2015-16_ FH_SEMP_Final

Transcription

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
LMFM Strategic Energy
Management Plan Preface
Table of Contents
I.
CONTEXT ................................................................................................................. IV
I.I
I.II
I.III
I.IV
I.V
I.VI
FOUR HEALTH AUTHORITIES WORKING TOGETHER ...................................................................... IV
LMFM UPDATES ................................................................................................................... IV
COORDINATING OUR SUSTAINABILITY WORK............................................................................... IV
COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................................. V
EES STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... V
EES VISION, MISSION, & VALUES .............................................................................................VII
i.vi.i Our Vision ............................................................................................................... vii
i.vi.ii Our Mission ........................................................................................................... vii
i.vi.iii Our Values ............................................................................................................ vii
GREENCARE ..........................................................................................................................VII
DEMAND VS SUPPLY .............................................................................................................. VIII
WHY IS ENERGY MANAGEMENT IMPORTANT? ........................................................................... VIII
i.ix.i Multiple Stakeholders ........................................................................................... viii
I.VII
I.VIII
I.IX
II.
COMMITMENT TO ENERGY MANAGEMENT ............................................................. XII
II.I
II.II
II.III
II.IV
II.V
WHAT IS STRATEGIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT? ............................................................................ XII
PURPOSE OF SEMP ................................................................................................................ XII
GOALS .................................................................................................................................. XII
TARGETS ............................................................................................................................... XII
STRATEGIC ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. XIV
ii.v.i Scenario Planning...................................................................................................xiv
ii.v.ii SWOT Analysis....................................................................................................... xv
III.
A FRAMEWORK FOR ENERGY MANAGEMENT ......................................................... XIX
III.I
III.II
III.III
III.IV
III.V
III.VI
III.VII
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................... XIX
PLAN DO CHECK ACT CYCLE .................................................................................................... XIX
10 COMPONENTS OF : HOLISTIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT .............................................................XX
ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA) ............................................................................ XXI
FIVE BUCKETS ..................................................................................................................... XXIII
EXECUTION: A FOUR-STEP APPROACH .................................................................................... XXIV
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
NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS ...................................................................... XXVIII
iv.ii.i Energy Efficient New Construction ...................................................................... xxix
iv.ii.ii EES Green Playbook ........................................................................................... xxix
IV.II
Page - i -
IV.III
IV.IV
IV.V
iv.ii.iii ELIM Initiative ................................................................................................... xxix
iv.ii.iv Energy Efficiency Guidelines............................................................................... xxx
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
SYSTEMIC CHANGE ............................................................................................................ XXXIII
iv.iv.i Energy Policy .................................................................................................... xxxiii
iv.iv.ii Sustainable Purchasing ................................................................................... xxxiii
INNOVATION & DEMONSTRATION ........................................................................................ XXXIV
iv.v.i Green Revolving Fund (GRF).............................................................................. xxxiv
iv.v.ii Emerging Best Practices .................................................................................... xxxv
V.
LMFM APPENDICES .......................................................................................... XXXVIII
V.I
V.II
V.III
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY....................................................................................XXXVIII
LMFM STAKEHOLDERS .....................................................................................................XXXVIII
LMFM STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY ....................................................................XXXVIII
Page - ii -
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:
Table LMFM-2:
Table LMFM-3:
Table LMFM-4:
Table LMFM-5:
Table LMFM-6:
Table LMFM-7:
Table LMFM-8:
Table LMFM-9:
LMHA Key Issues, Priorities, & Drivers ................................................................................ x
Combined Drivers for Energy Management ...................................................................... xi
Energy and Climate Neutral Goals and Targets ................................................................xiii
Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis ................................................................................. xv
Opportunities and Threats Analysis ..................................................................................xvi
Overview of Energy Conservation Projects and Initiatives ............................................. xxiv
Prioritization Themes ....................................................................................................... xxv
Example Energy Efficiency (EE) Strategies for Largest End Uses ................................... xxvii
LMHA Key Stakeholders .............................................................................................. xxxviii
Page - iii -
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 - iv -
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.
Sabah Ali
Blair McFarlane
Angie Woo
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:



i.iv
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)
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:
“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”
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
Page - v -
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 - vi -
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.
EES Vision: Transforming Health Care for a Thriving Environment
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:







i.vii
Respectful of the interdependence among all living systems
Holistic
Collaborative
Innovative
Balanced
Transparent
Optimistic
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 - vii -
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.
Utility
Provider
Goals
Provincial
Mandate
(Bill 44)
Health
Authority
Drivers
Energy
Management
Figure LMFM-4: Multiple Drivers for Energy Management
Page - viii -
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 - ix -
Table LMFM-1: LMHA Key Issues, Priorities, & Drivers
LMHA Issues,
Priorities, & Drivers
Improve Human Health
Potential Co-Benefits of
Energy Initiative
Improved occupant comfort &
productivity
Improved air quality
Improved recovery time
Reduce or avoid operating
costs
Financial Management
Maximize incentive funding
Reduced maintenance cost
Asset and Risk
Management
Reduced mechanical
equipment failures
Improved energy security
Reduced staff errors
Support compliance with
Provincial Regulations (Bill 44)
Attract and Retain staff
Example Energy Projects or Initiatives
Improved thermal zone control
Air sealing around windows and doors
Re-commissioning
Coil cleaning
Design to optimize daylighting
All energy conservation projects
BC Hydro support provides an Energy
Manager at a reduced cost to health
authority
Various incentives reduce capital cost of
projects
Vortisand side stream filtration reduces the
time to clean out cooling tower
LED lighting can be replaced less frequently
Connecting equipment to DDC controls
Alternative energy source heating plant
Design to optimize daylighting
Measuring and reporting carbon emissions
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 - x -
Table LMFM-2: Combined Drivers for Energy Management
STAKEHOLDER
Provincial Government
REQUIREMENT / PRIORITY
Health Authority
Cost Savings
Cost Savings per year ($/year)
Cost Avoidance
Avoided costs per year ($/year)
Achieve annual energy
target
Electrical energy savings (GWh/year*)
*Target varies by HA and year
Pursue FortisBC incentives
Incentive dollars achieved per year ($/year)
Achieve natural gas savings
Natural gas savings per year (GJ/year)
BC Hydro
FortisBC
Compliance with Bill 44
METRIC OF SUCCESS
GHG emissions reduction below 2007 (%)
Total carbon reduction (Tonnes CO2e)
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 - xi -
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 - xii -
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.
b.
c.
d.
6% by 2012
18% by 2016
33% by 2020
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
GHG Emission Reduction
Energy Conservation
Energy Efficient New Construction
Milestone Targets by Year (Relative to 2007)
2015
2016
2020
2050
18%
33%
80%
10%
15%
2
Support facilities: 150 kWh/m /year
Inpatient facilities: 250 kWh/m2/year
Acute care and research facilities: 375 kWh/m2/year
2012
6%
-
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.
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.
2
Page - xiii -
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 - xiv -
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
Capability / Areas of Focus
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
Importance
Low
Medium
Rating
High
Poor














