Fraser Health Strategic Energy Management Plan 2018‐19 (SEMP)
The FH 2018‐19 (F19) SEMP is a foundational document of the Energy & Environmental OUR PASSION Sustainability within Lower Mainland Facilities Management and reports on past, current, and forecasted energy consumption and conservation projects within Fraser OUR MANDATE Health. OUR POTENTIAL
Issued: Feb 2019 Energy Management Team: Energy Manager: Jeson Mak Energy Coordinator: Vacant Energy Specialist: Cathy McDonald
Executive Support VP Facilities Management & Chief Finance Officer: Brenda Liggett Chief Facilities Management Officer: Paul Becker Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee (ESAC)
Director, Corporate Services and Energy & Environmental Sustainability: Robert Bradley
Signature:
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 2. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT ...... 7 2.1 LOWER MAINLAND CONSOLIDATION ...... 7 2.2 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY TEAM ...... 7 2.3 GREENCARE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ...... 8 3. OUR COMMITMENT ...... 10 3.1 ENERGY POLICY ...... 10 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY POLICY ...... 10 3.3 ALIGNMENT WITH LMFM AND HEALTH OUTCOMES ...... 11 3.4 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT ...... 12 3.5 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN ...... 14 4. UNDERSTANDING OUR SITUATION ...... 17 4.1 ORGANIZATION PROFILE ...... 17 4.2 ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTS (EMA) ...... 18 4.3 FACILITY PROFILES ...... 19 4.4 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ...... 21 4.5 UTILITY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS ...... 21 4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 23 4.7 SITE PERFORMANCE ...... 26 4.8 SITE OPPORTUNITIES ...... 30 5. OUR ACTIONS ...... 32 5.1 OVERALL GOALS & OBJECTIVES ...... 32 5.2 SITE REDUCTION EUI GOALS & TARGETS ...... 33 5.3 ENERGY EXPENDITURE & AVOIDANCE ...... 34 5.4 BAU ANALYSIS ...... 35 5.5 PLANNED ACTIONS ...... 36 6. APPENDICES ...... 43 6.1 APPENDIX A: BC HYDRO SEMP REQUIREMENT FORM ...... 44 6.2 APPENDIX B: EES COMMUNICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY EXCERPTS ...... 46 6.3 APPENDIX C: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ...... 48 6.4 APPENDIX D: EMA COVER LETTER ...... 59 6.5 APPENDIX E: SITE DETAILS ...... 72 6.6 APPENDIX F: 3 YEAR ENERGY DATA ...... 73 6.7 APPENDIX G: SITE TARGETS CHARTS ...... 76 6.8 APPENDIX H: ENERGY STUDY LIST ...... 78 6.9 APPENDIX I: COMPLETED PROJECT LIST ...... 83
Page | 1
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
List of Tables
Table 1: LMHA Key Issues, Priorities, & Drivers ...... 13 Table 2: FH Key Stakeholders ...... 15 Table 3: FH Profile ...... 18 Table 4: EMA Results ...... 19 Table 5: Site Energy Profile (2017) ...... 20 Table 6: Performance Metrics ...... 21 Table 7: Actual Utility Consumption and Cost for 2017 ...... 21 Table 8: Actual Energy Consumption since 2007 ...... 22 Table 9: Adjusted 2017 Energy Consumption against the 2007 Base Year ...... 23 Table 10: Actual Non Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from owned building portfolio ...... 25 Table 11: Owned building portfolio Core Site Floor Area and Carbon Emission Intensity ...... 25 Table 12: Annual EUI Performance & Targets ...... 33 Table 13: Energy Costs since 2009 ...... 34 Table 14: F19 Project Funnel ...... 38 Table 15: F20-F21 Project Funnel ...... 39 Table 16: Example of Process for Energy Management Requirements ...... 40 Table 17: FH Major Projects ...... 41
Page | 2
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
List of Figures
