incentive dollars allocated through participation in their programs, and secondarily on natural gas savings. The Energy Specialist program, complimenting the Energy Manager program, is subsidizes by Fortis BC reducing the cost to the health authority of employing a full time Energy Management professional.

i.ix.i.iv Health Authority Drivers

Understanding our organizational drivers and how they related to energy is important to ensure that our strategic energy management plan is aligned with overall organizational objectives and priorities, thus maximizing success. The primary and obvious drivers for energy management within the health authority include cost savings / avoidance and support in meeting the requirements of Bill 44; however, other secondary drivers should not be ignored and in fact may be more effective for highlighting the importance and the full potential of energy management. By starting with a list of the key issues and priorities facing the health authorities, a more complete list of potential drivers for energy management can be developed. In other words important non-energy benefits of energy conservation projects can be highlighted. Table LMFM-1 provides a non-exhaustive selection of examples of how energy projects can help to support various health authority priorities.


Page - x -

Table LMFM-1: LMHA Key Issues, Priorities, & Drivers

LMHA Issues, Priorities, & Drivers

Potential Co-Benefits of Energy Initiative

Example Energy Projects or Initiatives

Improve Human Health

Improved occupant comfort & productivity

Improved thermal zone control

Air sealing around windows and doors

Re-commissioning

Improved air quality Coil cleaning

Improved recovery time Design to optimize daylighting

Financial Management

Reduce or avoid operating costs

All energy conservation projects

Maximize incentive funding

BC Hydro support provides an Energy Manager at a reduced cost to health authority

Various incentives reduce capital cost of projects

Reduced maintenance cost Vortisand side stream filtration reduces the time to clean out cooling tower

LED lighting can be replaced less frequently

Asset and Risk Management

Reduced mechanical equipment failures

Connecting equipment to DDC controls

Improved energy security Alternative energy source heating plant

Reduced staff errors Design to optimize daylighting

Support compliance with Provincial Regulations (Bill 44)

Measuring and reporting carbon emissions

Attract and Retain staff

Improved staff engagement through G+L energy campaign

Improved staff satisfaction through design to optimize daylighting

The above examples show that there are many potential gains beyond direct energy and financial benefits associated with some energy management initiatives. In fact, some of these benefits could be used as the driving factor in approval of funding. In addition, taking this more holistic approach could lead to prioritizing an initiative that could not be justified on the basis of energy savings alone. Summary Table LMFM-2 summarizes the key requirements and priorities of each stakeholder group and the metric which can be used to measure success relative each driver. Some drivers, such as asset and risk management are less easily quantified into a single metric and thus are not included in Table LMFM-2, but remain a priority when selecting projects.


Page - xi -

Table LMFM-2: Combined Drivers for Energy Management

STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENT / PRIORITY METRIC OF SUCCESS

Provincial Government Compliance with Bill 44

GHG emissions reduction below 2007 (%)

Total carbon reduction (Tonnes CO2e)

Health Authority Cost Savings Cost Savings per year ($/year)

Cost Avoidance Avoided costs per year ($/year)

BC Hydro Achieve annual energy target

Electrical energy savings (GWh/year*) *Target varies by HA and year

FortisBC Pursue FortisBC incentives Incentive dollars achieved per year ($/year)

Achieve natural gas savings Natural gas savings per year (GJ/year)

There is a need to balance these sometimes complementary and sometimes competing priorities. The focus of the Strategic Energy Management Plan to date has covered each of these major priorities; however, in future years the report will be refined in order to address the aspects of energy management in a more holistic, integrated, and strategic manner. A complete list of individual stakeholders within the above noted organizations is included in the LMFM Appendices.


Page - xii -

II. COMMITMENT TO ENERGY MANAGEMENT

The LMHA’s have made a commitment to Energy Management through the policy and framework as described previously in this report.

ii.i WHAT IS STRATEGIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT?

The following description from the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) aligns with our view of Strategic Energy Management as follows: “Strategic Energy Management can be defined simply as taking a holistic approach to managing energy use in order to continuously improve energy performance, sustaining energy and cost savings over the long term.”

ii.ii PURPOSE OF SEMP

The purpose of the SEMP is to set objectives and targets for energy reduction and provide a realistic plan for achieving them. In general terms, the EES team’s energy management objectives are to control and ultimately reduce LMFM energy consumption (and associated energy costs and GHG emissions) through the implementation of energy conservation projects in both new and existing facilities, as well as exploring clean energy supply options. The relevant specific goals and targets from the EES Strategic Framework are described below, as the starting place for the SEMP.

ii.iii GOALS

The stated goal of the Energy and Climate Neutral area of focus within the EES Strategic plan is to: “Achieve climate neutral operations through conservation, efficiency, low carbon supply, and carbon offsets for any residual carbon footprint.” Energy Management falls within the Energy and Climate Neutral area of focus, but as noted previously, the focus of this report is primarily on demand side management, or energy conservation, rather than the broader components of supply side and carbon neutrality and with greater focus on electrical savings.

ii.iv TARGETS

The EES team re-evaluated our previous milestone targets for energy conservation in order to reflect the realities of a growing portfolio, increased intensity of use in the buildings, and finite funding resources to implement energy conservation projects. The intension was to update the targets to be more realistic by being more reflective of what is within our control. The energy conservation targets were changed from a percentage reduction in overall consumption to a percentage reduction in Energy Use Intensity (EUI), measured in kWh/m2/year since this metric takes into account the increasing size of the portfolio, thus removing one of the variables that is beyond our control. The EUI target is also based on weather-normalized data, thus removing the influence of weather variation, another factor beyond our control.


Page - xiii -

There is no easy way to account for the impact on energy use of variations in intensity of use (i.e. variations in the number of patient visits, procedures, and other metrics of building use). For now, the impacts of such variations are considered, but not accounted for. The following updated targets were established in 2015 to measure progress toward our goals with respect to the Energy and Climate Neutral area of focus; also summarized in Table LMFM-3 below.

1. GHG Emission Reduction1: Reduce carbon emissions (relative to a 2007 baseline) by:

a. 6% by 2012 b. 18% by 2016 c. 33% by 2020 d. 80% by 2050

2. Energy Conservation: Reduce Energy Use Intensity (EUI)2 of existing building stock3 relative to a

2007 baseline by4:

a. 15% by 2020 (site specific)

3. Energy Efficient New Construction: Achieve project-specific energy intensity targets for all new construction projects5.

a. Support facilities: 150 kWh/m2/year b. Inpatient facilities: 250 kWh/m2/year c. Acute care and research facilities: 375 kWh/m2/year

Table LMFM-3: Energy and Climate Neutral Goals and Targets

Energy and Climate Neutral Goals Milestone Targets by Year (Relative to 2007)

2012 2015 2016 2020 2050

GHG Emission Reduction 6% - 18% 33% 80%

Energy Conservation - 10% - 15% -

Energy Efficient New Construction Support facilities: 150 kWh/m2/year Inpatient facilities: 250 kWh/m2/year

Acute care and research facilities: 375 kWh/m2/year

Each Energy Manager has a specific minimum annual electricity conservation target, measured in GWh’s of “booked” electrical savings, which is re-evaluated annually. Booked savings are savings reviewed, approved, and recognized by BC Hydro through one of their Power Smart Partner programs. This target will be discussed within the section pertaining to each HA.

1 The GHG emission reduction targets are based on the province-wide mandated targets and are not necessarily applicable to Healthcare only. 2 Energy Use Intensity based on data normalized to 2007 weather data 3 It is noted that the above targets are applicable to owned and operated sites and that new construction will be factored into the baseline year 4 Annual interim targets are set by each health authority with some variation. 5 Intensity targets by building type have been established as a guideline; however, a specific target is developed by the EES Team for each specific project or building.


Page - xiv -

It is noted that we have not established specific targets for all of the metrics for success summarized in Table LMFM-2; however, we do report our performance against most of these metrics.

ii.v STRATEGIC ANALYSIS

The key components of 'strategic planning' include an understanding of an organization’s (or specific team’s) vision, mission, values, goals, targets, and strategies. Figure LMFM-5 (adapted from the Natural Step Framework for sustainability planning) shows these components visually.

Figure LMFM-5: The Natural Step Strategic Planning Approach

The EES team has a defined vision, mission, and values, as well as defined goals and target. From these a strategy has been articulated (largely in this document, which is updated annually). However, there is room for improvement in the formulation of our strategies to achieve the goals and targets. The EES team plans to continue strengthening the strategic planning process in order to improve outcomes. The formulation of strategies is the focus of this section. A key part of a strategic plan is determining the most effective and efficient ways to meet the goals and targets. Some means of determining this include Scenario Planning and SWOT analysis.

ii.v.i Scenario Planning

Scenario Planning is a strategic planning method that some organizations use to make flexible long-term plans. It involves projecting plausible future scenarios bounded by a sensitivity analysis for relevant variables. Scenario planning is defined as a strategic planning method that organizations use to make flexible long-term plans based on generating a number of “what if” situations and then options on how they might respond to those situations6. The EES team intends to use this approach to help demonstrate the potential long term impacts of various decisions and highlight the potential opportunities and threats associated with different decisions and approaches.

6 The Keely Group, Scenario Planning Overview, 2011


Page - xv -

ii.v.ii SWOT Analysis

A SWOT analysis is a structured planning method used to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the organization, department, or team as well as an exploration of the opportunities and threats that this group faces. The EES team plans to complete a more comprehensive SWOT analysis for the combined team, as well as individual health authority assessments, in order to guide energy management efforts. In the meantime, a preliminary component of a SWOT analysis is summarized here for the EES team collectively as a starting place.

ii.v.ii.i Strengths and Weaknesses

Table LMFM-4 presents a summary of strengths and weaknesses. The EES team qualitatively assessed a number of capabilities and functional areas are in terms of their importance relative to achieving our goals. The perceived performance of the EES Energy Management team was rated relative to each capability. The types of capabilities assessed included a set of five typical business capabilities from literature, as well as ones derived from our approach to Energy Management (refer to Section iii.v - Five Buckets and Section iii.vi - Execution: A Four-Step Approach).

Table LMFM-4: Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis

Table LMFM-4 highlights key areas for improvement in red and key strengths of the EES team in green; cases where there is significant variation (between various elements of that capability and/or different health authorities) are shown with multiple check marks. Capabilities that are a mixture of strength and weakness are shown as a gradient of both colours.

Low Medium High Poor Fair Good Excellent

Typical Business Capabilities

1. Research & Development

2. Operations

3. Marketing

4. Customer Service

5. Management & Leadership

Five Buckets

1. Existing Buildings

2. NC & MR

3. Behaviour Change

4. Systemic Change

5. Innovation & Demonstration

Execution Steps

1. Identify

2. Fund

3. Implement

4. Verify

Capability / Areas of FocusImportance Rating

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan


Page - xvi -

ii.v.ii.ii Barriers and Obstacles

Barriers and obstacles are distinct from weaknesses in that they are not a result of the team’s weakness but they present a challenge within the organization. The following are some barriers and obstacles that were identified last year:

Availability of funding for energy efficiency projects

o This challenge has been lessened by the new Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) as

well as increased opportunities for funding through Fortis’ new Custom Program

Large and complex organizational structures; collaboration and funding channels are time

intensive and limited

Lack of sub-metering for accurate monitoring and verification

Uncontrollable variables i.e. weather, new equipment, plug loads, clinical energy intensity

Increasing portfolio size

Lack of control over leased and P3 sites

Savings are becoming more difficult and costly to achieve after low cost measures are

implemented

ii.v.ii.iii Opportunities and Threats

Table LMFM-5 summarizes factors external to the organization: opportunities and threats related to energy management facing the EES team and LMHA’s in general.

Table LMFM-5: Opportunities and Threats Analysis

Opportunities Threats

New CNCP funding source Unreliable new technologies

Data management tools Variable energy costs

Increased incentive opportunities through Fortis Custom Program

Reduced funding and incentives from BC Hydro or FortisBC

Organizational tools Organisational Leadership Support

New technologies Turnover of Strategic Contacts

Social media

Resources (including Energy Manager network for knowledge sharing)


Page - xvii -

ii.v.ii.iv Conclusion: Priority Strategies

The previous sections culminate in a SWOT analysis which combines the above analysis in order to highlight how to leverage strengths, capitalize on opportunities, monitor threats, and improve upon weaknesses. The conclusions from the SWOT analysis performed last year are summarized as the following priority strategies with comments added in green to highlight actions taken this year:

1. Operations: Streamline processes – Leverage available tools to improve operational efficiency

by streamlining processes (particularly for data management and report writing)

We have begun a more formal evaluation of available tools for data management

Each year we take incremental steps to streamline our report writing

2. Management: Specify annual targets - Improve ability to manage competing priorities by

specifying an annual target for all KPI’s

Our targets were reviewed and refined this year

We have begun to establish more detailed site specific targets to create more focus

3. Systemic Change: Map desired changes – Balance efforts between specific initiatives and more

broad systemic change. Identify where to increase efforts by first developing a high level map of

the desired changes and prioritizing based on impact and achievability

Related to the notion of systemic change, we mapped and evaluated our stakeholders

to determine which are most critical and then identified actions to improve the

relationship with those stakeholders

4. Funding: Identify no-cost measures – Leverage existing tools and resources (including Pulse

energy, BMS data, etc.) as well as engaged FMO staff to identify and implement low and no-cost

measures to save energy (for example, anomalies identified through real time meter data

analysis can lead to correction of unnecessary energy waste associated with operational

glitches)

We formalized our FMO Engagement Strategy (see Appendix Section 0)

At some sites we have begun a process of monthly meetings with FMO staff to review

the performance of their building (anomalies, etc.) as part of ongoing low-cost

optimization efforts


Page - xviii -

5. Funding: Develop Business Case – Take advantage of potential future funding sources by having

the business case ready in anticipation.

We developed applications for the new Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) and

successfully secured the maximum amount available to the LMHAs.

6. Funding: Present Business Case - Where applicable, improve likelihood of increased funding for

energy conservation by presenting a business case for specific initiatives as well as a Green

Revolving Fund to the Executive Sponsor and other financial decision-makers

There has been ongoing engagement with VCH executives with respect to the pilot

Green Revolving Fund (GRF) for VCH, now in year 3

FHA and PHSA business cases have progressed; both Authorities are in year 1 of their

GRF programs

7. Implementation: Prioritize fewer projects – Where applicable, narrow focus to fewer projects

and initiatives in order to allocate sufficient time to complete projects more rapidly.

For the portfolio within which this comment was applicable, the CNCP funding continues

to force a higher degree of focus by providing a specific amount of funding and a very

tight timeline for completion


Page - xix -

III. A FRAMEWORK FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT

This section summarizes the framework that the Energy Managers within EES collectively use for energy management. This common framework provides a common vocabulary to facilitate discussion, collaboration, and consistency amongst the EES team. Given the depth and breadth of scope, as well as the complexity of Energy Management, there are many different lenses through which to view the topic, each with benefits and draw-backs. To effectively manage such a portfolio there is a need to “zoom in and out” to varying degrees of detail to neither loose the forest for the trees, or vice versa. No one particular lens or framework can concisely encompass both the full picture and the granularity of detail, so it is helpful to have several lenses that can be applied to highlight different aspects of the Energy Management process.

iii.i PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

It is worth noting that Energy Management is essential Program Management as opposed to Project Management. Program Management can be defined as “the coordinated management of a portfolio of projects to achieve a set of business objectives”. While both project and program management both involve planning, monitoring, reporting, and budgeting, the later the broader in scope and scale; see LMFM-6. Program Management addresses the management of project management, setting up processes, monitoring and measuring project results, and coordinating related projects. Program Management is be similar in some respects to Systems Engineering which overlaps technical and human-centered disciplines in an effort to ensure all aspects of a system are considered, and integrated into a whole.

iii.ii PLAN DO CHECK ACT CYCLE

At a high level, the EES Team’s approach is based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle outlined within the specification created by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for an energy management system (ISO 50001:2011), as summarized in Figure LMFM-77. The cycle occurs on an annual basis as well as ongoing as smaller versions of the cycle within specific projects and initiatives. In general terms, the annual cycle can be summarized as follows:

Plan: Updating the SEMP and action plans in the summer;

DO: Focus on implementation through summer, fall, and winter

Check: Focus on reporting and analysis in late winter and spring

Act: Review the results of the reporting to inform corrective action and refinements to the strategy

Plan: Revise the following year’s update to the SEMP accordingly

Program Management

Project Management

Figure LMFM-6: Programs and Projects Visual Aid


Page - xx -

Figure LMFM-7: Plan-Do-Check-Act Cycle for Energy Management

The Energy Management Assessment (EMA), which takes place every 2 years with support from BC Hydro, is a key part of the cycle.

iii.iii 10 COMPONENTS OF : HOLISTIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT

The ten key components of Holistic Energy Management as outlined in Figure LMFM-8.