Fair
Good
Excellent































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.
Page - xv -
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
Data management tools
Increased incentive opportunities through
Fortis Custom Program
Organizational tools
New technologies
Unreliable new technologies
Variable energy costs
Reduced funding and incentives from BC Hydro or
FortisBC
Organisational Leadership Support
Turnover of Strategic Contacts
Social media
Resources (including Energy Manager
network for knowledge sharing)
Page - xvi -
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 - xvii -
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 - xviii -
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
Program
Management
Project
Management
Figure LMFM-6: Programs and Projects
Visual Aid
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
Page - xix -
• Communication
• Training
• Implementation
• Energy Policy
• EMA
• SEMP
• Action Plans
• Reviews
• Refine Strategy
• Corrective Action
Plan
Do
Act
Check
• Monitoring
• Analysis
• Reporting
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
Page - xx -
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 energyrelated 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.
2.
3.
4.
Easy / High Value
Difficult / High Value
Easy / Low Value
Difficult / Low Value
Page - xxi -
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 - xxii -
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 - xxiii -
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
Existing Buildings & Infrastructure
Making our existing building and infrastructure
as energy efficient as possible
Projects and Initiatives
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
Engagement & Behavior Change
Campaigns and initiatives to educate and
engage staff in behavior to reduce energy
consumption
EE New Construction
Systemic Change
Embedding energy management into our
business practices and processes
Energy Policy
Innovation and Demonstration
Planting the seeds to prepare us for future
leaps in progress
Emerging Best Practices
EES Green Playbook
EE Guidelines for NC&MR
Energy Targets for NC&MR
GreenCare Community
The Green + Leaders
Behaviour Change campaigns
EE Guidelines & Standards
EE Purchasing
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.
2.
3.
4.
Identify and Prioritize
Fund
Implement
Verify energy savings
Page - xxiv -
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
Largest sites
Largest end uses
Description: Prioritize actions
and projects that:
Affect the largest floor area
Affect the largest end uses (such
as heating)
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)
Synergies with
other priorities
Achieve a positive impact on the
performance of other priorities,
such as thermal comfort
Have low risk or ideally reduce the
HA exposure to risk
Projects that can’t be implemented within
the current fiscal budget must be planned
for by requesting budget
Non-energy benefits can lead to
implementation of projects that would
otherwise be too low on the priority list.
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.
Risk
Comments
Allows for economies of scale
Based on understanding of end uses or
sub-metering (see Section iii.vii.i)
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 - xxv -
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.
Acute Care Facility End Use Breakdown
Service Water
Heating
10%
Pumps
3%
Fans
11%
Plug loads
5%
Heating
56%
Cooling
4%
Lighting
11%
Figure LMFM-10: Typical NRCan Healthcare Energy Use Breakdown, Acute Care
Extended Care Facility End Use Breakdown
Service Water
Heating
7%
Pumps
5%
Fans
1%
Plug loads
13%
Cooling
3%
Heating
57%
Lighting
14%
Figure LMFM-11: Typical NRCan Healthcare Energy Use Breakdown, Extended Care
The data was sourced from the NRCan Survey of Commercial and Institutional Energy Use (SCIEU) - Buildings 2009,
Detailed Statistical Report
7
Page - xxvi -
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
Heating
Lighting
Fans and
Pumps
Service water
heating
Cooling
Types of Strategies
Improve thermal envelope
Higher eff. heating equipment
Exhaust air heat recovery
Optimize HVAC controls & schedules
Reduce heat loss piping
Optimize lighting levels
EE lighting
Lighting controls
Optimize ventilation rates & controls
High eff. Fans
Variable speed control
Water efficient fixtures
Higher eff. heating equipment
Reduce heat loss in piping
Improve envelope
Higher eff. cooling equipment
Optimize HVAC controls & schedules
Cost
High
High
Med
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Med
Med
Low
Low
Med
Low
High
Med
Low
Savings
Med
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Med
High
Low
Med
Med
Med
Med
High
Priority
Low
Med
Med
High
High
High
High
High
Med
Med
High
Med
Med
Med
Low
Med
High
Page - xxvii -
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 - xxviii -
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 - xxix -
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 - xxx -
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 - xxxi -
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
Figure LMFM-14: Sample GreenCare web page
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.
Page - xxxii -
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
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
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
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 - xxxiii -
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 - xxxiv -
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 Figure LMFM-15: Model of Passive House
Hospital under design in Frankfurt, Germany9
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
Page - xxxv -
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/
Page - xxxvi -
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 - xxxvii -
V.
LMFM APPENDICES
v.i
ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMINOLOGY
Term / Abbreviation
Definition / Explanation
Energy Efficient
Energy and Environmental Sustainability Team
Energy Manager
Lower Mainland Consolidation
Lower Mainland Health Authorities
Lower Mainland Facilities Management
Greenhouse Gas
Fraser Health Authority
Providence Health Care
Provincial Health Services Authority
Vancouver Coastal Health
EE
EES Team
EM
LMC
LMHA
LMFM
GHG
FHA
PHC
PHSA
VCH