Figure 1: FH Core Site EUI Performance & Targets ...... 4 Figure 2: FH Energy Cost and Cumulative Avoidance since 2009/10 ...... 5 Figure 3: FH Energy Business as Usual Report ...... 6 Figure 4: EES and Corporate Services Organization Chart ...... 7 Figure 5: GreenCare Logo ...... 8 Figure 6: EES Strategic Framework ...... 8 Figure 7: LMFM Client Outcomes ...... 11 Figure 8: Conceptual Relationship between Energy Management and Health ...... 12 Figure 9: Energy Management Stakeholder Map ...... 14 Figure 10: EES Project Planning and Delivery process...... 16 Figure 11: Fraser Health Region & Hospitals ...... 17 Figure 12: Actual Utility Cost for 2017 ...... 22 Figure 13: 2017 GHG Reported In-Scope Carbon Emissions ...... 24 Figure 14: 2017 Breakdown of Building Emissions ...... 24 Figure 15: 2017 Acute Care Site BEPI – Energy Use Intensity (EUI) ...... 26 Figure 16: 2017 Residential & Other Care Site BEPI - Energy Use Intensity (EUI) ...... 27 Figure 17: 2017 Acute Care Site BEPI – EUI Patient Days ...... 28 Figure 18: 2017 Building Energy Cost Performance Indicators ...... 29 Figure 19: Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI ...... 30 Figure 20: Non-Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI ...... 31 Figure 21: Annual EUI Performance & Target ...... 32 Figure 22: Site Reduction EUI Goals for the SMH ...... 33 Figure 23: Energy Costs since 2009 ...... 34 Figure 24: Energy Savings Cumulative Cost Avoidance since 2009 ...... 35 Figure 25: Energy Consumption BAU Report...... 36 Figure 26: RCH Redevelopment site ...... 41
Page | 3
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Environmental sustainability is a Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM) key client outcome, which supports the three year Fraser Health (FH) Strategic and Operational plan to improve patient outcomes and make our operations more sustainable. Energy Management and Conservation is a key focus area from our Energy and Environmental Sustainability (EES) Strategic Framework. Commitment: The LMFM EES team is committed to reducing the exposure to energy cost escalations, demonstrating environmentally responsible development and supporting the public sector emission reduction legislation. Setting goals and energy reduction targets is vital to measuring the success of this Strategic Energy Management Plan (SEMP). o The short term target of the F19 fiscal year is to reduce the overall energy consumption by 2.5% (made up of 1.7 GWh of electricity and 27,000 GJ of natural gas). This will be achieved by implementing the technical projects and initiatives as detailed in section 5.5, utilizing the approved energy project budget of $2.5m. o The long term target is to reduce the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) by 15% compared to the 2007 baseline by 2020. The downward trend in EUI from 2007 can be seen below in figure 1. By focusing on individual site energy reduction opportunities, the 15% target is expected to be achieved before 2020.
FH Core Site Annual Energy Performance and Targets 800
700 618 618 611 605 599 593 581 568 600 556 550 544 537 531 525 ) 2 500
393 400 386 361 373 369 366 356 336 318 319 323
300 BEPI (ekWh/yr/m BEPI 200
100 224 225 222 216 216 221 225 222 222 217 222
- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Adjusted ELEC BEPI Adjusted Nat Gas BEPI Target
Figure 1: FH Core Site EUI Performance & Targets
Page | 4
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Energy Cost Management: The FH utility cost in 2017 was over $18m and 88% of this cost was related to energy (electricity and natural gas) consumption, with water and sewer making the remaining 12% of the cost. The overall cost for energy is 4.5% higher than 2016, and the majority of this can be attributed to the BC Hydro rate increase of 3.5%. With no significant portfolio changes planned, we expect this trend to maintain in 2018 with a 3% hydro rate increase in 2018. The energy expenditure would have been significantly higher without the implementation of energy reduction initiatives and the cumulative cost avoidance. Since the F10 fiscal year, as shown below in figure 2, the cumulative cost avoidance is estimated at over $9.3m.
Figure 2: FH Energy Cost and Cumulative Avoidance since 2009/10
To determine how effective our Energy Management program has been to date, we use a “Business As Usual” (BAU) scenario to analyse the effect of energy conservation projects and initiatives. As seen below in figure 3, the actual consumption increase from the base year of 2007 is 29%, with a portfolio growth of 37% (includes MSA General Hospital). There has been a 13% energy consumption avoided, due to energy projects. Without our comprehensive Energy Management program, the increase in consumption would have been 42%.