Figure LMFM-8: Holistic Energy Management Groupings

• Monitoring

• Analysis

• Reporting

• Reviews

• Refine Strategy

• Corrective Action

• Communication

• Training

• Implementation

• Energy Policy

• EMA

• SEMP

• Action Plans

Plan Do

Check Act


Page - xxi -

iii.iv ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA)

Strategic Energy Group (SEG), in partnership with BC Hydro, leads each Health Authority through an Energy Management Assessment (EMA); a structured methodology to evaluate, identify and prioritize the critical energy-related business practices to target for improvement. SEG utilizes a proprietary diagnostic tool, SEGEMA, to evaluate the current management system utilized to control energy consumption. The EMA exercise is designed to provide an initial assessment of current energy management business practices and identify the range of corrective actions available to optimize energy efficiency and performance. The EMA session is a fundamental exercise for an organization’s continuous energy improvement initiative. This assessment and planning exercise is intended to engage the management team in establishing the strategic direction for improving energy-related business practices in the organization. As depicted in Figure LMFM-9, the SEGEMA tool is composed of three components: Strategic, Enabling, and Functional. Each component contains a series of separate topic areas that are broken into a series of characteristics, which are evaluated in terms of level of rigour and degree of balance between the components. The business practices that are not currently implemented are evaluated based on the management team’s perceived Level of Effort/Benefit (LOE) along the following scale in order to prioritize next steps:

1. Easy / High Value 2. Difficult / High Value 3. Easy / Low Value 4. Difficult / Low Value


Page - xxii -

Figure LMFM-9: Example SEGEMA Results

The EMA provides a means for the Energy Manager to step back from the day-to-day implementation of specific projects and look at how the organization is doing with some broader business management issues. The results of the most recent EMA workshops are summarized within each HA’s individual SEMP.


Page - xxiii -

iii.v FIVE BUCKETS

While the EMA provides a useful and systematic means of identify and prioritizing actions, it is too complicated to use as a means of communication to most audiences. Energy Management requires engaging with a wide variety of stakeholders and collaborators in order to successfully implement projects. As such, we need a simple and concise means of communicating the types of projects and initiatives we are doing and how others can get involved. The following five areas of focus, or “buckets”, described below provide such a framework.

1. Existing Buildings & Infrastructure

2. New Construction & Major Renovations

3. Behaviour Change

4. Systemic Change

5. Innovation & Demonstration


Page - xxiv -

The main types of Energy Efficiency (EE) projects and initiatives are summarized in Table LMFM-6.

Table LMFM-6: Overview of Energy Conservation Projects and Initiatives

Area of Focus Projects and Initiatives

Existing Buildings & Infrastructure Making our existing building and infrastructure as energy efficient as possible

Energy Studies

EE Upgrades

Continuous Optimization

EE Equipment

New Construction & Major Renovation (NC&MR) Making sure that when money is spent on NC&MR projects, it is spent wisely to achieve long term energy savings

EE New Construction

EES Green Playbook

EE Guidelines for NC&MR

Energy Targets for NC&MR

Engagement & Behavior Change Campaigns and initiatives to educate and engage staff in behavior to reduce energy consumption

GreenCare Community

The Green + Leaders

Behaviour Change campaigns

Systemic Change Embedding energy management into our business practices and processes

Energy Policy

EE Guidelines & Standards

EE Purchasing

Innovation and Demonstration Planting the seeds to prepare us for future leaps in progress

Emerging Best Practices

Pilot Projects

Green Revolving Fund

The projects and initiatives mentioned in Table LMFM-6 are described in more detail in Section iv (LMFM-Wide Initiatives).

iii.vi EXECUTION: A FOUR-STEP APPROACH

Aside from periodically stepping back to take a broader and more strategic look at Energy Management, much of the ongoing focus on the EM is on execution of specific projects. Lack of execution is often cited as a top reason why strategic plans fail. Good execution requires clarity from ideas down to actions and milestones to track progress along the way. This simple four-step approach can be used to summarize and track the actions required to achieve energy conservation through a particular project:

1. Identify and Prioritize 2. Fund 3. Implement 4. Verify energy savings


Page - xxv -

iii.vii A BASIS FOR PRIORITIZATION

Table LMFM-7 summarizes some themes that are used to prioritize time and money.

Table LMFM-7: Prioritization Themes

Theme Description: Prioritize actions

and projects that: Comments

Largest sites Affect the largest floor area Allows for economies of scale

Largest end uses Affect the largest end uses (such as heating)

Based on understanding of end uses or sub-metering (see Section iii.vii.i)

Largest point sources

Affect the largest point sources of energy (such as large equipment)

Based on equipment inventory

Highest intensity buildings

Affect the highest energy intensity buildings / sites

Based on EUI (kWh/m2/year)

Shortest Financial Payback

Result in the lowest simple payback (SPB)

Projects with a SPB of 2 years and less receive funding more readily

Highest Return on Investment (ROI)

Result in the highest ROI ROI provides a means of valuing longer term savings even if the SPB is higher

Available Resources

Fit within available resources (namely time and money)

Projects that can’t be implemented within the current fiscal budget must be planned for by requesting budget

Synergies with other priorities

Achieve a positive impact on the performance of other priorities, such as thermal comfort

Non-energy benefits can lead to implementation of projects that would otherwise be too low on the priority list.

Risk Have low risk or ideally reduce the HA exposure to risk

Implementing proven technologies carries lower risk than pursuing new approaches.

Ability to replicate Have that have greatest opportunity to be replicated at other sites

Such as piloting coil cleaning at one facility, with intension of replicating across HA.

Time sensitivity Have a time-sensitive opportunity to affect change

Such as new construction and major renovation projects, as well as synergies with equipment replacement.

A key consideration when prioritizing actions is the magnitude of impact a particular Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) will have. While a detailed study may be required in order accurately estimate the anticipated savings, it is helpful to be able to make a preliminary estimate quickly and easily in order to inform what measures warrant detailed study in the first place. Understanding the breakdown of energy within a facility is critical to estimating the potential savings for a particular ECM. The following section provides an overview of the typical breakdown of energy use within healthcare facilities.


Page - xxvi -

iii.vii.i Energy Usage in Healthcare Facilities

Healthcare facilities are typically more than twice as energy intensive compared to other commercial buildings. In a study of healthcare facilities across Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN)7 found

that typical energy utilization intensity (EUI) for healthcare facilities in BC is 519 kWh/m2/year for acute care hospitals and 300 kWh/m2/year for extended care (nursing and residential care) type facilities.

NRCan also estimated the typical end use breakdown for these types of healthcare facilities as shown in Figure LMFM-10 and

Figure LMFM-11.

Figure LMFM-10: Typical NRCan Healthcare Energy Use Breakdown, Acute Care

Figure LMFM-11: Typical NRCan Healthcare Energy Use Breakdown, Extended Care

7 The data was sourced from the NRCan Survey of Commercial and Institutional Energy Use (SCIEU) - Buildings 2009,

Detailed Statistical Report

Acute Care Facility End Use Breakdown

Heating

56%

Lighting

11%

Cooling

4%

Plug loads

5%

Fans

11%

Pumps

3%

Service Water

Heating

10%

Extended Care Facility End Use Breakdown

Heating

57%

Lighting

14%

Cooling

3%

Plug loads

13%

Fans

1%

Pumps

5%

Service Water

Heating

7%

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/scieu/2009/pdf/scieu_e.pdf

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/statistics/scieu/2009/pdf/scieu_e.pdf


Page - xxvii -

Figure LMFM-10 shows that for Acute Care facilities the largest end use by far is heating, followed by lighting, fans, and service water heating. Figure LMFM-11 shows that for Extended Care facilities the largest end use by far is also heating, followed by lighting, plug loads, and service water heating. As such, efforts focused on these end uses have the greatest potential to reduce energy consumption. Table LMFM-8 provides a non-exhaustive list of some types of energy efficiency (EE) strategies that can be employed to reduce energy consumption associated with some of the most significant end uses. The cost and potential savings of each are then rated (low, moderate, and high) and a resulting priority (low, medium, and high) is indicated based on general experience. This is not intended to have a high degree of accuracy, but provides an indication of how we focus our efforts on the lowest hanging fruit project types.

Table LMFM-8: Example Energy Efficiency (EE) Strategies for Largest End Uses

End Use Types of Strategies Cost Savings Priority

Heating Improve thermal envelope High Med Low

Higher eff. heating equipment High High Med

Exhaust air heat recovery Med High Med

Optimize HVAC controls & schedules Low High High

Reduce heat loss piping Low High High

Lighting Optimize lighting levels Low High High

EE lighting Low High High

Lighting controls Low High High

Fans and Pumps

Optimize ventilation rates & controls Med High Med

High eff. Fans Med Med Med

Variable speed control Low High High

Service water heating

Water efficient fixtures Low Low Med

Higher eff. heating equipment Med Med Med

Reduce heat loss in piping Low Med Med

Cooling

Improve envelope High Med Low

Higher eff. cooling equipment Med Med Med

Optimize HVAC controls & schedules Low High High


Page - xxviii -

IV. LMFM-WIDE INITIATIVES

This section summarizes the key initiatives and project types within the Five Buckets that are relevant across the lower mainland health authorities. Many of the initiatives are designed to take advantage of a specific funding opportunity though BC Hydro and FortisBC. Specifics are discussed within each HA’s individual SEMP.

iv.i EXISTING BUILDINGS

This area of focus is about making our existing building as energy efficient as possible.

iv.i.i Energy Studies

Studies to identify opportunities are funded by BC Hydro and FortisBC. In both cases, 50% of the cost of the study can be funded by either BC Hydro or FortisBC. BC Hydro no-longer provide the second half of funding to reach 100% for studies that move into implementation. The Fortis Commercial Custom Design (CCDP) energy studies will cover 50% of the study cost with the opportunity to claim the remaining 50% if the identified measures are implemented and over a set threshold.

iv.i.ii Energy Efficiency Upgrades

Specific energy efficiency upgrades may be eligible for capital incentives through the BC Hydro and Fortis BC Custom Program. These opportunities are typically identified through an energy study, or are initiated by FMO engagement.

iv.i.iii Continuous Optimization

Building optimization, also known as re-commissioning, is a systematic approach to improve building performance. BC Hydro offers the Continuous Optimization (C.Op.) Program, which facilitates ongoing optimization of existing buildings through incentive funding agreements. In 2012 FortisBC also became a formal supporter of this program. The C.Op. program is being implemented across over 40 LMFM buildings in three phases. Experience so far with C.Op. across the LMHA’s is very positive. LMFM intends to fully utilize the C.Op. program by moving forward as planned with the buildings already signed up and is working toward having all other eligible sites signed up to participate. BC Hydro is currently developing a C.Op. round 2 program. Final details are still being established, but the offer will include an option of Automatic Fault Detection and Diagnosis (AFDD) which the EES team has been piloting and will be considered on a site by site basis.

iv.i.iv Energy Efficient Equipment

Replacing old equipment with more efficient models may be eligible for incentives through BC Hydro’s Power Smart Express (PSPx) program or FortisBC’s Efficiency A la Carte Program.

iv.ii NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS

This area of focus is about making sure that when money is spent on NC&MR projects, it is spent wisely to achieve long term energy savings as well as other objectives.


Page - xxix -

iv.ii.i Energy Efficient New Construction

One means of ensuring that our new buildings are designed to minimize energy consumption is by participating in the BC Hydro New Construction Program (NCP), which is also supported by FortisBC as of 2012. This program provides support for energy modeling and analysis to justify energy efficiency strategies and technologies that achieve improved energy performance, beyond that specified by local code requirements. The program also provides capital incentives based on the predicted energy savings relative to code.

iv.ii.ii EES Green Playbook

The purpose of the “EES Green Playbook“ is to capture in a single and easy to read document the most important information that multiple stakeholders need to know in order to learn more about EES, to incorporate the “Green Agenda” into their work, and to receive support from EES. Figure LMFM-12 is an excerpt from the Green Playbook related to how EES can be engaged a various stages of the planning and design process for new buildings.

Figure LMFM-12: Green Playbook Excerpt, EES Early Involvement

This is intended to be a living document that is updated periodically; the first draft of the playbook was issued May 1st 2012 and is currently being updated.

iv.ii.iii ELIM Initiative

In 2014 the EES Team began an effort to convert our high level goals and targets into more tangible actions and deliverables that planners and project managers working on new construction projects can use to guide their work from the planning stages through to occupancy. This effort has been referred to


Page - xxx -

as the EES-LMFM Integration Matrix or ELIM for short. We are currently piloting the process and tool with several active LMFM planning and design projects as displayed in Figure LMFM-12.

Figure LMFM-13: Screen Shot from ELIM

iv.ii.iv Energy Efficiency Guidelines

The EES Team has developed Energy Design Guidelines for New Construction, which are to be inserted into the design team request for proposal (RFP) for new construction and major renovation projects. The intent of the Energy Design Guidelines is to provide the design team with direction on:

i) Energy performance targets ii) Requirements for energy incentive applications iii) Energy modeling, measurement and verification, and commissioning requirements iv) Selection of energy systems that are consistent with the campus energy initiatives


Page - xxxi -

In 2014 the EES Team made some improvements to how the Energy Design Guidelines for New Construction are applied to P3 and Design-Build projects. Through efforts on the Children’s and Women’s Health Centre campus Teck Acute Care Centre (TACC) P3 project and the Joseph and Rosalie Segal Family Health Centre (JRSFHC) design-build project, we identified the following refinements to the process: 1. Inclusion of a modeling scope within the Indicative Design Team’s scope of work and deliverables

a. That scope to include developing an upset target in collaboration with the Health Authority

b. This could be run through BC Hydro’s NCP in order to seek incentives for this work c. Could include review of Bid Phase modeling submissions

2. Inclusion of relevant portions of the “Energy Appendix” and other key Output Specification documents to address

a. Clear definition of what the target includes b. Modeling guidelines (default inputs and assumptions, etc.) c. Modeling submission requirements d. Operating period requirements

The intent is to summarize the suggested changes in a briefing note and gain buy-in from the relevant stakeholders in order that these may be incorporated into standard practice moving forward.


Page - xxxii -

iv.iii ENGAGEMENT & BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

This area of focus includes campaigns and initiatives to educate and engage staff in behavior to reduce energy consumption.

iv.iii.i The GreenCare Community

Within the past year, the EES Team led a major rebrand and relaunch of what was formerly called the Cut the Carbon Community (C3). The new site is the GreenCare Community (GCC), as displayed in Figure LMFM-12, which will continue to offer stories, tips, challenges, incentives, and collaboration for staff around energy and environmental conservation.

iv.iii.ii The Green + Leaders

The G+L program was initially launched in Provincial Health Service Authority in 2009 and is being expanded to the other LMHA. The program was rolled out in PHSA during the fall of 2011. The aim of the program is to recruits volunteers (employees) to be sustainability leaders and provide colleagues with info about the impacts of their daily activities. The volunteers attend training sessions and are provided with the necessary tools to model new behaviors. The 3 target areas include energy reduction, alternative transportation and materials reduction.

iv.iii.iii Behaviour Change Campaigns

This area of focus includes campaigns supported by both BC Hydro and Fortis BC in the areas of

iv.iii.iii.i BC Hydro WCA Program

EES participates in the BC Hydro funded Workplace Conservation Awareness (WCA) program, which is implemented in collaboration with the G+L initiatives. The WCA program is specifically focused on achieving electrical energy savings, while the other G+L awareness programs are more broadly directed toward energy and sustainability issues. The EES team began participating in WCA Program in November 2010, when an action plan was developed with the help of a funded consultant (Sarah Smith from Prism Engineering). The plan includes various awareness and educational initiatives including energy awareness fairs, education sessions for housekeeping and security staff, and a lights out sticker campaign. The plan has been updated in preparation for Year 4 (Nov 2013 to Oct 2014).

iv.iii.iii.ii FortisBC CEO Program

FortisBC funds the Conservation, Education, and Outreach (CEO) Program, which provides support for projects and initiatives that result in natural gas savings through education and behaviour change initiatives. The EES team plans to start participating in the CEO Program in order to bring additional resources to support the G+L campaigns and enable a campaign focused on natural gas savings.

Figure LMFM-14: Sample GreenCare web page


Page - xxxiii -

iv.iv SYSTEMIC CHANGE

Systemic Change is about embedding energy management into our business practices and processes.

iv.iv.i Energy Policy

The LMFM team is in the process of seeking approval for a region wide Energy Policy that will bring together and cover all four organizations. The current state of health authority energy policies and commitments is summarized below; refer to Appendices for more detail.

o Fraser Health Authority (FHA) o FHA has written an Energy Policy. This policy has been adopted and followed by

LMFM although not formally approved at the senior executive level. Refer to the Appendices for FHA Energy Policy draft.

o Providence Health Care (PHC)

o The Senior Leadership Team (SLT) at PHC has adopted an “Energy Commitment.” This and the similar VCH document will be used as a foundational piece to the LMFM Energy Policy. Refer to Appendices for VCH / PHC Energy Commitment Letter (organizationally adopted).

o Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA)

o A previous Energy Manager at PHSA wrote some “Energy Guidelines” which can be reviewed and integrated into the LMFM Energy Policy.

o Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH)

o The Senior Executive Team (SET) at VCH has adopted an “Energy Commitment.” This and the similar PHC document will be used as a foundational piece to the upcoming LMFM Energy Policy. Refer to Appendices for VCH / PHC Energy Commitment Letter (organizationally adopted).

iv.iv.ii Sustainable Purchasing

The EES team is working with Health Shared Services BC (HSSBC) to implement a more systematic approach to incorporating energy efficiency and other sustainability mandates into the purchasing process. HSSBC Supply Chain is now responsible for all purchasing, warehousing and delivery functions on behalf of BC’s health authorities.

iv.iv.ii.i Food Services

In 2012 the EES Team approached the Food Services group within HSSBC in order to develop a process through which kitchen equipment scheduled for replacement could be identified and evaluated for potential incentives through the FortisBC Efficiency A la Carte Program or the BC Hydro PSPx program. These efforts led to achieving significant incentives for a number of kitchen equipment purchases. In 2014 BC Hydro organized an event to engage with the various food services stakeholders and explore opportunities for conservation. Several individuals from within the LMHA’s attended.