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
LMFM, Energy
Environment &
Sustainability
Peter Goldthorpe
VP Capital Projects, Real Estate & Facilities Lower Mainland
Facilities Management
Paul Becker
Vacant
Alan Grossert
Orin Jonat
Chief Facilities Operating Officer
ED, Operations, Energy & Technical Services
ED, Facilities Planning & Projects
ED, Business Performance and Corporate Support
Marco Buccini
ED, Strategic Development
Mauricio Acosta
Director Energy & Environmental Sustainability
Ruth Abramson
Glen Garrick
Olive Dempsey (mat leave)
Angie Woo
Sustainability Manager
Sustainability Manager
Sustainability Coordinator (Green + Leaders)
Sustainability Coordinator (Green + Leaders)
Sustainability Coordinator (Reduction and Recycling
Coordinator)
Sonja Janousek
Page - xxxviii -
Department
LMFM, Facilities
Planning
LMFM, Capital
Projects
Name
Position
Ashley Edworthy
Sustainability Coordinator (Reduction and Recycling
Coordinator)
Alexandra Turnbull
Coordinator, Communications & Sustainability Reporting
Eisell Omampo
Sustainability Coordinator (TDM)
Robert Bradley
Alex Hutton (mat leave)
Sabah Ali
John Manougian
Jeson Mak
Blair McFlarlane
Alan Lin
Richard Wellwood
Energy Manager (FHA)
Energy Manager (PHSA & PHC)
Interim Energy Manager (PHSA & PHC)
Energy Manager (VCHA)
Energy Coordinator
Interim Energy Coordinator
Energy Specialist (VCHA)
Energy Specialist (PHSA & PHC)
Kori Jones
vacant
Energy Specialist (FHA
Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning
Ken Mah
John Little
Marie Fontaine
Mary Lynn Nicodemus
Michael Wilson
Barbara Dewhirst
Julie Kennedy
Noo Esmail
Deanna Clarke
Angela Bennett
Scott Staniui
Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning
Manager, Facilities Planning
Manager, Facilities Planning
Sr. Facilities Planning
Capital Project Planner
Laura Arpiainen
Larry Harder
Sharon Petty
Hal Collier
Barry Pearce
Don Mah
Phil Delory
Janet Gaspar
Joanne Stich
Westley Davidson
Mike Coney
Rob Kolen
Gary Fry
Brent Crawley
Wendy Pearce
George Desierto
Director, Capital Projects
Chief Project Officer (RCH Redevelopment)
Manager, Capital Projects (FHA)
Manager, Capital Projects (FHA)
Manager, Capital Projects (Coastal)
Manager, Capital Projects (PHC)
Manager, Capital Projects (Vancouver Acute)
Manager, Capital Projects (Richmond)
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Page - xxxix -
Department
LMFM, Clinical
Planning & LEAN
LMFM, Real Estate,
Name
Position
George Cawdry
Sarah Thorn
Paul Hughes
Cynthia Pan
Kevin Pan
Allen Cheng
Rick Buksa
Tony Issa
Chris Dunsford
Ian Kerr
Carson McNeill
Martin Wright
Karen Smith
Jenny Lasmana
John Percival
Hal Graham
Heather Skappak
Dave Mack
Maureen Haddock
Siew Chen Brian Wong
Simone McLachlan
Darcy Canaday
Sam McLeod
Sylvia Mertins
Michael-Ann Dissing
Kathleen Rudd
Sandi Joyce
Diana Van Tiel
Lucas Smith
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager
Project Manager (Contract)
Project Manager (Contract)
Project Manager (Construction)
Project Manager (Construction)
Project Planner
Project Leader
Project Leader
Project Leader
Project Leader
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator
Project Coordinator
Project Assistant
Project Assistant
Owners Rep
Greg Smith
Sue Melnychuk
Owners Rep
Director, Clinical Planning and Lean Design
Anders Engstrom
Salima Harji
Helen Tam
Kelly Duke
Cathy Massey
Tarnjit McCauley
Colin Meakin
Anders Engstrom
Maziyar Tabarestani
Equipment Planning Manager
Sr. Clinical Facilities Planner
Clinical Planner
Clinical Planner
Equipment Planning Manager
Equipment Coordinator
Maria Fredriksson
Stef Schiedon
Equipment Coordinator
Director, Real Estate, Leasing & Property Management
Page - xl -
Department
Leasing & Property
Management
LMFM, Facilities
Systems & Support
LMFM, Technical
Services
LMFM, Space
Management &
Service Intake
LMFM, Procurement
Name
Position
Glen Kirk
Will Davies
Maureen Chow
Sher Flemming
Nick Bodie
Adrianna Appel
Cam Frewin
Rolando Catapia
Corey Thomas
George Venini
Stephen Cheung
Carol Jones
Jennifer Jarvis
Sue Vanderveide
Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning
Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning
Manager, Property & Asset Management
Manager, Real Estate & Leasing
Sr. Facilities Planning Leader
Property & Asset Management Coordinator
Property & Asset Management Analyst
Real Estate & Leasing Analyst
Carli Collison
Keith Gillingham
Property Coordinator
Director, Systems & Support
Michael Snow
Melanie Chow
Maria Fiorentino
Jas Brar
Gordon Lee
Rocky Gonzales
Benjamin Tang
Fred Van Andel
Dana Wong
Ida Zhang
Dean Fogg
Brian Rosier
Diana Smith
Jay Trethewey
Wakako Thomson
Toven Simonsen
Marc Dagneau
Mark Doucette
Sr. Project Leader (FM Project Support)
Sr. Project Leader (IWMS Support)
Sr. Project Leader (IWMS Support)
Analyst System Coordinator (IWMS Support)
Analyst System Coordinator (IWMS Support)
Project Leader (CAD/CAFM Systems)
Building Service Technicians (CAD/CAFM Systems)
Project Leader (Technical Services)
Director, Technical Services
Risk & Performance Specialist
Manager, Contracts & Optimization
Manager, Integrity Programs
Sr. Manger, Regional Initiatives
Chris Nicol
Paul Frew
Project Manager, Construction
Director, Space Management & Service Request
Kyle Thompson
Janette Maley
Maureen McCauley
Facilities Capital Project Planner
Laura Deville Jones
Peter Beckett
Elizabeth Zhu
Project Coordinator
Manager, Facilities Management Procurement
Facilities Procurement Coordinator
Page - xli -
Department
Name
Position
Jason Jew
Al Kroeker
Carolyn Wiens
Faculties Construction Procurement Buyer
FHA Executive
FHA/LMFM FMO
RCH
SMH
BUH
CGH/FCH/HV
ERH/QPC/FCC
LMH
PAH/DEH
RMH/MMH/MSA
Michael Marchbank
Martin Pochurko
President and Chief Executive Officer
Chief Finance Officer
Peter Goldthorpe
VP Corporate Services & Facilities
Mitch Weimer
Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Tim Kelly
Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations &
interim Chief Engineer
Alan Kelly
Pat O'Neil
Randy Elgert
vacant
Steve McTaggart
Barry Lilburn
Paul Niemi
Gary Reitmayer
Sergey Fedorchuk
Ron Smith
Amar Girn
Risto Tauriainen
Roy Miller
Ned Causevic
Sean Barber
Ian Barager
Dennis Cross
Rick Knocke
Carter Waugh
Darrell Vanderbaaren
Don Tessier
Wayne Pleasants
vacant
Martin Donaldson
Mark Gushulak
Andy Emes
Ron Stevenson
Ryan Vidulich
Derrick Zehner
Rick Molnar