Page - xxxiv -

iv.v INNOVATION & DEMONSTRATION

The Innovation and Demonstration area of focus is about planting the seeds to prepare us for future leaps in progress. It recognizes that success requires balancing short and long term gains by planting seeds as well as harvesting. The low hanging fruit that meet the financial payback criteria of today will eventually become scarce, so planting seeds today for more rapid progress in the future will make that transition easier.

iv.v.i Green Revolving Fund (GRF)

The EES Team recognizes that funding is the largest obstacle to increasing the success of our Energy Management Program. As such, the idea of a long term self-sustained Green Revolving Fund (GRF) is being explored through a pilot program supported by a formal agreement between BC Hydro and VCH. The basic aspects of the agreement are that BC Hydro provides seed money (beyond the normal Power Smart funding incentives) that can be used to fund up to 100% of the total cost of any eligible energy project. In return VCH commits to provide minimum 25% matching funds and to reinvest in the GRF minimum 90% of the energy savings obtained. The agreement was subscribed on March 31st 2012 and during its first year has proven to be an effective mechanism to secure otherwise scarce funds. In addition, since there is no limit on the percentage of the project that can be funded, the GRF allows for implementation of projects that have a long payback return and would be difficult to advance under regular circumstances. The initial term of the program includes two years of seed funding (a third one is planned but pending confirmation), after which BC Hydro will evaluate its success and decide if a similar fund can be made available to the other HAs. Regardless of BC Hydro capacity to provide seed funds EES is recommending that all Health Authorities implement a similar GRF funded from reinvestment of energy savings. The EES Team has built upon the success of the VCH pilot GRF, now in Year 3 and has presented a compelling business case to FH and PHSA CFO’s. The proposal was well received and a GRF for both FHA and PHSA has been approved and in Year 1 of the program.


Page - xxxv -

iv.v.ii Emerging Best Practices

The EES team endeavours to stay aware of new energy efficient building design technologies, strategies, and standards in order to influence the design of our new construction and major renovation projects as well as informing the renovations and upgrades to our existing buildings.

iv.v.ii.i Passive House Standard

One standard that has been identified as potentially relevant and appropriate, especially for residential care type facilities, is the Passive House Standard. This is a performance-based standard that achieves radical energy conservation. 8 There has been one successful project that has been approved to be built to the Passive House Standard this past year; the Bella Bella Staff Housing Building. The Passive House Standard is being applied to hospitals and clinics including the following that are being planned and built:

A psychiatric day clinic in Cologne, Germany o built with only 5.5% additional investment

A new 70,000m² hospital being built in Frankfurt, Germany

Two clinics in Baden and Mödling, Germany (totalling 56,000m²)

A 49.500m² ward for the Triemli Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland

A 24,000m² Chu Saint-Pierre Hopital et Laboratoire

L’Hopital du site Paul Brien in Brussels, Belgium The EES team is exploring the potential to apply this approach to a new construction residential care type project.

iv.v.ii.ii Living Building Standard

The EES team is following the evolution of the Living Building movement. Being in Vancouver, there are plenty of local examples. The new VanDusen Botanical Garden’s Visitor Centre seeks to be one of Canada’s first facilities to receive Living Building Challenge certification. The UniverCity Childcare Centre opened its doors on April 2, 2012. The revolutionary facility, with space for 50 three to five-year-olds, is expected to be the first building in Canada to meet the Living Building Challenge™, which means it will have to generate as much energy as it uses, collect or recycle more water than it consumes, and be built and operated using non-toxic materials, sourced as locally as possible. The centre cost 15 to 20 per cent less than other childcare facilities being built in the region, without the green features. The EES team will endeavour to use such examples to support the inclusion of energy and sustainability goals and targets within new construction projects.

iv.v.ii.iii Small Hospitals Big Ideas Competition

8 Frankfurt Hoechst; Designed by Architects: Wörner & Partner

Figure LMFM-15: Model of Passive House Hospital under design in Frankfurt, Germany9


Page - xxxvi -

The EES team makes an effort to follow the latest in sustainable health care design. A recent design competition was noted as being relevant to our work. Kaiser Permanente, a leading not-for-profit health plan and care provider, invited students, designers, architects, engineers, and individuals everywhere to design a small hospital that evolves the way health care is delivered. There were three winning design teams. A member of the EES team saw a presentation by members of one of the winning teams (the Mazzetti Nash Lipsey Burch and Perkins+Will NY team) and was impressed by their work. Following are some images from their presentation9. Figure LMFM-16 shows their regenerative approach, which is aligned with the EES Strategic Framework. Figure LMFM-17 shows the cost model they developed, which shows that operational cost savings far out-weigh capital cost increase. Figure LMFM-18 shows the potential for system synergies between the energy, materials, and water systems.

Figure LMFM-16: SHBI Mazzetti, Regenerative Approach

Figure LMFM-17: SHBI Mazzetti - Cost Model

9 Small Hospitals Big Ideas Competition Presentation Graphic, http://design.kpnfs.com/

http://design.kpnfs.com/


Page - xxxvii -

Figure LMFM-18: SHBI Mazzetti, System Synergies

The EES team will endeavour to use such examples to support the inclusion of energy and sustainability goals and targets within new construction projects.

iv.v.ii.iv Commissioning Standard CSA CAN/CSA Z318

There is a new commissioning standard related specifically to health care facilities (CSA CAN/CSA-Z318, Commissioning of Health Care Facilities). The EES team intend to use it as a resource to inform commissioning of new and existing buildings.


Page - xxxviii -

V. LMFM APPENDICES

v.i ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

Term / Abbreviation Definition / Explanation

EE Energy Efficient

EES Team Energy and Environmental Sustainability Team

EM Energy Manager

LMC Lower Mainland Consolidation

LMHA Lower Mainland Health Authorities

LMFM Lower Mainland Facilities Management

GHG Greenhouse Gas

FHA Fraser Health Authority

PHC Providence Health Care

PHSA Provincial Health Services Authority

VCH Vancouver Coastal Health

v.ii LMFM STAKEHOLDERS

Table LMFM-9 summarizes the key stakeholders across the lower mainland health authorities whom the EES team must engage with in order to be successful.

Table LMFM-9: LMHA Key Stakeholders

Department Name Position Lower Mainland Consolidation (LMC)

Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM)

LMFM, Executive

Peter Goldthorpe VP Capital Projects, Real Estate & Facilities Lower Mainland Facilities Management

Paul Becker Chief Facilities Operating Officer

Vacant ED, Operations, Energy & Technical Services

Alan Grossert ED, Facilities Planning & Projects

Orin Jonat ED, Business Performance and Corporate Support

Marco Buccini ED, Strategic Development

LMFM, Energy Environment & Sustainability

Mauricio Acosta Director Energy & Environmental Sustainability

Ruth Abramson Sustainability Manager

Glen Garrick Sustainability Manager

Olive Dempsey (mat leave) Sustainability Coordinator (Green + Leaders)

Angie Woo Sustainability Coordinator (Green + Leaders)

Sonja Janousek Sustainability Coordinator (Reduction and Recycling Coordinator)


Page - xxxix -

Department Name Position

Ashley Edworthy Sustainability Coordinator (Reduction and Recycling Coordinator)

Alexandra Turnbull Coordinator, Communications & Sustainability Reporting

Eisell Omampo Sustainability Coordinator (TDM)

Robert Bradley Energy Manager (FHA)

Alex Hutton (mat leave) Energy Manager (PHSA & PHC)

Sabah Ali Interim Energy Manager (PHSA & PHC)

John Manougian Energy Manager (VCHA)

Jeson Mak Energy Coordinator

Blair McFlarlane Interim Energy Coordinator

Alan Lin Energy Specialist (VCHA)

Richard Wellwood Energy Specialist (PHSA & PHC)

Kori Jones Energy Specialist (FHA

LMFM, Facilities Planning

vacant Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning

Ken Mah Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning

John Little Manager, Facilities Planning

Marie Fontaine Manager, Facilities Planning

Mary Lynn Nicodemus Sr. Facilities Planning

Michael Wilson Sr. Facilities Planning

Barbara Dewhirst Sr. Facilities Planning

Julie Kennedy Sr. Facilities Planning

Noo Esmail Sr. Facilities Planning

Deanna Clarke Capital Project Planner

Angela Bennett Capital Project Planner

Scott Staniui Capital Project Planner

Laura Arpiainen Capital Project Planner

LMFM, Capital Projects

Larry Harder Director, Capital Projects

Sharon Petty Director, Capital Projects

Hal Collier Director, Capital Projects

Barry Pearce Chief Project Officer (RCH Redevelopment)

Don Mah Manager, Capital Projects (FHA)

Phil Delory Manager, Capital Projects (FHA)

Janet Gaspar Manager, Capital Projects (Coastal)

Joanne Stich Manager, Capital Projects (PHC)

Westley Davidson Manager, Capital Projects (Vancouver Acute)

Mike Coney Manager, Capital Projects (Richmond)

Rob Kolen Project Manager

Gary Fry Project Manager

Brent Crawley Project Manager

Wendy Pearce Project Manager

George Desierto Project Manager


Page - xl -

Department Name Position George Cawdry Project Manager

Sarah Thorn Project Manager

Paul Hughes Project Manager

Cynthia Pan Project Manager

Kevin Pan Project Manager

Allen Cheng Project Manager

Rick Buksa Project Manager

Tony Issa Project Manager

Chris Dunsford Project Manager

Ian Kerr Project Manager

Carson McNeill Project Manager

Martin Wright Project Manager

Karen Smith Project Manager

Jenny Lasmana Project Manager

John Percival Project Manager (Contract)

Hal Graham Project Manager (Contract)

Heather Skappak Project Manager (Construction)

Dave Mack Project Manager (Construction)

Maureen Haddock Project Planner

Siew Chen Brian Wong Project Leader

Simone McLachlan Project Leader

Darcy Canaday Project Leader

Sam McLeod Project Leader

Sylvia Mertins Project Coordinator

Michael-Ann Dissing Project Coordinator

Kathleen Rudd Project Coordinator

Sandi Joyce Project Assistant

Diana Van Tiel Project Assistant

Lucas Smith Owners Rep

Greg Smith Owners Rep

LMFM, Clinical Planning & LEAN

Sue Melnychuk Director, Clinical Planning and Lean Design

Anders Engstrom Equipment Planning Manager

Salima Harji Sr. Clinical Facilities Planner

Helen Tam Sr. Clinical Facilities Planner

Kelly Duke Sr. Clinical Facilities Planner

Cathy Massey Sr. Clinical Facilities Planner

Tarnjit McCauley Clinical Planner

Colin Meakin Clinical Planner

Anders Engstrom Equipment Planning Manager

Maziyar Tabarestani Equipment Coordinator

Maria Fredriksson Equipment Coordinator

LMFM, Real Estate, Stef Schiedon Director, Real Estate, Leasing & Property Management


Page - xli -

Department Name Position Leasing & Property Management

Glen Kirk Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning

Will Davies Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning

Maureen Chow Manager, Property & Asset Management

Sher Flemming Manager, Property & Asset Management

Nick Bodie Manager, Real Estate & Leasing

Adrianna Appel Manager, Real Estate & Leasing

Cam Frewin Manager, Real Estate & Leasing

Rolando Catapia Manager, Property & Asset Management

Corey Thomas Manager, Property & Asset Management

George Venini Sr. Facilities Planning Leader

Stephen Cheung Capital Project Planner

Carol Jones Property & Asset Management Coordinator

Jennifer Jarvis Property & Asset Management Analyst

Sue Vanderveide Real Estate & Leasing Analyst

Carli Collison Property Coordinator

LMFM, Facilities Systems & Support

Keith Gillingham Director, Systems & Support

Michael Snow Sr. Project Leader (FM Project Support)

Melanie Chow Sr. Project Leader (IWMS Support)

Maria Fiorentino Sr. Project Leader (IWMS Support)

Jas Brar Analyst System Coordinator (IWMS Support)

Gordon Lee Analyst System Coordinator (IWMS Support)

Rocky Gonzales Project Leader (CAD/CAFM Systems)

Benjamin Tang Building Service Technicians (CAD/CAFM Systems)

Fred Van Andel Building Service Technicians (CAD/CAFM Systems)

Dana Wong Building Service Technicians (CAD/CAFM Systems)

Ida Zhang Building Service Technicians (CAD/CAFM Systems)

Dean Fogg Project Leader (Technical Services)

Brian Rosier Project Leader (Technical Services)

Diana Smith Project Leader (Technical Services)

LMFM, Technical Services

Jay Trethewey Director, Technical Services

Wakako Thomson Risk & Performance Specialist

Toven Simonsen Manager, Contracts & Optimization

Marc Dagneau Manager, Integrity Programs

Mark Doucette Sr. Manger, Regional Initiatives

Chris Nicol Project Manager, Construction

LMFM, Space Management & Service Intake

Paul Frew Director, Space Management & Service Request

Kyle Thompson Facilities Capital Project Planner

Janette Maley Facilities Capital Project Planner

Maureen McCauley Facilities Capital Project Planner

Laura Deville Jones Project Coordinator

LMFM, Procurement Peter Beckett Manager, Facilities Management Procurement

Elizabeth Zhu Facilities Procurement Coordinator


Page - xlii -

Department Name Position Jason Jew Facilities Procurement Coordinator

Al Kroeker Facilities Procurement Coordinator

Carolyn Wiens Faculties Construction Procurement Buyer

Fraser Health Authority (FHA)

FHA Executive

Michael Marchbank President and Chief Executive Officer

Martin Pochurko Chief Finance Officer

Peter Goldthorpe VP Corporate Services & Facilities

FHA/LMFM FMO Mitch Weimer Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

RCH Tim Kelly Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations & interim Chief Engineer

Alan Kelly Maintenance Supervisor (Mech)

Pat O'Neil Maintenance Supervisor (Elec)

Randy Elgert Maintenance Supervisor (Build)

vacant Chief Engineer

SMH Steve McTaggart Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Barry Lilburn Project Manager

Paul Niemi Maintenance Supervisor (Build)

Gary Reitmayer Maintenance Supervisor (Elec)

Sergey Fedorchuk Maintenance Supervisor (Mech)

Ron Smith Maintenance Supervisor

Amar Girn Chief Engineer

BUH Risto Tauriainen Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Roy Miller Maintenance Supervisor

Ned Causevic Chief Engineer

CGH/FCH/HV Sean Barber Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Ian Barager Maintenance Supervisor (FCH)

Dennis Cross Maintenance Supervisor (HV)

Rick Knocke Maintenance Supervisor (CGH)

Carter Waugh Chief Engineer

ERH/QPC/FCC Darrell Vanderbaaren Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Don Tessier Chief Engineer / Supervisor (ERH)

Wayne Pleasants Maintenance Supervisor (QPC/FCC)

LMH vacant Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Martin Donaldson Maintenance Supervisor

Mark Gushulak Chief Engineer

PAH/DEH Andy Emes Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Ron Stevenson Maintenance Supervisor (PAH)

Ryan Vidulich Maintenance Supervisor (DEH)

Derrick Zehner Chief Engineer (PAH)

RMH/MMH/MSA Rick Molnar Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Brad Henderson Maintenance Supervisor (RMH)

Rod Silliphant Maintenance Supervisor (MMH/MSA)


Page - xliii -

Department Name Position REGIONAL Stefan Manea Technical Coordinator

REGIONAL Brad Donovan Technical Coordinator(Interim)

REGIONAL Dave Simmons Maintenance Supervisor

REGIONAL Lucia Ramirez Business Analyst

REGIONAL Linda Goldade Admin Assistant

FHA Finance

Karen Teixeira Financial Manager

Brian Scudder Manager, Facilities Capital Planning

Mildred van Rooyen Financial Analyst

Nadia Vivanco Coordinator, Accounts Payable

Providence Health Care (PHC)

PHC Executive

Dianne Doyle President and Chief Executive Officer

Mary Procter Vice President, Finance and Planning

Gloria Giesbrecht Executive Assistant to Mary Procter

Erica Guliker Corporate Director, Strategic Renewal & Capital Assets

PHC/LMFM, FMO Chris Poole Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

SPH John Hood Project Manager, Capital Projects (SPH)

Marko Kujala Supervisor

Brian Postlethwaite Electrical Supervisor

Parm Barn Chief Engineer, Mechanical Department, SPH

MSJ Chris McPhee Supervisor, Facilities Management, MSJ & HFH

Billy Chan HVAC Technician

HFH Stuart Walker Physical Plant Maintenance

Brock Fahrni Ryan Hussein Site Manager

St Vincent Langara Residence

Ryan Hussein Site Manager

Arif Padamshi Operations / Site Leader, Elder Care

Brookie Chan Program Assistant, Elder Care

Youville Residence Ryan Hussein Site Manager

St Vincent Heather - Honoria Conway

Ryan Hussein Site Manager

PHC Finance Amanda Wong Director, Accounting & Treasury

Elliott Ebel Financial Analysis

Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA)

PHSA Executive

Carl Roy President and Chief Executive Officer

Thomas Chan Chief Financial Officer

Richard Woo Corporate Director, Capital Planning

PHSA, LMFM/FMO Frank Levenheck Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