Brad Henderson
Rod Silliphant
Maintenance Supervisor (Mech)
Maintenance Supervisor (Elec)
Maintenance Supervisor (Build)
Chief Engineer
Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Project Manager
Maintenance Supervisor (Build)
Maintenance Supervisor (Elec)
Maintenance Supervisor (Mech)
Maintenance Supervisor
Chief Engineer
Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Chief Engineer
Maintenance Supervisor (FCH)
Maintenance Supervisor (HV)
Maintenance Supervisor (CGH)
Chief Engineer
Chief Engineer / Supervisor (ERH)
Maintenance Supervisor (QPC/FCC)
Chief Engineer
Maintenance Supervisor (PAH)
Maintenance Supervisor (DEH)
Chief Engineer (PAH)
Maintenance Supervisor (RMH)
Maintenance Supervisor (MMH/MSA)
Page - xlii -
Department
REGIONAL
REGIONAL
REGIONAL
REGIONAL
REGIONAL
FHA Finance
Name
Position
Stefan Manea
Brad Donovan
Dave Simmons
Lucia Ramirez
Linda Goldade
Technical Coordinator
Technical Coordinator(Interim)
Business Analyst
Admin Assistant
Karen Teixeira
Brian Scudder
Mildred van Rooyen
Financial Manager
Manager, Facilities Capital Planning
Financial Analyst
Nadia Vivanco
Coordinator, Accounts Payable
PHC Executive
PHC/LMFM, FMO
SPH
MSJ
HFH
Brock Fahrni
St Vincent Langara
Residence
Youville Residence
St Vincent Heather Honoria Conway
PHC Finance
Dianne Doyle
Mary Procter
Gloria Giesbrecht
Vice President, Finance and Planning
Executive Assistant to Mary Procter
Erica Guliker
Corporate Director, Strategic Renewal & Capital Assets
Chris Poole
John Hood
Marko Kujala
Brian Postlethwaite
Parm Barn
Chris McPhee
Billy Chan
Stuart Walker
Ryan Hussein
Ryan Hussein
Arif Padamshi
Brookie Chan
Ryan Hussein
Project Manager, Capital Projects (SPH)
Supervisor
Electrical Supervisor
Chief Engineer, Mechanical Department, SPH
Supervisor, Facilities Management, MSJ & HFH
HVAC Technician
Physical Plant Maintenance
Site Manager
Site Manager
Operations / Site Leader, Elder Care
Program Assistant, Elder Care
Site Manager
Ryan Hussein
Site Manager
Amanda Wong
Director, Accounting & Treasury
Elliott Ebel
Financial Analysis
PHSA Executive
PHSA, LMFM/FMO
C&W
Carl Roy
Thomas Chan
Chief Financial Officer
Richard Woo
Corporate Director, Capital Planning
Frank Levenheck
Allan Jonzon
Laurence Bayzand
Zoltan Nagy-Gyorgy
Wendy Burton
Manager, Facility Operations, C&W
Director Inter Campus Operations
Chief Engineer
Administrative Assistant
Page - xliii -
Department
Sunny Hill
BCCA, BCCRC
BCCA, VICC
BCCA, FVCC
BCCA, VCC
C&W
Redevelopment
Project
PHSA Finance
Name
Position
Dave Marier
Arie Frenklach
Harry VanAndel
George Grossling
Todd Smith
Phil Carriere
Mark Pope
Ernest Doe
Dave Marier
David Alves
Karen Lemmen
William Man
David Law
Vacant
Savik Sidhu
Vacant
Manager
HVAC Lead Hand
Supervisor - Facilities Maintenance & Operations
HVAC Technician
Engineer
Electrician
HVAC Technician
Manager
Senior Building Operator
Acting Director, BCCA CRC
Facilities Operations Manager, BCCA
Facilities Manager
Director Regional Operations, VICC
Director, Regional Operations, AC & FVC
Director, Regional Operations, VCC
Dave Ingram
Chief Project Officer, Children’s and Women’s
Redevelopment Project
Rhonda Lui
Kevin Zembik
Manager, C&W Redevelopment Project, Phase II
Manager, C&W Redevelopment Project, Phase II
Meghan Cross
Project Coordinator
Ben Crocker
Hubert Orzech
Senior Corporate Financial Analyst, PHSA
Corporate Financial Analyst, PHSA
Manjit Matharu
Corporate Financial Analyst, PHSA
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority (VCHA)
VCHA Executive
VCH, Finance
Mary Ackenhausen
Glen Copping
CFO and VP of System Development & Performance
Dr. Patricia Daley
Helen Yung
Mike Wong
Susan Luckey
VP, Public Health & Chief Medical Officer
Executive Dir. Financial Services, Financial Planning
Capital Analyst
Manager, Capital Finance
Regional Director, Capital and Asset Management and
Planning
Johan Marais
VCH/LMFM - FMO
VGH
LGH, NS & Sea-toSky
LGH
Rodrigo Lecompt
Ian Clearie
Rian Dodds
Blair Steeves
Ed Florencio
Business Analyst
Acting Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations
Manager, Maintenance & Heliport
Manager, Technical Services - Electrical
Chief Engineer
Christopher Nock
Senior Manager, Facility Operations
Michael Pavan
Michele Reitz
FMO Supervisor
Page - xliv -
Department
RGH
UBCH
Whistler Health
Care Centre
Squamish Hospital
Sechelt Hospital
Powell River
Hospital
G.F Strong
George Pearson
Centre
North Shore Kiwanis
Name
Position
Brian Russell
David Dehod
Tom So
Joe Kasstan
Val Tepes
Mahfuzul Islam
Maher Ayach
Ramil Javarina
Paul Armstrong
Hassan Fereidouni
FMO Supervisor
Chief Engineer
Senior Manager, Facility Operations
FMO Supervisor
FMO Supervisor
Chief Power Engineer
HVAC Technician
Electrician
Acting Manager, Facility Operations
David Harrison
Manager, Facility Operations
David Harrison
Adam Helfer
Gregory Smith
Chris Duckett
Henry Ziolkowski
Chief Engineer
Maintenance Worker
Chanchal Chahal
FMO Supervisor
Jerry Cimino
Electrician
Other Stakeholders and Partners
Interior Health
Lori Holloway
Authority
Tanya Stockman
Carolyn Reid
Vacant
Vancouver Island
Health Authority
Northern Health
Authority
Ministry of Health
(MoH)
CD Plant Services
Manager Environmental Sustainability
Energy Manager
Joe Murphy
Energy Specialist
VP, Operations & Support Services
Cecil Rhodes
Deanna Fourt
Albert Boulet
Joe Ciarniello
Kevin Ramlu
Björn Richt
CD Facilities Management & Operations
Director, Energy Efficiency & Conservation
Energy Manager
Energy Manager
Energy Specialist
Energy Specialist
Claudette Poirier
Albert Sommerfeld
John Johnson
Les Sluggert
Energy Specialist
Regional Director, Capital Planning & Support Services
Director, Capital Planning & Support Services
Energy Manager
Keith Hebert
Energy Specialist
Joel Palmer
Dragana Perisic
Executive Director Capital Service Branch
Director, Capital Policy and Planning
Director Capital Services
James Postan
Page - xlv -
Department
Climate Action
Secretariat (CAS)
Name
Senior Policy Analyst, Capital Services
Susanna Laaksonen-Craig
Timothy Lesiuk
Suzanne Spence
Heather English
Dave Aharonian
Head, Climate Action Secretariat
Executive Director and Chief Negotiator
Executive Director
Sr. Policy Analyst
Orest Maslany
Carbon
Measurement and
Reporting Branch
(CMRB)
BC Hydro
FortisBC
Position
Geoffrey Homer
Policy Analyst
Director, Carbon Measurement & Reporting, Shared Services
BC
Ron Colquhoun
Michael Creekmore
Stuart Hall