C&W Allan Jonzon Manager, Facility Operations, C&W

Laurence Bayzand Director Inter Campus Operations

Zoltan Nagy-Gyorgy Chief Engineer

Wendy Burton Administrative Assistant


Page - xliv -

Department Name Position Dave Marier Manager

Arie Frenklach HVAC Lead Hand

Harry VanAndel Electrical Supervisor

George Grossling Supervisor - Facilities Maintenance & Operations

Todd Smith HVAC Technician

Phil Carriere Engineer

Mark Pope Electrician

Ernest Doe HVAC Technician

Sunny Hill Dave Marier Manager

David Alves Senior Building Operator

BCCA, BCCRC Karen Lemmen Acting Director, BCCA CRC

William Man Facilities Operations Manager, BCCA

BCCA, VICC David Law Facilities Manager

Vacant Director Regional Operations, VICC

BCCA, FVCC Savik Sidhu Director, Regional Operations, AC & FVC

BCCA, VCC Vacant Director, Regional Operations, VCC

C&W Redevelopment Project

Dave Ingram Chief Project Officer, Children’s and Women’s Redevelopment Project

Rhonda Lui Manager, C&W Redevelopment Project, Phase II

Kevin Zembik Manager, C&W Redevelopment Project, Phase II

Meghan Cross Project Coordinator

PHSA Finance

Ben Crocker Senior Corporate Financial Analyst, PHSA

Hubert Orzech Corporate Financial Analyst, PHSA

Manjit Matharu Corporate Financial Analyst, PHSA

Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA)

VCHA Executive

Mary Ackenhausen President and Chief Executive Officer

Glen Copping CFO and VP of System Development & Performance

Dr. Patricia Daley VP, Public Health & Chief Medical Officer

VCH, Finance

Helen Yung Executive Dir. Financial Services, Financial Planning

Mike Wong Capital Analyst

Susan Luckey Manager, Capital Finance

Johan Marais Regional Director, Capital and Asset Management and Planning

Rodrigo Lecompt Business Analyst

VCH/LMFM - FMO Ian Clearie Acting Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations

VGH Rian Dodds Manager, Maintenance & Heliport

Blair Steeves Manager, Technical Services - Electrical

Ed Florencio Chief Engineer

LGH, NS & Sea-to- Sky

Christopher Nock Senior Manager, Facility Operations

LGH Michael Pavan Electrical Supervisor

Michele Reitz FMO Supervisor


Page - xlv -

Department Name Position Brian Russell FMO Supervisor

David Dehod Chief Engineer

RGH Tom So Senior Manager, Facility Operations

Joe Kasstan FMO Supervisor

Val Tepes FMO Supervisor

Mahfuzul Islam Chief Power Engineer

Maher Ayach HVAC Technician

Ramil Javarina Electrician

UBCH Paul Armstrong Acting Manager, Facility Operations

Hassan Fereidouni Maintenance Supervisor

Whistler Health Care Centre

David Harrison Manager, Facility Operations

Squamish Hospital David Harrison Manager, Facility Operations

Sechelt Hospital Adam Helfer Manager, Facility Operations

Powell River Hospital

Gregory Smith Manager, Facility Operations

Chris Duckett Chief Engineer

G.F Strong Henry Ziolkowski Maintenance Worker

George Pearson Centre

Chanchal Chahal FMO Supervisor

North Shore Kiwanis Jerry Cimino Electrician

Other Stakeholders and Partners

Interior Health Authority

Lori Holloway CD Plant Services

Tanya Stockman Manager Environmental Sustainability

Carolyn Reid Energy Manager

Vacant Energy Specialist

Vancouver Island Health Authority

Joe Murphy VP, Operations & Support Services

Cecil Rhodes CD Facilities Management & Operations

Deanna Fourt Director, Energy Efficiency & Conservation

Albert Boulet Energy Manager

Joe Ciarniello Energy Manager

Kevin Ramlu Energy Specialist

Björn Richt Energy Specialist

Claudette Poirier Energy Specialist

Northern Health Authority

Albert Sommerfeld Regional Director, Capital Planning & Support Services

John Johnson Director, Capital Planning & Support Services

Les Sluggert Energy Manager

Keith Hebert Energy Specialist

Ministry of Health (MoH)

Joel Palmer Executive Director Capital Service Branch

Dragana Perisic Director, Capital Policy and Planning

James Postan Director Capital Services


Page - xlvi -

Department Name Position Geoffrey Homer Senior Policy Analyst, Capital Services

Climate Action Secretariat (CAS) Susanna Laaksonen-Craig Head, Climate Action Secretariat

Timothy Lesiuk Executive Director and Chief Negotiator

Suzanne Spence Executive Director

Heather English Sr. Policy Analyst

Dave Aharonian Policy Analyst

Carbon Measurement and Reporting Branch (CMRB)

Orest Maslany Director, Carbon Measurement & Reporting, Shared Services BC

Ron Colquhoun Senior Business Analyst

Michael Creekmore Business Analyst

Stuart Hall Business Analyst

Mark Borland Business Analyst

BC Hydro

Jeff Whitson Senior Key Account Manager - Health Sector

Paul Seo Program Manager - Power Smart Marketing

Simon Vickers Program Manager - Energy Managers

Jorge Marques Manager, Technology & Innovation

Oscar Ceron Program Manager of NCP

Gary Hamer Technology and Innovation Manager

Craig Hunt Engineering Tech Project Specialist (SEMP Reviewer)

Graham Henderson Senior Program Manager, C.Op.

Tommy Yim Energy Management Engineer (C.Op.)

Meaghan Fahey Power Smart, C.Op. Coordinator

Bojan Andjelkovic Senior Energy Management Engineer, NCP

Nikolay Smirnov Lighting Specialist, NCP

Allan Chung Senior Regulatory Specialist

Senior Regulatory Specialist Program Specialist on NCP WBD

Ashley Salvador Operations (SUCH) mailbox

Cory Farquharson Commercial Business Account Rep (PSPXpress)

Irfan Rehmanji Technology Innovation Manager, Commercial Sector

Salah Mahdi Consultant, Power Smart Engineering (NCP)

Justine Lepage Parco Field Metering Technologist (C.Op. EMIS)

Melodie Bell Business Account Representative

FortisBC

Jennifer Coulthard Energy Solutions & Key Accounts Manager, Public Healthcare

Colin Norman EEC Program Manager, Portfolio Projects

Angela Falbo Energy Solutions & Key Accounts Manager, Private Healthcare

Jenelle Anderson Marketing Coordinator

Jaime-Ann Lew Program Specialist

Ramsay Cook Program Manager Commercial Buildings


Page - xlvii -

Department Name Position Alicia Hearn Conservation Education and Outreach

Jermin Hsieh Energy Utilization Manager, Market Development

Anthony Ho Energy Utilization Manager, Market Development

Robert Schuster Marketing Coordinator, Innovative Technologies

Dan Bradley Energy Utilization Manager, Market Development

Deacon Tong Marketing Coordinator, EAP

Kelly Hewson Fortis Electric contact for Kelowna projects

Jim Kobialko Program Manager Innovative Technologies

BISS Tracy Shannon Regional Waste Contracts Manager

Shemina Patni Regional Contract Manager - Patient Food Service

HSSBC Mansour Rakhmanov Supply Chain Business Analyst

v.iii LMFM STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

The EES team continues to improve and refine our approach to Energy Management each year, building upon past efforts and the collective strengths within our team. The FMO teams are arguably our most important and influential stakeholder and partner when it comes to optimizing the energy performance of our existing buildings (as well as informing the design of new construction and renovation projects). As such, this year in revisiting our strategic priorities we decided to confirm, refine, and solidify the partnership between EES and FMO by documenting our planned actions in the form of an FMO Engagement Strategy. The decisions, practices and processes within FMO control can have significant impact (savings) on total energy consumption; however, we recognize that Energy Management is only one of many priorities facing the FMO teams and certainly not the highest. As such, over the longer term we plan to work together with FMO teams to overcome barriers (such as lack of time and resources) to achieving even greater ongoing optimization of our existing buildings. We recognize that there is individual interest, commitment, and attention to energy conservation at all levels of the FMO department; however, in order to achieve close to the full potential of optimization that we believe is possible, there are some systemic barriers that need to be overcome and some enabling mechanisms that need to be put in place. As one step toward better integrating Energy Management into FMO business as usual operations, we plan to pilot the concept of site level energy targets, as outlined in our draft plan. Some portions of our portfolio are further ahead than others in terms of progress on the actions outlined within the plan, so in some cases there is not much new here and in other cases there are several actions that we want to get up and running as soon as possible.


Page - xlviii -

Engaging FMO in Energy Management

The purpose of this document is to develop a set of actions that will solidify the partnership between the Energy and Environmental Sustainability (EES) Team and FMO staff to achieve better energy and facility performance at all Lower Mainland health care sites. The EES team has identified 5 key action areas which they plan to pursue in 2014/15. Communication from Directors

Work with Directors to identify ways to share the message about this year’s focus: solidifying

the partnership between EES and FMO staff to achieve energy and facility performance targets.

Engage Supervisor Level Staff

Organize events (group or individual lunch discussions) to engage supervisors. The purpose of

these events are to ask questions that help the EES team gain a better understanding of what

would motivate supervisors to champion energy management at their sites.

Pilot Site Level Targets

Select several already-engaged sites to pilot the initiative.

Develop site level targets in partnership with Directors, Energy Managers and Site Managers.

Communicate these targets to all FMO staff at the site through the year (at quarterly meetings

and /or quarterly performance reports.)

Hold a celebration event at the end of the year for FMO staff when they achieved or surpass

their targets.

Provide Feedback

Organize quarterly meetings with sites that have completed the COp program.

Send quarterly energy performance reports to all core sites.

Encourage Supervisors & Chief Engineers to subscribe to EMIS reports.

When possible provide feedback to FMO staff on results from completed energy projects.

Provide Training

Organize energy management training for FMO on specific topics. Potential topics include

energy basics and thermal and electrical saving opportunities.

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Fraser Health (FH) Strategic Energy Management Plan (SEMP)


Table of Contents

1. BC HYDRO SEMP EVALUATION ...........................................................................................................1

1.1 BC HYDRO SEMP EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 2

2. ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................................4

2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.2 FACILITY PROFILES ............................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .......................................................................................................................... 7

3. UNDERSTANDING THE FHA ENERGY MANAGEMENT SITUATION .........................................................8

3.1 UTILITY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 QUARTERLY ENERGY USE PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .................................................................................................... 12 3.4 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ........................................................................................................................ 14 3.5 CORE SITE ENERGY USE PERFORMANCE .............................................................................................................. 16 3.6 TYPICAL ENERGY END USE ................................................................................................................................ 26 3.7 GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 32

4. FHA GOALS & OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 34

4.1 OVERALL REDUCTION EUI GOALS....................................................................................................................... 34 4.2 SITE REDUCTION EUI GOALS ............................................................................................................................. 35 4.3 ENERGY EXPENDITURE & AVOIDANCE ................................................................................................................. 39

5. PLANNED ACTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 41

5.1 POLICY & STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................... 41 5.2 ENERGY STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................. 41 5.3 ENERGY CONSERVATION TECHNICAL PROJECTS ..................................................................................................... 42 5.4 AWARENESS AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................... 45 5.5 CONTINUOUS BUILDING OPTIMIZATION .............................................................................................................. 48 5.6 NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS .................................................................................................... 51 5.7 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 55 5.8 DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM & STEAM TO HOT WATER CONVERSIONS ........................................................................ 56

6. APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 58

6.1 EMA YEAR 5 COVER LETTER ............................................................................................................................. 58 6.2 ENERGY DATA ................................................................................................................................................. 59 6.3 COMPLETED ENERGY PROJECTS ......................................................................................................................... 68 6.4 EES DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATION PROJECTS .............................................. 74


List of Tables Table FH-1: FHA Profile .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Table FH-2: Site Energy Profile (2014) ................................................................................................................................... 6 Table FH-3: Key Performance Indicators 2014-15 – Patient Beds & Acute Inpatient Care ................................................... 7 Table FH-4: EMA Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Table FH-5: Actual Utility Consumption and Cost for 2014 ................................................................................................... 9 Table FH-6: Actual Energy Consumption since 2007 ........................................................................................................... 10 Table FH-7: Adjusted 2014 Energy Consumption against the 2007 Base Year .................................................................... 10 Table FH-8: Core Site EUI Variances with explanations ....................................................................................................... 21 Table FH-9: Estimated Energy Use at Burnaby Hospital for 2014 ........................................................................................ 29 Table FH-10: Estimated Energy Use at Langley Memorial Hospital for 2013 ...................................................................... 30 Table FH-11: Estimated Energy Use at Mission Memorial Hospital (acute only) for 2013 .................................................. 31 Table FH-12: Actual Non Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from owned building portfolio ............................................... 33 Table FH-13: Annual EUI Performance & Targets ................................................................................................................ 35 Table FH-14: Energy Costs since 2009 ................................................................................................................................. 39 Table FH-15: Planned Energy Studies for 2015 - 2017 ......................................................................................................... 42 Table FH-16: Summary of Projects completed since June 2008 .......................................................................................... 42 Table FH-17: 3 Year Project Funnel ...................................................................................................................................... 44 Table FH-18: Lower Mainland WCA Action Plan (November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2016) ............................................... 46 Table FH-19: C.Op. Program Sites ........................................................................................................................................ 49 Table FH-20: Target Energy Use Intensity (EUI) by Building Archetype ............................................................................... 52 Table FH-21: BC Hydro New Construction Program Projects .............................................................................................. 53 Table FH-22: FHA LEED Certified Buildings .......................................................................................................................... 54


List of Figures Figure FH- 1: Fraser Health Region & Hospitals ..................................................................................................................... 4 Figure FH- 2: Actual Utility Cost for 2014 ............................................................................................................................... 9 Figure FH- 3: Quarterly Energy Use Profile (8 year average) ............................................................................................... 11 Figure FH- 4: 2014 Acute Care Site BEPI – Energy Use Intensity (EUI) ................................................................................. 12 Figure FH- 5: 2014 Residential & Other Care Site BEPI - Energy Use Intensity .................................................................... 13 Figure FH- 6: Acute Care Patient Case BEPI ......................................................................................................................... 14 Figure FH- 7: Acute Care Patient Bed BEPI ........................................................................................................................... 15 Figure FH- 8: Acute Care Site Electricity EUI ........................................................................................................................ 16 Figure FH- 9: Residential & Other Site Electricity EUI .......................................................................................................... 17 Figure FH- 10: Acute Care Site Natural Gas EUI ................................................................................................................... 18 Figure FH- 11: Residential & Other Site Natural Gas EUI ..................................................................................................... 19 Figure FH- 12: Acute Care Site Total EUI .............................................................................................................................. 20 Figure FH- 13: Residential & Other Site Total EUI ................................................................................................................ 21 Figure FH- 14: Estimated Energy Use at Burnaby Hospital for 2014.................................................................................... 29 Figure FH- 15: Estimated Energy Use at Langley Memorial Hospital for 2013 .................................................................... 30 Figure FH- 16: Estimated Energy Use at Mission Memorial Hospital (acute only) for 2013 ................................................ 31 Figure FH- 17: 2013 GHG Reported In-Scope Carbon Emissions ......................................................................................... 32 Figure FH- 18: 2014 Breakdown of Building Emissions ........................................................................................................ 33 Figure FH- 19: Annual EUI Performance & Target ............................................................................................................... 34 Figure FH- 20: Site Reduction EUI Goals .............................................................................................................................. 38 Figure FH- 21: Energy Costs since 2009 .............................................................................................................................. 39 Figure FH- 22: Energy Cost and Cumulative Avoidance since 2009/10 ............................................................................... 40 Figure FH- 23: Energy Consumption BAU Report................................................................................................................. 43 Figure FH- 24: Screenshot from GCC – Energy Conservation & Climate Neutral ................................................................ 47 Figure FH- 25: LEED Gold Critical Care Tower at SMH ......................................................................................................... 52 Figure FH- 26: QPC SHW - M&V Results one year after implementation ............................................................................ 55 Figure FH- 27: RCH Redevelopment Phased Project ............................................................................................................ 56


Page | 1

1. BC HYDRO SEMP EVALUATION

Energy Manager 4th Quarter Assessment Form

SEMP Evaluation For BC Hydro to complete

Company Name Fraser Health Authority Energy Manager

Robert Bradley

File Number

Quarter

PSE Signature: SEMP

Completed

Date:

Projects that used PS incentives:

PS Program Incentive kWh

PSP

PSP Express

New Construction

Total

Behavioural Program (2%) Turn around time for 4th Q review: _______days

Energy Manager: Please complete appropriate year below Note: All areas (in your contract Year) must be covered in order to receive 4th quarter payment


Page | 2

1.1 BC Hydro SEMP Evaluation Requirements

Year 2+ Strategic energy Management Plan Requirements

6 Critical elements must be included in the SEMP

Page Number where the element is

addressed in the SEMP

EM evaluation

PSE Agrees

1) A purpose statement which answers the following questions:

a) What is your kWh reduction target? 34-35

Yes

b) What is the Key Performance Indicator for your organization? 7

c) Who do you need to engage to make your plan successful? Preface: xxxviii

a) BEPI - updated to the current year 12-21 Yes

b) Explanation of the worst performing buildings 21-25

a) Project list 44-45, Appendix 6.3

Yes

b) Initiative List: Behavioral and Organizational 45-48

c) Studies: Outline which buildings have had studies completed

26-28

4) Outline the budget to implement projects

a) In no budget or unable to forecast, WHY? What do you need to enable a budget / forecast?