Senior Business Analyst
Business Analyst
Business Analyst
Mark Borland
Business Analyst
Jeff Whitson
Paul Seo
Simon Vickers
Jorge Marques
Oscar Ceron
Gary Hamer
Craig Hunt
Graham Henderson
Tommy Yim
Meaghan Fahey
Bojan Andjelkovic
Nikolay Smirnov
Allan Chung
Senior Regulatory Specialist
Ashley Salvador
Cory Farquharson
Irfan Rehmanji
Salah Mahdi
Justine Lepage Parco
Senior Key Account Manager - Health Sector
Program Manager - Power Smart Marketing
Program Manager - Energy Managers
Manager, Technology & Innovation
Program Manager of NCP
Technology and Innovation Manager
Engineering Tech Project Specialist (SEMP Reviewer)
Senior Program Manager, C.Op.
Energy Management Engineer (C.Op.)
Power Smart, C.Op. Coordinator
Senior Energy Management Engineer, NCP
Lighting Specialist, NCP
Senior Regulatory Specialist
Program Specialist on NCP WBD
Operations (SUCH) mailbox
Commercial Business Account Rep (PSPXpress)
Technology Innovation Manager, Commercial Sector
Consultant, Power Smart Engineering (NCP)
Field Metering Technologist (C.Op. EMIS)
Melodie Bell
Business Account Representative
Jennifer Coulthard
Energy Solutions & Key Accounts Manager, Public Healthcare
Colin Norman
EEC Program Manager, Portfolio Projects
Angela Falbo
Jenelle Anderson
Jaime-Ann Lew
Ramsay Cook
Energy Solutions & Key Accounts Manager, Private
Healthcare
Marketing Coordinator
Program Specialist
Program Manager Commercial Buildings
Page - xlvi -
Department
BISS
HSSBC
v.iii
Name
Position
Alicia Hearn
Jermin Hsieh
Anthony Ho
Robert Schuster
Dan Bradley
Deacon Tong
Kelly Hewson
Conservation Education and Outreach
Energy Utilization Manager, Market Development
Marketing Coordinator, Innovative Technologies
Marketing Coordinator, EAP
Fortis Electric contact for Kelowna projects
Jim Kobialko
Tracy Shannon
Shemina Patni
Mansour Rakhmanov
Program Manager Innovative Technologies
Regional Waste Contracts Manager
Regional Contract Manager - Patient Food Service
Supply Chain Business Analyst
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 - xlvii -
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.
Page - xlviii -
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
2.2
2.3
ORGANIZATIONAL PROFILE .................................................................................................................................. 5
FACILITY PROFILES ............................................................................................................................................. 5
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .......................................................................................................................... 7
3.
UNDERSTANDING THE FHA ENERGY MANAGEMENT SITUATION .........................................................8
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
UTILITY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS ...................................................................................................................... 9
QUARTERLY ENERGY USE PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 11
BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .................................................................................................... 12
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ........................................................................................................................ 14
CORE SITE ENERGY USE PERFORMANCE .............................................................................................................. 16
TYPICAL ENERGY END USE ................................................................................................................................ 26
GREEN HOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 32
4.
FHA GOALS & OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 34
4.1
4.2
4.3
OVERALL REDUCTION EUI GOALS....................................................................................................................... 34
SITE REDUCTION EUI GOALS ............................................................................................................................. 35
ENERGY EXPENDITURE & AVOIDANCE ................................................................................................................. 39
5.
PLANNED ACTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 41
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
POLICY & STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................................... 41
ENERGY STUDIES ............................................................................................................................................. 41
ENERGY CONSERVATION TECHNICAL PROJECTS ..................................................................................................... 42
AWARENESS AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS ........................................................................................................... 45
CONTINUOUS BUILDING OPTIMIZATION .............................................................................................................. 48
NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS .................................................................................................... 51
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 55
DISTRICT ENERGY SYSTEM & STEAM TO HOT WATER CONVERSIONS ........................................................................ 56
6.
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 58
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
EMA YEAR 5 COVER LETTER ............................................................................................................................. 58
ENERGY DATA ................................................................................................................................................. 59
COMPLETED ENERGY PROJECTS ......................................................................................................................... 68
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
1. BC HYDRO SEMP EVALUATION
Energy Manager 4th Quarter Assessment Form
SEMP Evaluation
For BC Hydro to complete
Company Name
Fraser Health Authority
File Number
Quarter
Energy
Manager

PSE Signature:
SEMP
Completed
Projects that
used PS
incentives:
Robert Bradley
Date:
PS Program Incentive
PSP
kWh
PSP Express
New Construction
Total
Behavioural Program (2%)
th
Turn around time for 4 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 | 1
1.1 BC Hydro SEMP Evaluation Requirements
Year 2+ Strategic energy Management Plan Requirements
Page Number where
the element is
6 Critical elements must be included in the SEMP
addressed in the
SEMP
1) A purpose statement which answers the following questions:
a) What is your kWh reduction target?
34-35
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
b) Explanation of the worst performing buildings
a) Project list
b) Initiative List: Behavioral and Organizational
c) Studies: Outline which buildings have had studies
completed
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) Conclusion: How is your plan doing?
a) Outlined kWh saved
b) Outlined GHG tons saved
c) Outlined total dollars saved to the organization
d) Outlined avoided cost
e) Outlined total dollars saved
6) Senior Management Support
a) Approval of the SEMP: Signature on the SEMP
12-21
21-25
44-45, Appendix 6.3
45-48
EM
PSE
evaluation Agrees
Yes
Yes
Yes
26-28
5
Yes
16-17, 35 & 43
32-33
39-40
39-40
39-40
Yes
Front Cover
Yes
Page | 2
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 | 3
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 | 4
2.1 Organizational Profile
Table FH-1: FHA Profile
Organization Profile
P
E Sector
O
P
L Number of Employees
E
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
Health
25 (~ 80 buildings)
 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
Treated Patients
Apr 1 – Mar 31
(Budget & Maintenance Cycle as per Business Year)
Energy Management
Issues / Obstacles
Core Business Metrics
Business Year
Maintenance Budget
Utilities Budget
Capital Project Budget
Number of
Core Sites
27,293 (14,850 FTE)
1
Operations Project Budget
Energy Projects Budget
3
2
F15
$23.7m
F16
$24.6m
F17
$25.0m
F18
$25.5m
F19
$26.0m
F15
$16.0m
F16
$16.4m
F17
$16.6m
F18
$16.8m
F19
$17m
F15
$2.4m
F16
$4.9m
F17
$5.0m
F18
$5.0m
F19
$5.0m
F15
$3.6m
F16
$2.9m
F17
$3.0m
F18
$3.0m
F19
$3.0m
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 $250k.
2.2 Facility Profiles
Over 80% of the usable floor space within the FHA portfolio is classed as owned space. FHA has 12 Acute Care
facilities and numerous Residential Facilities/Treatment Centres. All the Acute Care and a large percentage of
the Residential Facilities/Treatment Centres are classed as our Core facilities and are detailed in the table below.
The energy management and maintenance of the majority of these core sites falls under the responsibility of the
Page | 5
Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM) team. There are three P3 buildings and two lease buildings,
where energy management is not directly covered by LMFM, but they are included in our core list for
monitoring purposes.
Table FH-2: Site Energy Profile (2014)
Size¹
(m²)
Acute Facilities
3
Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center
Burnaby Hospital
Chilliwack General Hospital
Delta Hospital
Eagle Ridge Hospital
Fraser Canyon Hospital
Langley Memorial Hospital
Mission Memorial Hospital
Peace Arch Hospital
Ridge Meadows Hospital
Royal Columbian Hospital
4
Surrey Memorial Hospital
Totals
Residential & Other Facilities
6
Arbutus Place
7
Chilliwack Health Centre
Creekside Withdrawal Management Centre
Czorny Alzheimer Centre
Fellburn Care Centre
Heritage Village
3
JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre
Maple Ridge Treatment Centre
MSA Cottage & Worthington Pavilions
Parkholm Place
Queens Park Care Centre
Timber Creek
6
Yale Road
Totals
62,258
47,920
29,206
13,284
24,392
7,673
38,125
21,384
44,457
23,238
65,552
118,540
496,029
Size¹
(m²)
1,640
2,976
2,729
6,393
4,045
5,776
19,941
2,323
5,047
3,582
16,074
4,539
4,912
79,977
Annual
Annual
Energy
Energy Cost
Consumption
($)
2
(ekWh)
34,585,068
1,715,960
26,417,367
1,390,367
19,373,931
1,069,698
6,197,082
380,373
14,523,884
871,307
3,742,270
232,153
25,400,618
1,402,122
9,459,181
636,112
19,623,244
1,067,023
15,181,142
846,066
35,628,153
1,974,022
66,071,946
4,026,140
276,203,887
15,611,344
5
BC Hospital Benchmark
Annual
Annual
Energy
Energy Cost
Consumption
($)
2
(ekWh)
564,042
41,991
1,255,461
95,256
1,217,898
86,821
1,835,547
127,554
1,882,772
115,668
2,456,956
158,986
9,649,948
718,800
798,039
61,021
2,857,268
169,918
1,101,761
82,668
6,133,314
390,544
1,885,820
119,455
2,200,026
134,305
33,838,852
2,302,988
5
BC Residential Benchmark
Energy
Intensity
(ekWh/yr/m²)
555.5
551.3
663.4
466.5
595.4
487.7
666.2
442.3
441.4
653.3
543.5
557.4
556.8
519
Energy
Intensity
(ekWh/m²)
343.9
421.9
446.3
287.1
465.5
425.4
483.9
343.5
566.1
307.6
381.6
415.5
447.9
423.1
300
Rank
7
6
11
3
9
4
12
2
1
10
5
8
Rank
4
7
9
1
11
8
12
3
13
2
5
6
10
Notes:
1. Sizes are interior gross areas excluding parkades and interstitial space.
2. Actual consumption not adjusted for weather.
3. P3 facilities.
Page | 6
4.
5.
6.
7.
Includes new Critical Care Tower (CCT) which is a P3 building.
Benchmarks published in the 2008 NRCan Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey Report.
Leased facilities, but maintained by LMFM
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
Acute
ECU/Other
270
0
301
0
148
90
58
92
175
75
10
50
0
0
206
245
29
200
25
119
191
258
86
162
171
0
422
0
636
0
2,728
1,291
Patient Beds
42
0
16
72
109
100
60
20
47
140
606
Patient
Cases
18,408
15,386
8,384
3,584
6,378
533
0
11,268
1,368
406
9,445
984
7,221
24,969
30,924
139,258
Patient
Days
118,995
127,154
57,593
24,342
67,101
3,633
0
77,721
12,819
9,481
76,474
32,636
65,119
177,457
239,246
1,089,771
Daycare
Cases
13,774
12,161
10,609
8,746
9,712
0
22,587
10,364
1,090
0
7,101
0
8,721
16,296
10,562
131,723
Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center
Burnaby Hospital
Delta Hospital
JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre
1
MSA Cottage & Worthington Pavilions
Peace Arch Hospital
1
2
Totals
Residential Sites
Arbutus Place
Chilliwack Health Centre
Creekside Withdrawal Management Centre
Heritage Village
Maple Ridge Treatment Centre
Parkholm Place
Timber Creek
Yale Road
2
Total
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 | 7
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
LR
1
CBR
2
EMA Session Date
Diagnostic Tool
23-Jun-08
One-2-Five
Score
1.09
% Change
N/A
Score
N/A
% Change
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 | 8
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 | 9
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 | 10
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 | 11
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 | 12
1.
2.
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.
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 | 13
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 | 14
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 | 15
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 | 16
Note:
1.
2.
ARH base year is 2009
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
CAC & CWP base years are 2008
CHC base year is 2009
MRTC base year is 2011
JPOC base year is 2012
AP & TC base years are 2013
YR base year is 2014
Page | 17
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.
2.
ARH base year is 2009
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 | 18
Figure FH- 11: Residential & Other Site Natural Gas EUI
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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 | 19
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 | 20
Figure FH- 13: Residential & Other Site Total EUI
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
1
FHA Core Site
Parkholm Place (PP)
(FCH)
EUI Variance
-42.6%