5 Yes

5) Conclusion: How is your plan doing?

a) Outlined kWh saved 16-17, 35 & 43

Yes

b) Outlined GHG tons saved 32-33

c) Outlined total dollars saved to the organization 39-40

d) Outlined avoided cost 39-40

e) Outlined total dollars saved 39-40

6) Senior Management Support

a) Approval of the SEMP: Signature on the SEMP Front Cover Yes


Page | 3

Tracking: 2nd Q Draft

SEMP Submitted Date

Date PSE Coaching Comments Returned to EM

4th Q SEMP submitted date

Reviewed and Coaching comments returned to EM: Date

*If EM needed to resubmit :date

If PSE reviewed: Date

Energy Manager

PSE

PSE Coaching Comments For Improvements (Not required for sign-off)

Date: Duration Date: Duration Date: Duration Date: Duration

Energy Manager contacted PSE for assistance


Page | 4

2. ORGANIZATION

As one of five regional health authorities in British Columbia, Fraser Health Authority (FHA) organizes and operates a ‘system for health’ and delivers prevention, hospital, residential, community-based and primary health care services. Central to the vision and mission of Fraser Health is the optimization of the health status of its residents. Enjoying good health and a high quality of life throughout the course of one’s lifetime is a consequence of many factors, including access to quality education, meaningful employment, supportive family and friends, community environments and making healthy lifestyle choices. Serving this mission are over 27,000 staff members, over 2,500 physicians and 6,500 volunteers working in partnership in very diverse work settings from hospitals, to mental health centers, public health units and services in ambulatory clinics and in homes. Fraser Health serves approximately 1.70 million people in the Lower Mainland, accounting for just over one third of the total provincial population. Its geographical area runs west to east from Burnaby to Hope and south to north from the Canada/U.S. border to Boston Bar. It is the fastest growing health authority in British Columbia and has almost doubled in population since 1986. Between 2014 and 2019, the population is expected to increase by approximately 163,000 people to 1.86 million, or by approximately 10 per cent overall, with some communities growing at even faster rates.

Figure FH- 1: Fraser Health Region & Hospitals


Page | 5

2.1 Organizational Profile

Table FH-1: FHA Profile

Organization Profile

P E O P L E

Sector Health

Number of Employees 27,293 (14,850 FTE) Number of Core Sites

25 (~ 80 buildings)

O P E R A T I O N S

Energy Management Issues / Obstacles

Availability of funding for energy efficiency projects Lack of sub-metering for accurate monitoring and verification Lack of staff energy awareness and education Patient comfort levels Uncontrollable variables i.e. weather, new equipment, plug load Lack of involvement in Capital Planning Increasing portfolio Lack of control on leased sites & P3 sites

Core Business Metrics Treated Patients

Business Year Apr 1 – Mar 31 (Budget & Maintenance Cycle as per Business Year)

Maintenance Budget F15 $23.7m F16 $24.6m F17 $25.0m F18 $25.5m F19 $26.0m

Utilities Budget F15 $16.0m F16 $16.4m F17 $16.6m F18 $16.8m F19 $17m

Capital Project Budget1 F15 $2.4m F16 $4.9m F17 $5.0m F18 $5.0m F19 $5.0m

Operations Project Budget2 F15 $3.6m F16 $2.9m F17 $3.0m F18 $3.0m F19 $3.0m

Energy Projects Budget3 F15 $1.5m F16 $2.0m F17 $1.7m F18 $2.0m F19 $2.5m

Notes: 1. Amounts relate to under $2.0m FM capital projects only, not capital equipment. The Capital Planning and Steering

Committee is responsible for the annual capital plan, prioritization of capital needs, allocation of capital funds, and approval of projects under $2.0m.

2. Energy projects are sometimes “piggy-backed” onto Operation Projects (aka MCIP) 3. The Energy Projects Budget includes:

a. Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) b. Green Revolving Funding (GRF) c. Energy Operations funding (C.Op. Program) d. Utility Incentives

Energy projects are predominately funded via the “Energy Project Budget” funding source. However, funds are also available through the “Capital Project Budget” via an application process and the “Operations Project Budget” in coordination with the Facilities Maintenance and Operations department. The energy project budget peaks in F16 as this includes the GRF seed funding of $250k.

2.2 Facility Profiles

Over 80% of the usable floor space within the FHA portfolio is classed as owned space. FHA has 12 Acute Care facilities and numerous Residential Facilities/Treatment Centres. All the Acute Care and a large percentage of the Residential Facilities/Treatment Centres are classed as our Core facilities and are detailed in the table below. The energy management and maintenance of the majority of these core sites falls under the responsibility of the


Page | 6

Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM) team. There are three P3 buildings and two lease buildings, where energy management is not directly covered by LMFM, but they are included in our core list for monitoring purposes.

Table FH-2: Site Energy Profile (2014)

Acute Facilities Size¹ (m²)

Annual Energy

Consumption (ekWh)

2

Annual Energy Cost

($)

Energy Intensity

(ekWh/yr/m²) Rank

Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center3

62,258 34,585,068 1,715,960 555.5 7

Burnaby Hospital 47,920 26,417,367 1,390,367 551.3 6

Chilliwack General Hospital 29,206 19,373,931 1,069,698 663.4 11

Delta Hospital 13,284 6,197,082 380,373 466.5 3

Eagle Ridge Hospital 24,392 14,523,884 871,307 595.4 9

Fraser Canyon Hospital 7,673 3,742,270 232,153 487.7 4

Langley Memorial Hospital 38,125 25,400,618 1,402,122 666.2 12

Mission Memorial Hospital 21,384 9,459,181 636,112 442.3 2

Peace Arch Hospital 44,457 19,623,244 1,067,023 441.4 1

Ridge Meadows Hospital 23,238 15,181,142 846,066 653.3 10

Royal Columbian Hospital 65,552 35,628,153 1,974,022 543.5 5

Surrey Memorial Hospital4 118,540 66,071,946 4,026,140 557.4 8

Totals 496,029 276,203,887 15,611,344 556.8

BC Hospital Benchmark5 519

Residential & Other Facilities Size¹ (m²)

Annual Energy

Consumption (ekWh)

2

Annual Energy Cost

($)

Energy Intensity

(ekWh/m²)

Rank

Arbutus Place6 1,640 564,042 41,991 343.9 4

Chilliwack Health Centre7 2,976 1,255,461 95,256 421.9 7

Creekside Withdrawal Management Centre 2,729 1,217,898 86,821 446.3 9

Czorny Alzheimer Centre 6,393 1,835,547 127,554 287.1 1

Fellburn Care Centre 4,045 1,882,772 115,668 465.5 11

Heritage Village 5,776 2,456,956 158,986 425.4 8

JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre3 19,941 9,649,948 718,800 483.9 12

Maple Ridge Treatment Centre 2,323 798,039 61,021 343.5 3

MSA Cottage & Worthington Pavilions 5,047 2,857,268 169,918 566.1 13

Parkholm Place 3,582 1,101,761 82,668 307.6 2

Queens Park Care Centre 16,074 6,133,314 390,544 381.6 5

Timber Creek 4,539 1,885,820 119,455 415.5 6

Yale Road6 4,912 2,200,026 134,305 447.9 10

Totals 79,977 33,838,852 2,302,988 423.1

BC Residential Benchmark5 300

Notes: 1. Sizes are interior gross areas excluding parkades and interstitial space. 2. Actual consumption not adjusted for weather. 3. P3 facilities.


Page | 7

4. Includes new Critical Care Tower (CCT) which is a P3 building. 5. Benchmarks published in the 2008 NRCan Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey Report. 6. Leased facilities, but maintained by LMFM 7. Monday to Friday clinic only.

2.3 Key Performance Indicators

As detailed in the Organisation profile the core business metric for FHA is patient care and treatment. The bed and patient data shown in the table below could be used as an energy performance metric, but the use of floor areas is still the preferred KPI. Nevertheless, patient data indicators are included in this SEMP in section 3.4.

Table FH-3: Key Performance Indicators 2014-15 – Patient Beds & Acute Inpatient Care

Acute Sites Patient Beds Patient Cases

Patient Days

Daycare Cases Acute ECU/Other

Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center 270 0 18,408 118,995 13,774

Burnaby Hospital 301 0 15,386 127,154 12,161

Chilliwack General Hospital 148 90 8,384 57,593 10,609

Delta Hospital 58 92 3,584 24,342 8,746

Eagle Ridge Hospital 175 75 6,378 67,101 9,712

Fraser Canyon Hospital 10 50 533 3,633 0

JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre 0 0 0 0 22,587

Langley Memorial Hospital 206 245 11,268 77,721 10,364

Mission Memorial Hospital 29 200 1,368 12,819 1,090

MSA Cottage & Worthington Pavilions1 25 119 406 9,481 0

Peace Arch Hospital 191 258 9,445 76,474 7,101

Queens Park Care Centre1 86 162 984 32,636 0

Ridge Meadows Hospital 171 0 7,221 65,119 8,721

Royal Columbian Hospital 422 0 24,969 177,457 16,296

Surrey Memorial Hospital 636 0 30,924 239,246 10,562

Totals2 2,728 1,291 139,258 1,089,771 131,723

Residential Sites Patient Beds

Arbutus Place 42

Chilliwack Health Centre 0

Creekside Withdrawal Management Centre 16

Czorny Alzheimer Centre 72

Fellburn Care Centre 109

Heritage Village 100

Maple Ridge Treatment Centre 60

Parkholm Place 20

Timber Creek 47

Yale Road 140

Total2 606

Notes:

1. Sub-Acute facilities. 2. The totals do not include residential & mental health beds in leased buildings. For reference, there are 9,694 residential

beds and 2,149 mental health beds within the FHA region.


Page | 8

3. UNDERSTANDING THE FHA ENERGY MANAGEMENT SITUATION

FHA has undergone five annual BC Hydro sponsored Energy Management Assessment (EMA) sessions. The EMA exercise is designed to provide an initial assessment of current energy management business practices and identify the range of corrective actions to optimize energy efficiency and performance. Initially these sessions were carried out every year, but changed to every two years from 2011. The results and ratings can be seen in the table below.

Table FH-4: EMA Results

EMA Session Date Diagnostic Tool LR

1 CBR

2

Score % Change Score % Change

23-Jun-08 One-2-Five 1.09 N/A N/A N/A

12-Aug-09 One-2-Five 1.39 27.5% N/A N/A

18-Apr-11 SEGEMA 1.53 10.1% 0.60 N/A

23-May-13 SEGEMA 1.71 11.8% 0.68 13%

05-Dec-14 SEGEMA 1.71 0% 0.62 -9%

Notes: 1. LR is the Level of Rigor with a maximum score of 4.00. 2. CBR is Component Balance Rating and provides an indication of how “balanced” the organisation is. The lower the CBR,

the more balanced the organization (0 – 0.25 indicates a high balance and 0.75 – 1.00 indicates highly unbalanced).

In 2011, the SEGEMA diagnostic tool was introduced and replaced the previously used One-2-Five tool. The outcomes from the previously used assessment tool were entered into the SEGEMA tool to provide an indication of change and improvement. The last EMA workshop session was held on December 5, 2014 and based upon the input from the LMFM management team, including the VP of Corporate Services & Facilities, the results indicated that our LR Score was 1.71 and CBR was 0.62. The LR is an indication of our current overall energy management business practices profile and a score of 1.71 signals that the organization has established a strategic approach to energy management and is integrating energy management initiatives into standard operations. Unfortunately this score did not improve from the session held in 2013, but our aim for the next EMA session will be to increase the LR score to greater than 2.0 (operationally integrated approach to energy management). The CBR of 0.62 indicates that current business practices associated with managing the energy function in the organization is still somewhat unbalanced, but we did see an improvement of 9%. Our aim for the next EMA session will be to reduce the CBR to 0.5 (somewhat balanced). Based upon the results of the December 5th EMA session, our focus will be directed towards Policy, Targets/Reporting, Plans/Actions, Teams/Committees and Employee Awareness/Training. Further details of these five elements can be seen in the EMA cover letter can be seen in Appendix 6.1.


Page | 9

3.1 Utility Consumption and Costs All of the 25 core sites use electricity and natural gas as primary energy sources. For the 2014 calendar year, the energy consumption breakdown and utility cost breakdown percentages, as shown in the table FH-5 below, are similar to the previous years, but we are starting to see an increase in electricity use over Natural Gas as the recent new building are being constructed with heat pumps used as a primary heating source. Further information on energy cost from previous years is included in section 4.3.

Table FH-5: Actual Utility Consumption and Cost for 2014

Notes: 1. The sewer is not metered & generally the consumption is based upon 80% of the metered water consumption.

Figure FH- 2: Actual Utility Cost for 2014

Not surprisingly, considering the portfolio growth, the overall actual energy consumption for FHA continues to increase. The 2014 energy consumption was 26.4% above our 2007 base year. This base year was selected to align with the BC Governments Climate Natural base year as part of their Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act.


Page | 10

Table FH-6: Actual Energy Consumption since 2007

As seen in table 6, there have been increases in both electricity and natural gas since the 2007 base year. Since this base year, the owned portfolio of FHA (including the P3 sites) has increased by over 40%. The major site increases were:

- Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center in 2009 - Jim Pattison Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre in 2011 - Critical Care Tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital in 2014 - Complex Residential Care building at Mission Memorial Hospital in 2014

These four sites have increased the internal floor space to the portfolio by over 143,000 m2. Both electricity and natural gas use is affected by outdoor air temperatures. Thus, adjustments (normalisation) need to be considered to help evaluate the use and compare to a baseline. Table 7, provides details of the corrected consumption for weather temperatures, using regression analysis, against the 2007 base year.

Table FH-7: Adjusted 2014 Energy Consumption against the 2007 Base Year

Note: 1. The adjusted consumptions for 2008 & 2011 do not include the ARHCC or JPSOCSC buildings as they were not fully

occupied and operational.

The consumption and variances in table FH-7 follow a similar trend to those in table FH-6. Generally the weather normalization for electricity is fairly minimal, due to building energy use and the heating climate in the Lower


Page | 11

Mainland. However, with more buildings utilizing heat pump technology, weather adjustment for electricity will become more relevant moving forward. Normalization for natural gas on the other hand is more pertinent and differences between actual and adjusted use, as seen in the table above, can be significant. Energy use data for all core sites can be viewed in Appendix 6.2.

3.2 Quarterly Energy Use Profile

To further explain the seasonal weather temperature effects throughout the year, we will review the consumption quarterly profile.

Figure FH- 3: Quarterly Energy Use Profile (8 year average)

As shown in Figure FH-3, we can see that our core sites generally experience an increase in electrical load in the summer season and definitive increase in natural gas load in the winter season. These profiles are fairly typical for hospital type facilities in the Greater Vancouver climate region. However, as mentioned previously, there has been a shift over the last few years with using Heat Pumps as a primary heating source. Thus, the electrical load will become more prominent in the winter. For example, the heat pumps installed in the stand alone JPSOCSC building has resulted in a 67:33 electrical to natural gas ratio. The average ratio across all 25 core sites for 2014 was a 41:59 electrical to natural gas consumption split. For reference, and confirmation of the trend change, the 2007 electrical to natural gas ratio was 36:64.


Page | 12

3.3 Building Energy Performance Indicators

To allow us to compare the energy performance of individual facilities, Building Energy Performance Indicators (BEPI) are generally used. Although BEPIs have their limitations, they can be used as an initial review tool to compare performance. The performance metric used in this section will be the energy used against the conditioned floor area. Ideally the facilities should be broken down into similar categories to enable a like for like comparison. However, as previously mentioned, this tool is just used as an initial review, thus we will only divide into the following two categories: Acute Care Facilities & Residential/Other Care facilities

3.3.1 Acute Care Facilities

The overall FHA energy intensity for the Acute Care sites in 2014 was 557 ekWh/yr/m². Four sites, as seen below, had a lower energy use intensity than the NRCan benchmark of 519 ekWh/yr/m².

Figure FH- 4: 2014 Acute Care Site BEPI – Energy Use Intensity (EUI)

Notes:


Page | 13

1. The NRCan benchmark is 519 ekWh/yr/m² for Hospitals in BC based upon the NRCan 2008 Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey Summary Report.

2. The EUI is not corrected for weather.

3.3.2 Residential & Other Care Facilities

The overall FHA energy intensity for the Residential & Other Care sites in 2013 was 430 ekWh/yr/m². Only the Czorny Alzheimer Centre has a lower energy use intensity than the NRCan Benchmark of 300 ekWh/yr/m².

Figure FH- 5: 2014 Residential & Other Care Site BEPI - Energy Use Intensity

Notes: 1. The NRCan benchmark is 300 ekWh/yr/m² for Residential facilities (ONLY) in BC based upon the NRCan 2008

Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey Summary Report 2. The energy intensity is not corrected for weather. 3. The JP Outpatient Care and Chilliwack Health Centre facilities are included, but they are not Residential, therefore

the NRCan benchmark does not apply. These two facilities are classed as “Other” Facilities in Table 2, but there are no other similar facilities in the FHA region. Thus, they have only been included in this section to provide a visual indication of their EUI.


Page | 14

3.4 Key Performance Indicators

The BEPI in the previous sections compares the site performances based upon the annual energy use against per conditioned the floor space. This provides an indication of the sites where energy reduction opportunities may exist and further investigation is required. However, comparing one site against another, even if they are classed as the same facility type (such as Acute Care), may not be a true comparison. As previously mentioned in section 2.3, the core business metrics are related to patient care. The quantity of treated patients and type of treatment will have an effect on the energy consumed, thus we can use this data as an additional energy performance metric.