-37.2%

Rationale
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.
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 | 21
FHA Core Site
1
(FCC)
EUI Variance
-28.3%



Heritage Village (HV)
-25.4%



Mission Memorial
Hospital (MMH)
-21.0%






Timber Creek (TC)
-17.0%

Queens Park Care
Centre (QPCC)
-15.9%



Czorny Alzheimer
Centre (CAC)
-14.3%



Rationale
with double glazing.
In 2014, 11 x C.Op. ECMs were implemented.
In 2010/11, a major lighting retrofit including controls and delamping 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
New LEED buildings constructed and occupied in 2008 and
2011.
The 2008 building was optimized by in-house engineers in
2010.
Page | 22
FHA Core Site
1
EUI Variance

Burnaby Hospital (BH)
- 12.7%


Peace Arch Hospital
(PAH)
-11.1%





Delta Hospital (DH)
-9.2%




Surrey Memorial
Hospital (SMH)
-8.4%




Royal Columbian
Hospital (RCH)
-7.3%




Rationale
The 2011 building included, more efficient boiler plant and
BMS control, LED Lighting and lighting controls and
improvements in natural ventilation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 23
FHA Core Site
1
EUI Variance


Maple Ridge Treatment
Centre (MRTC)
-6.4%

Cottage & Worthington
Pavilions (CWP)
-2.2%





Langley Memorial
Hospital (LMH)
-1.2%



Chilliwack General
Hospital (CGH)
-0.8%




JP Surrey Out-Patient
Care & Surgical Centre
(JPSOCSC)
2.9%

(ERH)
5.5%



Rationale
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
No implemented ECMs or projects since FMO took over the
maintenance of this building in 2011, but FMO have
implemented an improved maintenance regime.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 24
FHA Core Site
1
EUI Variance