Figure FH- 6: Acute Care Patient Case BEPI

Notes: 1. The energy consumption is not corrected for weather. 2. Patient case data is only applicable to Acute Care facilities

We can see from the chart above that the best performing sites, using patient case data, are generally the larger Acute Care sites. For the two smaller “community” hospitals (Fraser Canyon Hospital and Mission Memorial


Page | 15

Hospital, the treated patients per energy consumed is very high in comparison. The intensity numbers are not surprising at these two sites, considering the population density and the type of Acute Care services offered at these small community facilities. Even for some of the medium size Acute Care facilities, the data can be misleading. The majority of our medium size facilities have extended care beds with long term patients, for example Langley Memorial has 230 dedicated extended care beds and this data is not factored into this BEPI. Thus, using the total quantity of ALL beds on these sites will provide us with a more useful indicator.

Figure FH- 7: Acute Care Patient Bed BEPI

Notes: 1. The energy consumption is not corrected for weather. 2. Patient bed data is only applicable to Acute Care facilities

Comparing energy use against total bed data provides us with a more useful performance indicator and there are similarities when compared to the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) indicators. However, the BEPI’s can still be misleading. For example, the Abbotsford Regional Hospital is a LEED Gold building built in 2007 and was fully occupied in 2009, yet it has the highest Patient Bed BEPI and is ranked 7 out 12 for EUI BEPI. Whereas, the Langley Memorial Hospital is ranked fourth on the above patient bed chart and last on EUI BEPI! This allows us


Page | 16

to conclude that comparing sites against each other, even if they are classed as Acute Care, is not really a true comparison. Each site is unique in terms of patient care, building configuration, age and equipment use. Thus, as previously mentioned, these BEPI’s can be used as an initial indicator of performance, especially if you use them to compare similar types and age of buildings. But the most accurate way of comparing the energy performance of a site is to compare its EUI performance against itself over a period of time.

3.5 Core Site Energy Use Performance

FHA has been fully engaged with the BC Hydro Managers program since June 2008 and the large majority of the 25 core sites have had various energy projects undertaken during this time. To determine if the individual FHA sites are becoming energy efficient, we need to compare the energy use performance of the site against a base year. The weather adjusted Energy Use Intensity (EUI) for 2014 will be compared to the site base year for both electricity and natural gas. The base year is 2007 unless stated otherwise.

3.5.1 Electricity

The overall FHA adjusted electricity EUI for the Acute Care sites in 2014 was 224 kWh/yr/m². This is virtually the same as the EUI for base year. However, we have seen a 2% reduction compared to the 2013 year. The overall EUI is driven by the larger sites and two of the largest sites in FHA, Surrey Memorial Hospital (largest) and Abbotsford Regional Hospital (third largest), have seen an increase in EUI from their base year. The increase at SMH is not surprising considering the heat pump technology used for the new Critical Care Tower.

Figure FH- 8: Acute Care Site Electricity EUI


Page | 17

Note: 1. ARH base year is 2009 2. The variance % is the difference between the 2014 Adjusted EUI and the Base EUI.

For the Residential and Other care sites the adjusted electricity EUI in 2014 was 199 kWh/yr/m². This is an overall 8.8% increase compared to base year. This overall increase is due to the JP Out-Patients Surgical Care Centre building, which as seen below has a very high EUI. Without this building, the adjusted EUI in 2014 would have been 155 kWh/yr/m² and this would equate to nearly a 15% decrease compared to the base year!

Figure FH- 9: Residential & Other Site Electricity EUI

Note: 1. CAC & CWP base years are 2008 2. CHC base year is 2009 3. MRTC base year is 2011 4. JPOC base year is 2012 5. AP & TC base years are 2013 6. YR base year is 2014 7. The variance % is the difference between the 2014 Adjusted EUI and the Base EUI.


Page | 18

Of the 25 Core sites, 13 building have seen a decrease and 11 have seen an increase in their electricity EUI compared to their base year. The Yale Road (YR) building is a lease building which was occupied by FHA at the end of 2013, thus has no base year and no variance in the EUI performance.

3.5.2 Natural Gas

The overall FHA adjusted natural gas EUI for Acute Care sites in 2014 was 1.26 GJ/yr/m² and this equates to 350 ekWh/yr/m². This is an overall improvement of over 10.8% compared to the base year.

Figure FH- 10: Acute Care Site Natural Gas EUI

Note: 1. ARH base year is 2009 2. The variance % is the difference between the 2014 Adjusted EUI and the Base EUI.

For the Residential and Other sites, the adjusted natural gas EUI in 2014 was 0.85 GJ/yr/m² and this equates 236 ekWh/yr/m². This is an overall improvement of over 35.1% compared to the base year. This overall decrease includes the JP Out-Patients Surgical Care Centre building, which has a very low EUI. Without this building, the EUI in 2014 would have been 261 ekWh/yr/m² and this would equate to a 28% decrease compared to the base year.


Page | 19

Figure FH- 11: Residential & Other Site Natural Gas EUI

Notes: 1. CAC & CWP base years are 2008 2. CHC base year is 2009 3. MRTC base year is 2011 4. JPOC base year is 2012 5. AP & TC base years are 2013 6. YR base year is 2014 7. The variance % is the difference between the 2014 Adjusted EUI and the Base EUI.

Of the 25 Core sites, 17 building have seen a decrease and 7 have seen an increase in their natural gas EUI compared to their base year. The Yale Road (YR) building is a lease building which was occupied by FHA at the end of 2013, thus has no base year and no EUI variance. With the introduction of the heat pump technology for newly constructed buildings, we need to look at the total energy EUI to understand how the sites are performing over time. The three recently constructed buildings, which equate to 14% of the overall floor space in the FHA region, include:

JP Out-Patients Surgical Care Centre standalone building in Surrey

The Critical Care Tower on the Surrey Memorial Hospital campus

The Complex Residential Care on the Mission Memorial Hospital campus.


Page | 20

3.5.3 Total Energy

The overall FHA adjusted total EUI for the Acute Care sites in 2014 was 572 ekWh/yr/m². This equates to a 7% reduction compared to base year. Nine out of the twelve Acute Care sites have seen a reduction in EUI and two (ARH & ERH) of the three sites with increases, have actually started to trend down when compared to the 2013 year.

Figure FH- 12: Acute Care Site Total EUI

Notes: 1. ARH base year is 2009 2. The variance % is the difference between the 2014 Adjusted EUI and the Base EUI.

For the Residential and Other care sites the adjusted total EUI in 2014 was 434 ekWh/yr/m² and this is a 20% reduction compared to base year. Eight out of the thirteen Residential & Other Care sites have seen a reduction in EUI. Apart from the JPOC building, the other three sites with increased EUI’s only make just 1% of the FHA region floor space. Although these smaller sites are not our prime focus, they are considered to be a Core Site and thus they are subject to investigation.


Page | 21

Figure FH- 13: Residential & Other Site Total EUI

Notes: 1. CAC & CWP base years are 2008 2. CHC base year is 2009 3. MRTC base year is 2011 4. JPOC base year is 2012 5. AP & TC base years are 2013 6. YR base year is 2014 7. The variance % is the difference between the 2014 Adjusted EUI and the Base EUI.

The following table list all the Core buildings, except Yale Road, with rationale related to their performance against the base year.

Table FH-8: Core Site EUI Variances with explanations

FHA Core Site1 EUI Variance Rationale

Parkholm Place (PP) -42.6%

Major Capital refurbishment project completed in 2012, including new gas fired RTUs, complete with heat recovery installed and BMS controls were added to the HVAC system.

Fraser Canyon Hospital (FCH)

-37.2% In 2010/11 a number of energy projects were carried out including: o Main boiler & DHW plant were replaced. o Installation of 5 VFD’s and an upgrade to the BMS. o Major lighting retrofit including controls and de-lamping. o A large number of single glazed windows were replaced


Page | 22


with double glazing.

In 2014, 11 x C.Op. ECMs were implemented.

Fellburn Care Centre (FCC)

-28.3%

In 2010/11, a major lighting retrofit including controls and de-lamping was carried out and new boiler and hot water plant was installed.

In 2012, window coverings were added to main recreation area to reduce heat gain and cooling load during the summer.

Heritage Village (HV) -25.4%

In 2009, a VFD and controls installed for the kitchen extract system.

In 2011, a fault was found with the main kitchen dishwasher, which stopped the constant dumping of hot water

Over the last few years, various improvements have been made to the BMS controls & lighting.

In 2014, 6 x C.Op. ECMs were implemented.

Mission Memorial Hospital (MMH)

-21.0% In 2009, a VFD and controls installed for the kitchen extract system.

In 2010/11 lighting retrofit, including de-lamping and controls was carried out.

In 2012 the BMS was upgraded and replaced including VFD installs and rebalancing

In 2012, the existing ECU building was demolished and construction started for a new residential care building.

New LEED Gold building opened and occupied in 2014, complete with:

o Improved roof and wall insulation o Reduced interior lighting power density, exterior

lighting systems and controls o Heat pumps with high efficiency boilers and heat

recovery o Low flow water fixtures

Timber Creek (TC) -17.0% New building occupied in 2012, including: o Improved envelope insulation o Reduced interior lighting power density and add

lighting controls o Use of natural ventilation and a high efficient HVAC

system.

Queens Park Care Centre (QPCC)

-15.9% In 2009/10 a number of projects carried out including, Replacement of boiler and domestic hot water plant, an Interior lighting retrofit and the installation of VFD’s and controls for various fans and pumps

In 2012, a Solar Hot Water system was installed in one of the small satellite buildings as a pilot project.

Also in 2012, the main kitchen dishwasher was replaced with an energy efficient model.

In 2014, 16 x C.Op. ECM’s were implemented.

Czorny Alzheimer Centre (CAC)

-14.3% New LEED buildings constructed and occupied in 2008 and 2011.

The 2008 building was optimized by in-house engineers in 2010.


Page | 23


The 2011 building included, more efficient boiler plant and BMS control, LED Lighting and lighting controls and improvements in natural ventilation

Burnaby Hospital (BH) - 12.7% In 2009/10 a major lighting retrofit was completed and new HVAC control strategies for the radiators and the OR Department was implemented.

In 2013, 29 x C.Op. ECM’s were implemented, plus VFD’s were added to the large boiler feed pumps.

Peace Arch Hospital (PAH)

-11.1% In 2009/10 a major lighting retrofit was completed and VFD’s and controls added to 6 fan motors

In 2011, a condensing boiler was installed in the Berkeley Pavilion building, and 12 x C.Op. ECMs were implemented.

Since 2012, various small lighting retrofits have been carried out, including LED replacements, bi-level lighting on staircases

In 2013, boiler isolation valves stack control damper system and high turndown burners were installed to main boiler plant.

In 2014/15 a Cold Water booster pump systems was replaced with a Grundfos VFD package system in Acute and Al Hogg buildings and an instantaneous steam to hot water exchanger was installed for the domestic hot water.

Delta Hospital (DH) -9.2% In 2011, a lighting retrofit, including controls upgrade was carried out and several faulty steam traps were replaced.

In 2012, 12 x C.Op. ECM’s were implemented.

In 2014/15, new boiler plant and domestic hot water plant was installed, including new controls and VFD integral HW pumps.

This site currently has cooing and humidification issues in the summer, due to new requirements in the MDR department and this has led to increase electrical use in the summer months.

Surrey Memorial Hospital (SMH)

-8.4% In 2009/10 a major lighting retrofit was completed.

In 2011/12 boiler plant replaced in small satellite building and various mechanical upgrades occurred, including new instantaneous gas fired DHW plant.

In 2013/14, various exterior HPS lighting replaced with LED.

New LEED Gold building opened and occupied in 2014, complete with:

o Improved roof and wall insulation o Reduced interior lighting power density, exterior

lighting systems and controls o High performance mechanical systems and plant,

including state of the art air source heat pumps and heat recovery.

Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH)

-7.3% Since 2008, various control improvements carried out by the BMS building operator.

In 2009/10 a major lighting retrofit was completed.

In 2011/12, several leaking steam traps were replaced and 5 x C.Op. ECM’s were implemented, including a hot/cold aisle containment system in the Data Server room.

It came to light in 2013 that this site had legionnaires concerns


Page | 24


and the hot water storage temperatures were increased for the domestic hot water systems.

In 2014/15, various exterior HPS lighting replaced with LED and VSD’s installed for 3 large fan motors.

Further energy project and reduction measures will be put on hold

Maple Ridge Treatment Centre (MRTC)

-6.4% No implemented ECMs or projects since FMO took over the maintenance of this building in 2011, but FMO have implemented an improved maintenance regime.

Cottage & Worthington Pavilions (CWP)

-2.2% In 2010/11, a lighting retrofit was completed and small various controls upgrades were carried out.

In 2013, the boiler flow temperatures were been increased following a recommendation from the boiler inspector.

In 2014/15, 9 C.Op. ECM’s were implemented.

Since the base year, there was change of space use in one of the buildings, where there are now 15 Acute Care beds.

This building is planned for demolition in the next 5-7 years, thus energy and infrastructure projects are only being considered if essential.

Langley Memorial Hospital (LMH)

-1.2% In 2012, 8 small C.Op. ECM’s were implemented.

In 2013/14 a major lighting retrofit was completed at the beginning of including internal and external areas.

This site currently has operational HVAC issues trying to maintain comfort conditions; it also has a very high natural gas EUI compared to other sites, which is affecting the energy performance of the building.

Chilliwack General Hospital (CGH)

-0.8% In 2010 a major lighting retrofit was completed.

In 2011, boiler plant upgrades, insulation improvements & various BMS controls improvement were implemented.

A C.Op. Investigation was completed in 2013 and 11 x ECMs are planned for implementation in 2014 with completion in 2015 this should lead to 4-5% reduction in energy use.

This site is also going through a redesign and replacement of the chilled water plant, which will also reduce the electrical EUI.

JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre (JPSOCSC)

2.9% This building is maintained by our P3 partner (Bouygues Energies & Services) and they are currently having humidity and temperature problems. This has led to the GM instructing them to keep their fan systems running 24/7, which has resulted in an increase in energy use in 2014 compare to 2012 base year.

Eagle Ridge Hospital (ERH)

5.5% In 2010, a major lighting retrofit was completed.

In 2012, the BMS system was replaced, but the building was also re-balanced and this has resulted in an increase in air flows and a significant increase in natural gas use compared to the base year.

In fact, since 2012 the EUI has reduced by 5%, indicating that the this site needs to reset its base year due to 2012 due to the major rebalancing work.


Page | 25


A C.Op. investigation was completed in 2013 and 12 x ECMs are planned for implementation in 2014 with completion in 2015.

Ridge Meadows Hospital (RMH)

6.6% Since 2008, there have been a number of small lighting retrofits.

In 2009/10 a new burner installed for boiler # 4 and the general pipework was reconfigured to improve flow which counteracted the efficiency improvement.

In 2012, the condensate return from the steam boiler plant was modified to pre-heat feed water

High energy intense area added to site in 2009 and energy EUI has actually been reducing since 2010. Similar to ERH, this site needs to reset its base year.

A C.Op. investigation was completed in 2013 and 18 x ECMs are planned for implementation in 2014 with completion in 2015.

In addition, several projects have been identified and approved for 2015 as part of the CNCP funding.

Chilliwack Health Centre (CHC)

10.0% No implemented ECMs or projects since FMO took over the maintenance of this building in 2009.

Small site with low priority, but further investigation is required with FMO support.

Arbutus Place 10.4% Leased building occupied by FHA.

Small site with low priority, but further investigation is required with LMFM Real Estate Team.

Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center (ARHCC)

13.6% This building is maintained by our P3 partner (Johnson Controls). The EUI is above the upper limit of their Energy Agreement. They have recognized and reported an increasing NG trend and stated that “some of it can be attributed to post occupancy energy requirement of the building”.

The energy EUI for the last 2 years has actually reduced.

Discussions have taking place and we looking to add this site to the C.Op. Program.

Creekside Withdraw Unit (CWU)

26.7% No implemented ECM’s or projects since this building was occupied in 2009.

Additional A/C units added to the building, which has resulted in a significant electrical intensity increase, compared to the base year.

Since, 2011 the EUI has actually reduced by over 4%; this site needs to reset its base year.

Note: 1. All Core sites listed with the exception of the Yale Road, as this was occupied by FHA at the end of 2013.


Page | 26

3.6 Typical Energy End Use

Comparing the adjusted EUI against a base year and breaking down the energy use by source allows us to target further energy saving opportunities from poor performing buildings. To fully understand how the energy is being used in a building, the end use needs to be determined. Identifying the energy end use is a time consuming exercise and to carry out this task effectively a full list of equipment and plant is required. The large majority of FHA sites have had some form of energy study / assessment carried out over the last 10 years and the following table provides details of the different types of these studies. A large number of studies and assessments have been completed. These studies have helped drive the energy management program and a continuation of additional and renewed studies will identify further energy reduction opportunities.