Ridge Meadows
Hospital (RMH)
6.6%






Chilliwack Health
Centre (CHC)
10.0%


Arbutus Place
10.4%


Abbotsford Regional
Hospital & Cancer
Center (ARHCC)
13.6%



Creekside Withdraw
Unit (CWU)
26.7%



Rationale
A C.Op. investigation was completed in 2013 and 12 x ECMs
2015.
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
2015.
In addition, several projects have been identified and approved
for 2015 as part of the CNCP funding.
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.
Leased building occupied by FHA.
Small site with low priority, but further investigation is
required with LMFM Real Estate Team.
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.
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 | 25
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
Burnaby Hospital (BUH)
Chilliwack General Hospital (CGH)
Chilliwack Health Centre (CHC)
Cottage & Worthington Pavilions (CWP MSA)
Creekside Withdraw Unit (CWU)
Czorny Alzheimer Centre (CAC)
Delta Hospital (DEH)
Type of Study and Year
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
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
No studies (building added to FHA portfolio in 2008)
Lighting Study in 2010
Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013
COp Investigation Study in 2013
No studies (new building opened in 2007)
COp Investigation Study planned for 2016
Full Lighting Study in 2010
Page | 26
Core Site
Eagle Ridge Hospital (ERH)
Fellburn Care Centre (FCC)
Fraser Canyon Hospital (FCH)
Heritage Village (HV)
Langley Memorial Hospital (LMH)
Maple Ridge Treatment Centre (MRTC)
Mission Memorial Hospital (MMH)
Parkholm Place (PP)
Thermal Energy Study in 2008
Revised Thermal Energy Study in 2010
Steam Trap Study in 2011
Insulation Survey in 2011
Planned Fortis Custom Study in 2015
Full Energy Audit in 2003
Revised Partial Energy Audit in 2008
Lighting Study in 2010
Planned Fortis Custom Study in 2015
Fortis Custom Study in 2015
New Construction Energy Study for ECU building in 2013
Exterior Lighting Review in progress
COp Investigation Study in 2014-15
Page | 27
Core Site
Peace Arch Hospital (PAH)
Queens Park Care Centre (QPCC)
Ridge Meadows Hospital (RMH)
Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH)
Surrey Memorial Hospital (SMH)
Boiler Plant Study in 2008
Full Energy Audit in 2003
Revised Partial Energy Audit in 2008
Chilled Water Study in 2008
Steam Trap Study in 2011
External Parkade Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2009
New Construction Energy Study for CCT building in 2012
New Construction Energy Study in 2011
Timber Creek (TC)
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 | 28
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 | 29
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 | 30
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 | 31
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 | 32
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 | 33
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 | 34
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 | 35
Page | 36
Page | 37
Figure FH- 20: Site Reduction EUI Goals
Note:
1.
2018 EUI is based upon the estimated savings in the 3 year project plan
Page | 38
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 | 39
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 | 40
5. PLANNED ACTIONS
To enable FHA to continue to reduce our Energy Use Intensity (EUI) the following actions will be undertaken:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
Promotion of Energy Conservation via our Policy & Strategic Framework;
Site specific energy studies and audits will continue to be carried out on inefficient processes and plant;
Energy conservation measures will be identified and technical projects implemented;
Energy awareness and educational programs will be implemented;
Existing buildings, including those maintained by our P3 partners, will continue to be optimized;
Energy efficient solutions will be included for new construction and major renovations;
Renewable energy solutions will continue to be investigated;
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 | 41
Table FH-15: Planned Energy Studies for 2015 - 2017
Core Site
Abbotsford Regional Hospital
Burnaby Hospital
Fellburn care Centre
Heritage Village
JP Out-Patient Care & Surgical Ctr.
Peace Arch Hospital
Type of Study/Review/Assessment
C.Op. Investigation Study
Fortis Custom Study
Fortis Custom Study
C.Op. (v2 - pilot) Investigation Study
Fortis Custom Study
Fortis Custom Study
Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment
Fortis Custom Study
Fortis Custom Study
Fortis Custom Study
Chilled Water Plant Study
C.Op. (v2) Investigation Study
C.Op. (v2) Investigation Study
Fortis Custom Study
New Construction Energy Study
Fortis Custom Study
Target Year
2016
2017
2015
2016
2016
2016
2016
2015
2015
2016
2016
2015
2015
2017
2015
2015
2017
2017
2015
2016
2015
2017
Status
Potential
Potential
Complete
Pending
Potential
Pending
Potential
Complete
In Progress
Potential
Potential
Complete
In Progress
Potential
Complete
Complete
Potential
Potential
Complete
Pending
Complete
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 | 42
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 | 43
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 | 44
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 | 45
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 | 46
website provides a medium to share and promote a community commitment towards specific carbon cutting
actions and environmental conservation.
“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
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
Page | 47
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.
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.
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.
Page | 48
Table FH-19: C.Op. Program Sites
Page | 49
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 | 50
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 Recommissioning, 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 | 51
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 | 52
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 | 53
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 | 54
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 drainback 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 | 55
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 GeoThermal 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 | 56
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 | 57
6. APPENDIX
6.1 EMA Year 5 Cover Letter
Page | 58
6.2 Energy Data
6.2.1 Electrical
Page | 59
Page | 60
Page | 61
6.2.2 Fuel (Natural Gas)
Page | 62
Page | 63
Page | 64
6.2.3 Total Energy
Page | 65
Page | 66
Page | 67
6.3 Completed Energy Projects
Page | 68
Page | 69
Page | 70
Page | 71
Page | 72
Page | 73
6.4 EES Design Guidelines for New Construction & Major Renovation projects
Page | 74
Page | 75
Page | 76
Page | 77

2015-16_ FH_SEMP_Final

Transcription

Similar documents

Zero Net Energy Project Profile

FHA Update for REALTORS

Cultural Venues

7 Case Study, JCT600 Car showroom, Castleford

TAVARUA ISLAND, FIJI

SLIGO VIEW APARTMENTS….. 641 Houston Avenue Takoma Park

Mark Levin`s January 27, 2016 Membership Presentation

Iluminate Your Style

Google at 4 Cambridge Center

Quest Edge personal noise dosimeter brochure