Table FH-9: Core Site (Owned & LMFM Operated) Energy Studies and Dates

Core Site Type of Study and Year

Burnaby Hospital (BUH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Revised Partial Energy Study in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 External Parkade Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2009 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 C.Op. Investigation Study in 2012 Exterior Lighting Study in 2014 Fortis Custom Study in 2014-15 COp round 2(pilot) investigation with AFDD planned in 2015

Chilliwack General Hospital (CGH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Full Energy Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Steam Trap Survey in 2011 Chilled Water Study in 2013 COp Investigation Study in 2013-14 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014

Chilliwack Health Centre (CHC) No studies (building added to FHA portfolio in 2008)

Cottage & Worthington Pavilions (CWP - MSA)

Lighting Study in 2010 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014

Creekside Withdraw Unit (CWU) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013

Czorny Alzheimer Centre (CAC) No studies (new building opened in 2007) COp Investigation Study planned for 2016

Delta Hospital (DEH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Full Lighting Study in 2010 Steam Trap Survey in 2011 COp Investigation Study in 2012 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014


Page | 27


Eagle Ridge Hospital (ERH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Thermal Energy Study in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Revised Thermal Energy Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2010 Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Steam Trap Study in 2011 Insulation Survey in 2011 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 COp Investigation Study in 2014 Planned Fortis Custom Study in 2015

Fellburn Care Centre (FCC)

Full Energy Audit in 2003 Revised Partial Energy Audit in 2008 Lighting Study in 2010 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2015 Planned Fortis Custom Study in 2015

Fraser Canyon Hospital (FCH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Thermal Energy Study in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Full Lighting Study in 2009 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014

Heritage Village (HV)

Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014

Langley Memorial Hospital (LMH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 COp Investigation Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Thermal Energy Study in 2011 Steam Trap Survey in 2011 Full Lighting Study in 2011 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 Fortis Custom Study in 2015

Maple Ridge Treatment Centre (MRTC) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013

Mission Memorial Hospital (MMH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Full Energy Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 New Construction Energy Study for ECU building in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in progress COp Investigation Study in 2014-15 Fortis Custom Study in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2015

Parkholm Place (PP) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013


Page | 28


Peace Arch Hospital (PAH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 COp Investigation Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Steam Trap Survey in 2011 Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Exterior Lighting Review in 2012 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014

Queens Park Care Centre (QPCC)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Thermal Energy Study in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2012 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014

Ridge Meadows Hospital (RMH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2007 Boiler Plant Study in 2008 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Fortis Custom Study in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2015

Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH)

Full Energy Audit in 2003 Revised Partial Energy Audit in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Chilled Water Study in 2008 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Thermal Energy Study in 2011 Steam Trap Study in 2011 COp Investigation Study in 2012 Exterior Lighting Review in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014

Surrey Memorial Hospital (SMH)

Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Thermal Energy Study in 2011 External Parkade Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2009 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Steam Trap Survey in 2011 New Construction Energy Study for CCT building in 2012 COp Investigation Study in 2014

Timber Creek (TC) New Construction Energy Study in 2011

Note: 1. Owned & operated core sites ONLY included in the table above

One of the objectives from undertaking a detailed energy study is to understand the energy end use of the facility. Energy use in healthcare facilities varies from site to site, depending upon the type of facility and the healthcare services that it provides. The charts and tables below represent the typical use for large, medium and small acute sites.


Page | 29

Large Acute Site:

Table FH-9: Estimated Energy Use at Burnaby Hospital for 2014

Figure FH- 14: Estimated Energy Use at Burnaby Hospital for 2014


Page | 30

Medium Acute Site:

Table FH-10: Estimated Energy Use at Langley Memorial Hospital for 2013

Figure FH- 15: Estimated Energy Use at Langley Memorial Hospital for 2013


Page | 31

Small Acute Site:

Table FH-11: Estimated Energy Use at Mission Memorial Hospital (acute only) for 2013

Figure FH- 16: Estimated Energy Use at Mission Memorial Hospital (acute only) for 2013

As expected, the energy end use breakdown varies from site to site. The only similar end use load across all 3 types is the lighting which ranges from 10-11%. The energy use breakdown from the Langley Memorial Hospital is the most accurate as this includes several buildings with independent metering. Sites and buildings with additional metering not only enable us to have a better understanding of the consumption and potential opportunities, but they also provide a tool for measurement and verification following project implementation.


Page | 32

As seen in the sample energy use tables above, the primary energy source for our sites is primarily natural gas due to the heating requirements of the climate in Greater Vancouver. The overall energy source ratio is 41:59 (electricity: natural gas) and this varies from site to site. However, this ratio has changed from 36:64 (electricity: natural gas) in 2007, due to use of heat pumps in new building construction. This change in technology will certainly help our quest to reduce Greenhouse gases.

3.7 Green House Gas Emissions

In accordance with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act, passed in 2007, FHA is committed to reducing its carbon emissions. The Act legally required all public sector organisations to be carbon neutral beginning 2010. FHA achieved this by reporting, reducing and offsetting the in-scope carbon emissions. In scope emissions, include those from buildings, fleet travel, paper use and fugitive. The total GHG emissions reported in the 2014 calendar year was 38,873 tC02e. The carbon offset cost that FHA paid to the Ministry of Health was $1,020,128 including taxes. By far, FHA biggest emissions source is related to our building portfolio and as seen above this makes up 97% of our overall reported in-scope emissions. The majority of the building emissions are due to fuel combustion. As shown below, of the 37,732 tonnes of C02 emitted in 2014, 83.5% was due to owned fuel plant and only 3.2% was due to electricity from our owned facilities.

Figure FH- 17: 2013 GHG Reported In-Scope Carbon Emissions


Page | 33

Figure FH- 18: 2014 Breakdown of Building Emissions

Notes: 1. Emissions from our buildings are not normalized (adjusted) for weather and they are based upon actual energy

consumption.

The overall reported GHG emissions for FHA decreased slightly by 3% in 2014 compared to 2013. Whereas the overall building portfolio, including leased buildings increased by 10%. Since the 2007 base year, the overall non adjusted emission from our core buildings has increased by 12%, but the FHA core building portfolio has increased by 43%. Thus, the 2014 carbon emission per m2 of Core site floor space has actually reduced by 22% compared to 2007.

Table FH-12: Actual Non Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from owned building portfolio

Notes:

1. Carbon Emission factors were provided by the BC Ministry of Environment. 2. The emissions figure in the table above are from the 25 Core Sites


Page | 34

4. FHA GOALS & OBJECTIVES

The long term overall target objective for FHA is to reduce the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of the core sites by 15% by 2020 (relative to a 2007 baseline).

4.1 Overall Reduction EUI Goals

In the previous SEMP’s, annual EUI targets were set for both electricity and natural gas. But with the change in technology for newly constructed buildings, it has been agreed that targets moving forward will be set for the overall EUI only. As seen in the chart below it is clear that the electricity intensity, unlike the natural gas, has not reduced significantly.

Figure FH- 19: Annual EUI Performance & Target

Apart from 2013, the reduction target for each year has been achieved and this exception in 2013 can be attributed to high electricity usage for the construction of the new buildings at the Surrey Memorial Hospital and Mission Memorial Hospital.


Page | 35

Table FH-13: Annual EUI Performance & Targets

As seen in the table above a EUI reduction of 9.3% has been achieved in 2014 compared to the base year and this surpassed the 8% target. To enable FHA to continue to meet the annual targets and overall goal of 15% by 2020, the focus will be to evaluate individual sites taking into account their size, completed and potential projects, plus new construction master planning.

4.2 Site Reduction EUI Goals

The large energy consuming sites and the future energy management initiatives at these large sites will inevitably dictate our success on achieving our objective of a 15% EUI reduction across the region by 2020. Of the 25 Core sites, 18 have energy reduction initiatives planned for the next 3 years. The remaining 7 are either leased facilities or small “other” healthcare type facilities and make up less than 4% of the total space area. The 2 leased facilities (Arbutus Place and Yale Road) will continue to be monitored and the appropriate LMFM Real Estate Manager will be notified if there are variances from base year EUI’s. The 5 owned small “other” healthcare type facilities (Chilliwack Health Centre; Cottage & Worthington Pavilions; Creekside Withdrawal Management Centre; Maple Ridge Treatment Centre and Parkholm Place), will also continue to be monitored and appropriate LMFM FMO team will be contacted if the EUI starts to increase from the base year. Although numerous energy reduction projects have been undertaken across the Core sites, further energy reduction opportunities have been identified. The following charts provide a visual indication of performance and potential EUI reduction for these 18 Core sites up to 2020. The estimated regional EUI calculated from the 3 year project funnel, which consists of completed, in-progress, pending and potential projects, should enable FHA to exceed its 2018 target as shown in table FH-15. The 2020 target is driven by further potential projects as well as new construction as part of the regional master planning initiative.


Page | 36


Page | 37


Page | 38

Figure FH- 20: Site Reduction EUI Goals

Note: 1. 2018 EUI is based upon the estimated savings in the 3 year project plan


Page | 39

2. 2020 EUI is based upon further estimated potential savings

4.3 Energy Expenditure & Avoidance

Even though a large number of energy conservation projects have been implemented since 2009, the annual energy expenditure has increased by 40%. Our electricity costs have increased by 73%, due to significant changes in the FHA portfolio and increased utility rates. The natural gas cost has also increased by 12%, but the variance is not as dramatic due to the fact that commodity rates ($/GJ) in recent years have been significantly lower than the rate in 2009.

Table FH-14: Energy Costs since 2009

Notes:

1. The energy costs are not adjusted for weather.

Figure FH- 21: Energy Costs since 2009


Page | 40

Annual energy expenditure will continue to increase as the FHA building portfolio grows to meet regional healthcare demands. The BC Hydro electricity rate has increased by 21% since 2012/13 and is scheduled to increase by a further 15% in the next 3 years! The natural gas rate has been fairly stable over the last few years and this is subjective to many variables, but many experts are predicting a similar trend for next few years. The energy expenditure would have been significantly higher without the implementation of energy reduction projects. In fact, the cost avoidance since the F10 fiscal year is just over of $4.5m, but this does assume 100% persistence of savings. Persistence of savings is difficult to determine without dedicated sub-metering, however even if we assume a 10% drop in persistence per year, then the cost avoidance since F10 would still be above $3.8m

Figure FH- 22: Energy Cost and Cumulative Avoidance since 2009/10

Notes: 1. The cumulative avoidance assumes 100% persistence of annual savings. 2. Annual savings and cumulative avoidance in fiscal years.


Page | 41

5. PLANNED ACTIONS

To enable FHA to continue to reduce our Energy Use Intensity (EUI) the following actions will be undertaken:

i. Promotion of Energy Conservation via our Policy & Strategic Framework; ii. Site specific energy studies and audits will continue to be carried out on inefficient processes and plant;

iii. Energy conservation measures will be identified and technical projects implemented; iv. Energy awareness and educational programs will be implemented; v. Existing buildings, including those maintained by our P3 partners, will continue to be optimized;

vi. Energy efficient solutions will be included for new construction and major renovations; vii. Renewable energy solutions will continue to be investigated;

viii. Potential District Energy Systems and steam to hot water solutions will be explored.

5.1 Policy & Strategic Framework

Both the Policy and Strategic Framework are mentioned in the preface and have already been established. They provide a high level statement of commitment for efforts to improve energy conservation as part of our overall sustainability goal. The on-going promotion and communication of these documents are essential to the success of the Energy Management program. The Environmental Sustainability policy, including reference to this SEMP, was approved and endorsed by the Senior Executive team in 2011. The policy is posted on the Fraser Health Authority intranet site and it is always integrated into Sustainability and Energy Management presentations. As stated in the preface, a Strategic Framework was created by the Energy & Environmental Sustainability team in 2012. The 10 focus areas are prioritized and the Energy Conservation and Climate Neutral topic is considered to be a tier 1 priority. Along with the Culture of Stewardship and Zero Waste topic, these 3 areas are the ones that most directly impact economic stewardship, since the business case for the programs and initiatives in these areas are most compelling. The Energy Conservation and Climate Neutral area of focus encompasses the entire Energy Management program and associated initiatives. Currently the EES Strategic Framework is going through a refresh process with the goal of increasing our collaboration across the LMHA’s and to identify the best path align with our key stakeholders.

5.2 Energy Studies

As listed in Table FH-9, section 3.6, there has been a large number of energy studies carried out across the FHA region since 2008. A large number of these studies have resulted in implementation of projects and incentives from BC Hydro and Fortis BC. The large majority of the 25 core sites have seen an improvement in EUI since the base year. However, energy studies and reviews are still required to continue the improve performance and meet our long term energy reduction goal. The following table details the sites with studies/reviews/assessments that we are targeting for the next 3 years.


Page | 42

Table FH-15: Planned Energy Studies for 2015 - 2017

Core Site Type of Study/Review/Assessment Target Year Status

Abbotsford Regional Hospital C.Op. Investigation Study 2016 Potential

Fortis Custom Study 2017 Potential

Burnaby Hospital Fortis Custom Study 2015 Complete

C.Op. (v2 - pilot) Investigation Study 2016 Pending

Chilliwack General Hospital Fortis Custom Study 2016 Potential

Czorny Alzheimer Centre C.Op. Investigation Study 2016 Pending

Eagle Ridge Hospital Fortis Custom Study 2016 Potential

Fellburn care Centre Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2015 Complete

Fortis Custom Study 2015 In Progress

Heritage Village Fortis Custom Study 2016 Potential

JP Out-Patient Care & Surgical Ctr. C.Op. Investigation Study 2016 Potential

Langley Memorial Hospital

Fortis Custom Study 2015 Complete

Chilled Water Plant Study 2015 In Progress

C.Op. (v2) Investigation Study 2017 Potential

Mission Memorial Hospital C.Op. Investigation Study 2015 Complete

Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2015 Complete

Peace Arch Hospital C.Op. (v2) Investigation Study 2017 Potential

Queens Park Care Centre Fortis Custom Study 2017 Potential

Ridge Meadows Hospital Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2015 Complete

Royal Columbian Hospital New Construction Energy Study 2016 Pending

Surrey Memorial Hospital C.Op. Investigation Study 2015 Complete

Fortis Custom Study 2017 Potential

In addition to the studies listed above, ad-hoc investigations will continue to be carried out in the event of unusual monthly consumption variances from reviewing and analysing the utility use data.

5.3 Energy Conservation Technical Projects

A summary of the completed projects since the commencement of the BC Hydro’s Energy Manager Program is shown below. In 6 years, 99 projects have been completed and the overall energy savings are estimated at nearly 32 eGWh. A full list of completed technical energy conservation projects is shown in Appendix 6.3.

Table FH-16: Summary of Projects completed since June 2008


Page | 43

Notes: 1. The estimated savings are based upon energy savings calculations associated with the project and not the

completion date. 2. The F15 totals include the 2 large New Construction projects at SMH and MMH.

To establish how effective our energy management program has been to date we need to determine what the “Business As Usual” (BAU) consumption would have potentially been without the implementation of projects and initiatives. As seen in figure FH-23, FHA has avoided an 11% increase in energy consumption due to technical projects.

Figure FH- 23: Energy Consumption BAU Report

With the exception of building optimization projects, which are funded from the operational budget, the implementation of other technical projects is dictated by capital project funding. Back in the F9 fiscal year, Public Sector Energy Conservation Agreement (PESCA) funding was provided to the Public Sector to implement energy reduction projects. FHA received over $4m and this helped the energy management program in the early years to gather momentum. A lull in capital funding occurred until the introduction of the Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) funding in F15. The amount of CNCP funding received was equal to the total paid by FHA in 2012 calendar year for purchases of carbon offsets and this equated to over $1m. It is expected that the CNCP funding will continue for the foreseeable future and following CNCP site assessments at 3 core sites, FHA has been approved for just under $1m for the F16 fiscal year. Internal capital funding has also been allocated to supplement CNCP funds.


Page | 44

Following a successful pilot with VCHA, an agreement was signed at the end of F15 fiscal year, between BC Hydro and FHA for a Green Revolving Fund (GRF). Seed money of $250k, including $200k from BC Hydro and $50k from FHA, was provided as part of the 5 year agreement. Our commitment is to reinvest 90% of energy cost savings from applicable projects to replenish and grow the fund over time. The CNCP, GRF, internal capital and operating funds, combined with utility incentives will enable the following list of projects to be implemented.

Table FH-17: 3 Year Project Funnel


Page | 45

Notes:

1. This project list includes C.Op. projects as detailed in the section 5.5. 2. Potential projects still require confirmation of funds.

5.4 Awareness and Education Programs

The following three behavioural programs have been rolled out at FHA:

BC Hydro Workplace Conservation Agreement (WCA)

GreenCare Community

Green + Leaders program (G+L)

5.4.1 BC Hydro Workplace Conservation Agreement (WCA)

Since November 2010 Fraser Health has been actively involved in BC Hydro’s Workplace Conservation Awareness (WCA) Program, an initiative to help BC organizations design and deliver energy conservation campaigns in the workplace. The WCA program focuses on encouraging staff to contribute to energy savings through everyday simple actions, from turning off the lights to turning off monitors over lunch time. These simple actions can have a significant impact on energy use when thousands of BC health care workers get involved. The goal is to save 2% of electricity over 2 years at all of the participating hospitals and extended care facilities. Some of the WCA related programs to be initiated at each site are as follows:

FMO Engagement Sessions

Green Labs Campaigns

Support Staff Education

Schedule Optimization

G+L Toolkit Deployment


Page | 46

In addition to delivering cost-effective energy savings, changing staff’s energy related habits also helps reduce the negative environmental impacts of operating large health care facilities Fraser Health has worked in partnership with Vancouver Coastal Health and Provincial Health Services Authority to accomplish the following activities:

Coordination of the G+L program, including managing and training volunteers and supporting the

implementation of energy conservation toolkits and campaigns;

Development of several new G+L toolkits including a tool kit developed alongside the FMO team;

Launching of a refreshed GCC website that includes a public facing section describing the GreenCare

Strategic Framework in May;

Engaged security staff in discussions about energy management opportunities;

Engaged FMO staff to become more proactive with identifying energy conservation measures and to

utilize our Energy Management Information System;

Wrote and published energy focused articles and news items in the Vancouver Coastal Health internal

newsletter and on the website.

The following two year action plan has been developed and approved by BC Hydro with the Consultation of

Prism Engineering and planning for years 7 and 8 is currently in progress.

Table FH-18: Lower Mainland WCA Action Plan (November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2016)

5.4.2 GreenCare Community (GCC)

As noted within the Preface, the EES Team led a major rebrand and re-launch of what was formerly called the

Cut the Carbon Community (C3). The new site is the GreenCare Community (GCC). The online interactive


Page | 47

website provides a medium to share and promote a community commitment towards specific carbon cutting

actions and environmental conservation.

One of the priority tasks identified within the EMA process was to “ensure communication of the energy policy

to the broader organizational stakeholders to produce better results in raising energy conservation across the

whole organization in general”. The GCC site will continue to be used as a “communication tool” to build

education, awareness, and engagement.

Figure FH- 244: Screenshot from GCC – Energy Conservation & Climate Neutral

“Seeing the Earth as one system, we respectfully recognize that the health of individuals and the environments they inhabit are inseparable; thus GreenCare’s mission is an extension of health care goals. GreenCare engages internal and external partners in the health care community through collaboration, innovation, & transparency to create sustainable and environmentally-responsible health care practices & systems.” - GreenCare Mission Statement


Page | 48

5.4.3 Green + Leaders program (G+L)

The G+L program was initially launched in Provincial Health Service Authority in 2009 and has now been rolled out to the other LMHA. The aim of the program is to recruits volunteers (employees) to be sustainability leaders and provide colleagues with information about the impacts of their daily activities. The volunteers attend training sessions and are provided with the necessary tools to model new behaviors. The 3 target areas include energy reduction, alternative transportation and materials reduction. The program was launched at FHA and at other LMHA facilities during the fall of 2011 and to date, 101 volunteers have signed up to the program, including contracted partners from Sodexho and Johnson Controls. Several new “toolkits” will be rolled out to our Green + Leaders staff volunteers later in the fall of 2015.Recently published a “toolkits” for our Green + Leaders staff volunteers are under consider for their energy campaigns in 2016.

Some proactive G+L took on or facilitated alternative initiatives to minimize energy use. Some examples are listed below:

Facilitating the discussion with Facilities to install motion sensors for lighting;

Consolidating and decommissioning of old equipment;

Labs focus group on energy reduction, including “shut the sash” (this is also referenced in the BC Hydro WCA program);

Investigating the purchase of energy efficient refrigerators;

Providing input and ideas for additional toolkit topics.

5.5 Continuous Building Optimization

Building optimization, also known as re-commissioning, is a systematic approach to improve the buildings performance. FHA has fully utilised BC Hydro’s Continuous Optimization (C.Op.) program and all eligible sites, as detailed in table FH-19, are signed up to the program. The C.Op. program consists of two parts; the first part of the program is the supply and installation of Pulse meters and Energy Management Information Software (EMIS). The second part is split into three phases. Phase 1 consists of a detailed investigation of the HVAC control system over a minimum period of nine months (to ensure all seasons are captured) by a trained Consultant. A Study Report, including a Findings Workbook, detailing Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) is produced by the Consultant. The second phase is the implementation of identified and approved ECM’s with a maximum timeline of 23 months. The final phase is the “hand off” and “coaching”; where the Consultant signs off the implementation of the ECM’s and returns to site every 3 months for 1 year to make sure that the Building Operator continues to undertake the recommended activities to ensure the persistence of the ECM’s.

G+L Toolkit Definition: an action-oriented compilation of related information, resources, or

tools that are adaptable and ready to guide staff volunteers to develop an implementation plan or organize efforts in their departments to reduce resource consumption, minimise waste, mitigate emissions, increase recycling and promote best work practices in the LMHAs; a

step by step guide for building a local culture of sustainability.


Page | 49

Table FH-19: C.Op. Program Sites


Page | 50

The Consultant services of the program are fully funded by BC Hydro and Fortis BC, but cost associated with the implementation of the ECM’s is covered by FHA. As part of the agreement, FHA has committed to funding ECM’s with a bundled simple payback of 2 years or less up to a maximum amount of $0.25 per ft² of floor space. EMIS has been deployed at all C.Op. sites and energy use data is being tracked via Pulse meters. This real time data is available to the Building Operators and most have gone through dedicated training as part of an FMO engagement initiative.

Fourteen applicable FHA sites were signed up to the program. All of these sites have reached the end of the investigation phase and the percentage savings identified vary from site to site. The overall electrical savings were approximately 2% of the annual electricity use whereas the natural gas savings are above 6%. According to BC Hydro, the industry average savings that you would normally associated with the process would range from 5-10%. Ten sites have reached the end of the implementation phase and the energy savings from the approved and implemented ECM’s are similar to those identified in the investigation phase. Of these ten sites, six have completed the Coaching Phase and effectively completed the program. The results at the end of the Coaching phase are varied, with some sites seeing an increase in their energy use compared to the EMIS baseline. This does not necessarily indicate the program has failed or that the ECM’s implemented have dematerialized. The verification of the savings is calculated from the EMIS, which is a useful tool, but has its limitations. The energy consumption is being tracked from the main utility meter and with large complicated ever changing hospital sites, the verification of the implemented ECM’s can be lost in the “site noise”. Thus, it is essential, as part of the optimization process to continue the engagement with the site FMO teams and reset the EMIS baselines accordingly. This FMO engagement process has commenced at four of the completed sites (PAH, LMH, DEH & QPCC). The FHA Energy Management team has followed a similar process to the Coaching Phase, whereby we meet with the FMO teams on a quarterly basis and review the energy consumption using data from the utility management database as well as the EMIS. This has created great dialogue and allows us to continue to identify opportunities as well as resetting the EMIS baseline to account for significant changes to the site. The process is advanced at PAH and DEH and several meetings have already taken place. The FMO teams have been fully engaged and extremely proactive. In fact, last fiscal year several projects identified from these sessions were implemented with CNCP funding. In addition to the fourteen sites included in the C.Op. program, Opportunity Assessment forms have been submitted to BC Hydro for the following three additional sites:

- Czorny Alzheimer Centre (CAC) - Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre (ARHCC) - Jim Pattison Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre (JPOC)

Two of the above are P3 sites (ARHCC & JPOC) and are maintained by external FM Operators. Unfortunately at present, we are still trying to obtain full buy in from the FM Operators, thus this has delayed the roll out. Further communication will continue throughout the F16 fiscal, with a hope that these sites will join the program in the forthcoming years. The program will commence at CAC in this fiscal year. Over the last several years we have seen the introduction of Fault Diagnostic Detection (FDD) software in the North American market. This new tool should enhance the optimization process and FHA was fortunate to pilot


Page | 51

this tool, as part of an existing C.Op. program agreement, at Mission Memorial Hospital. Despite numerous challenges to set up the system, the FDD is now working and this enabled the Consultant to produce a very detailed hybrid C.Op. Study Report complete with Findings Workbook. This site has now reached its implementation phase and as part of this phase, site operator training will be deployed to ensure the FMO teams are utilizing the tool. Following the success of the C.Op. program in the public sector, BC Hydro are currently working on a business case for a C.Op. Round 2 offer. There will be two different C.Op offers for Round #2; Standard Re-commissioning, and Automated Re-commissioning. These offers will be available for buildings that have been through the program once and other eligible buildings. The roll out of this round 2 program is subject to business case approval, but Hydro are very confident that this program will be rolled out within the F16 fiscal year. In fact, FHA has been in discussion with Hydro to a pilot the Automated Re-commissioning offer using Automatic Fault Diagnostic Detection (AFDD) software at Burnaby Hospital.

5.6 New Construction & Major Renovations

New Construction and major renovations of existing facilities are essential to ensure FHA continues to deliver an effective and efficient health service to its rapidly growing community. A recent success story saw the new Critical Care Tower (CCT) project at SMH recently awarded LEED Gold certification and to date it is the largest health care project in British Columbia to achieve LEED Gold. The expansion was driven by the increased Fraser Valley population. The new eight storey Tower incorporates sustainable design features while establishing a healthy and comfortable space for patients, staff, and visitors. With a commitment to maximizing energy efficiency, the CCT building established a priority on indoor air quality and natural lighting, with state of the art mechanical and electrical plant and control systems. According to the energy modelling carried out as part of a BC Hydro New Construction program, the Tower is predicted to save nearly 4 eGWh of energy and compared to a standard baseline building. The total consumption is estimated at 20 eGWh, and space heating is achieved by heat recovery and air-to-water heat pumps with steam being used only for peak conditions. This results in a 73:23 ratio of electrical to natural gas energy being used and makes this new Tower a low carbon energy building with estimated annual emission of less than 1,100 tCO2e.

The Energy & Environmental Sustainability (EES) team have created a Design Guidelines for New Construction & Major Renovation projects to be inserted into the design team RFP’s. The intent of the EES Design Guidelines is to provide the design team with direction on the following:

Energy performance targets

Incentive application requirements

LEED requirements

Design Guidelines, Standards & Principles


Page | 52

Figure FH- 255: LEED Gold Critical Care Tower at SMH

5.6.1 Energy Performance Targets

The energy performance targets in table FH-20 are intended to be aspirational yet achievable targets and were derived by reviewing a variety of information sources including EUI’s for existing Lower Mainland health care facilities, current and future ASHRAE 90.1 building performance benchmarks, and EUI’s from high performance hospitals in the US Pacific Northwest and Northern Europe.

Table FH-20: Target Energy Use Intensity (EUI) by Building Archetype

Building Archetype Target Energy Use

Intensity (EUI) [ekWh/m2/year]

Support 150

Inpatient 250

Acute Care and Research 375

5.6.2 Incentive Applications

The utilization of the BC Hydro New Construction (NC) Program forms part of our recommendations within our Guidelines. The NC program is split into three applicable offers, including Whole Building Design (WBD), System


Page | 53

Design (SD) and Energy Efficient Lighting Design (EELD). The WBD is their main offer and this requires complex energy study modelling, which is 100% funded by Hydro. Depending upon approval of the energy study model and report, a capital incentive agreement is issued with tiered incentives ranging from $30,000 to $60,000 per 100,000 kWh saved. The incentives are based upon incremental project cost and predicted savings relative to code (ASHRAE 90.1). A partnership between BC Hydro and Fortis BC was formed in 2012, which effectively allows clients to access capital incentive funding from both utilities with one single shared energy study. Several projects have qualified for the NC program and table FH-21 provides details of the projects, including status, savings and incentive amount. Table FH-21: BC Hydro New Construction Program Projects

Note: 1. The CRC New Construction project at MMH is complete, but savings are not verified yet. Due to the timeline, this site also qualified for Fortis BC Incentives.


Page | 54

5.6.3 LEED Requirements

All new builds will target gold certification for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). The FHA sites (owned and leased) shown in table FH-21 have been awarded LEED Certification. There are also four sites which have been registered and waiting certification.

Table FH-222: FHA LEED Certified Buildings

EES recommends LEED Gold certification under the LEED for Health Care (HC) for new acute care facilities. For non-acute care facilities, LEED HC should be considered, but if it is not deemed to be appropriate, EES recommends LEED Gold under the New Construction (NC) program be should be targeted.

5.6.4 Design Guidelines, Standards & Principles

The project team must apply all relevant health authority Design Standards & Guidelines for New Construction & Major Renovations (NC&MR) related to EES. Currently a Lighting Design and Automated Fault Detection and Diagnosis Standards are under development. In addition the following are being considered for development:

HVAC Design Standard for NC&MR

Metering Standard for NC&MR (to be developed)

Daylighting Design Standard for NC&MR (to be developed) Where specific Design Standards & Guidelines do not yet exist, it is recommended that buildings be designed with the following guiding principles in mind:

First identify site specific opportunities (such as waste heat sources)

Focus next on reducing building energy demand (through improved building envelope, extensive waste heat recovery, etc.)

Consider exergy where appropriate (such as designing for lower temperature heating water to enable more low grade heat recovery)

Next, apply efficient systems to meet the reduced demand

Apply low complexity systems where appropriate

Align with campus energy initiatives for: o Campus heating distribution systems via hot water (rather than steam, where applicable) o Central Plant fuel switching (where applicable) o Stand- alone building heat pump system or


Page | 55

o Stand-alone electric chiller The Design Guidelines for New Construction & Major Renovation projects can be seen in Appendix 6.4

5.7 Renewable Energy Solutions

Over 38% of the energy consumed in FHA in 2013 was from a renewable source. Hydropower is a renewable energy and according to NRCan accounts for 59% of the electricity supply in Canada and in BC this figure is closer to 90%. In addition to Hydropower, there are other renewable energy sources available in BC and the cost effectiveness of these resources are now starting to improve. In 2012, a Solar Hot Water (SHW) hybrid system was installed at Queens Park Care Centre as a pilot project. Extensive sub-metering was installed, over and above the required

metering, to ensure we have accurate measurement and verification data. The SHW hybrid electric domestic hot water system, installed in William Rudd House building at QPCC, is a drain-back solar thermal system. The system preheats city water before it enters into the regular domestic hot water heating and storage system. The drain back system uses distilled water for heat absorption (no chemicals). There are 8 solar collectors (total 165.51 ft2 of solar collecting surface) and a 132 US Gallon tank with UV Legionella disease prevention provision. The solar thermal system has been designed to provide 27% of total thermal hot water load over a year. The total cost of the project was $20,944, excluding the sub-metering. The project was completed in June 2012 and the measurement and verification (M&V) commenced in July 2012. From reviewing the natural gas use for the last 12 months, we have seen a reduction of approximately 100 GJ and this equates to approximately $1,800 if we included carbon tax and offsets. To supplement the SHW, electric tanks were installed and we did see an increase the electrical consumption for this building during the same period. So taking this electricity increase into account our overall energy savings for this first year was approximately $500.

Figure FH- 266: QPC SHW - M&V Results one year after implementation


Page | 56

The Measurement and Verification results after one year, allow us to come to the conclusion that a SHW hybrid systems should be considered if DHW plant/equipment is scheduled for replacement and/or repair. However, as standalone energy project the Return on Investment is probably too long. Taking this into consideration, preliminary feasibility studies were undertaken on 8 residential/extended care buildings in 2013. To date, no other renewable energy systems have been considered in FHA. However, a Photovoltaic and a Geo-Thermal system have been installed within VCHA and we are waiting for the energy and cost analysis to determine whether these systems warrant further investigation at any FHA site.

5.8 District Energy System & Steam to Hot Water Conversions

District Energy Systems (DES) are being investigated and considered at Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH), Surrey Memorial Hospital (SMH), and Langley Memorial Hospital (LMH).

5.8.1 RCH & City of New Westminster

LMFM partnered with the City of New Westminster (CoNW) to co-fund a DES feasibility study as part of the RCH Redevelopment plan. An Energy Plan was produced and included Business Case submission to MoH in 2014. The Energy Plan recommends a Hot Water conversion strategy, whereby the majority of the existing steam distribution and plant would be replaced with Hot Water. The second strategy in the Plan, recommends connection to a City operated DES. An MOU has been created between FHA and the CoNW and includes a potential rate design process for thermal energy delivery, terms/contractual agreements, implementation plan, financial terms and conditions, capital costs, and business structure (i.e., the “DES Business Case”). The MoH approved the RCH Redevelopment project in 2015 and the project will be split into 3 phases.

Figure FH- 277: RCH Redevelopment Phased Project


Page | 57

As part of phase 1, a new energy centre will be built and fitted out to supply building energy services to the new Mental Health building, plus the existing campus. Phase 2 will be the construction of a new tower and phase 3 will be the renovation of the existing Health Care Centre and Columbia Tower buildings. The engineering team has recently been engaged and communication between FHA, the CoNW and the respective design teams has commenced. It is anticipated at this stage the new Tower, which will be a procured through a P3 process, will be connected to the new energy centre and will be part of the DES system.

5.8.2 SMH & City of Surrey

LMFM also partnered with the City of Surrey in a DES feasibility study in 2011. The recommendations from this study were that a campus hot water conversion be explored further and that a potential expansion of campus energy system to the surrounding community to acquire new loads and access clean energy supply sources should be considered. Unfortunately to date, no further investigation work has occurred in relation to hot water conversion at SMH. Having said that, we are aware that the City of Surrey has continued developing and implementing their city wide DES strategy.

5.8.3 LMH & the Township of Langley

The Township of Langley (ToL) completed a DES Feasibility study for the area around LMH in 2011, as recommended in their draft Community Energy and Emission Plan. LMFM was a participant in the study, providing information on the campus generation capacity and current and future loads. Following a recent Master Plan exercise at LMH, we reconnected with the ToL to establish whether any further work had materialized in relation to DES. They confirmed that other priorities are competing for capital dollars at present, thus the DES this has been parked. The decision moving forward to pursue DES and form a potential partnership ToL will be dependent upon the outcome of the LMH Master Plan.


Page | 58

6. APPENDIX

6.1 EMA Year 5 Cover Letter


Page | 59

6.2 Energy Data

6.2.1 Electrical


Page | 60


Page | 61


Page | 62

6.2.2 Fuel (Natural Gas)


Page | 63


Page | 64


Page | 65

6.2.3 Total Energy


Page | 66


Page | 67


Page | 68

6.3 Completed Energy Projects


Page | 69


Page | 70


Page | 71


Page | 72


Page | 73


Page | 74

6.4 EES Design Guidelines for New Construction & Major Renovation projects


Page | 75


Page | 76


Page | 77

fraser health management plan 2015-16 (semp) · fraser health strategic energy management plan...

Documents