Page | 5
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Figure 3: FH Energy Business as Usual Report
Planned Actions: To ensure that we continue the momentum and build on the Energy Management program successes, the following summary of planned actions will be undertaken:
o Reaffirm leadership support and governance o Continue to report on energy performance and update targets o Identify and implement energy conservation initiatives in our existing building portfolio o Improve LMFM integration for new projects
These four action items will drive our SEMP towards the 2020 target and minimize the environmental impact from our healthcare facilities on the health of the populations and patients that we serve.
Page | 6
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
2. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT 2.1 Lower Mainland Consolidation 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, 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.
2.2 Energy and Environment Sustainability Team Consolidation enabled the creation of an Energy and Environmental Sustainability (EES) team 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 FHA, PHC, PHSA and VCH in a unified manner for greater impact. The EES Team includes individuals focused on Energy Management for each Health Authority, as well as individuals focused on broader sustainability topics such as waste reduction.
Figure 4: EES and Corporate Services Organization Chart
Page | 7
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
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.
2.3 GreenCare Strategic Framework GreenCare is the visual brand identity representing the wide range of sustainable work that the EES team facilitates. Our GreenCare logo, as shown below in figure 5, is the hub for environmental sustainability in the Lower Mainland healthcare organizations.
Figure 5: GreenCare Logo
The GreenCare Sustainability Strategic Framework, as shown in Figure 6, was developed to align our organizational goals across all internal and external stakeholders. This refreshed framework will be used as a tool to ensure the advancement of the EES work is coordinated & collaborative; reaffirming GreenCare as the primary vehicle for achieving improved health and environment related outcomes over the long-term.
Figure 6: EES Strategic Framework
Page | 8
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
A roadmap to achieving embedded sustainability across all stakeholders and identifying the ownership of this vision must be shared. The GreenCare sustainability Strategic Framework is summarised below: • GreenCare mission: The center core of our work - Health and Wellness of the populations that we serve. • Goals: To create o Healthy communities o Healthy environment o Healthy facilities, including practices and systems. • Focus Areas: GreenCare’s current areas of action used to embed sustainability in healthcare & support the GreenCare goals. These are: o Smart Energy and Water o Zero Waste and Toxicity o Active and Clean Transportation o Culture Change o Regenerative Design • Partners and Collaborators: GreenCare needs the senior leadership in this wide range of stakeholders to actively embed sustainability into their respective departments’ decision-making processes and operations at all levels. These stakeholders’ services are categorized as Support, Operational, Administrative, External, and Clinical. • Principals: Accountable, Engaged, Resilient, and Restorative principals are foundational to all of the GreenCare work
With Smart Energy and Water being a key focus area, this Strategic Energy Management Plan (SEMP) will address the aspects of energy management in a holistic, integrated, and strategic manner. It is recognized that there are many important key stakeholders who have influence on the specific priorities within the broad topic of Energy Management. However there are synergies between all GreenCare focus areas. For example, the work of EES team members who focus on “Culture Change”, stakeholder engagement and capital planning processes provide key support to achieving the energy reduction goals outlined in this SEMP. BC Hydro plays an important role in supporting our commitment to Energy Management and this document is a core deliverable as part of their Energy Manager program, as outlined in Appendix A: BC Hydro SEMP Requirement Form.
Page | 9
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
3. OUR COMMITMENT This section summarizes FHA’s commitment to Energy Management, as part of a broader commitment to environmental stewardship, and shows how this is aligned with broader organizational goals. This section also outlines the other key stakeholders who have a significant impact or influence over Energy Management, and describes the benefits of Energy Management relevant to each stakeholder group.
3.1 Energy Policy An Energy Policy for FH was drafted in 2009. But following the Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM) consolidation in 2010, where an Energy and Environmental Sustainability (EES) department was formed, it was agreed that an Environmental Sustainability Policy would be created to provide an over- arching commitment to sustainability, including energy management.
3.2 Environmental Sustainability Policy An Environmental Sustainability Policy was created in 2010 by the LMFM EES department. It was revised in 2014 and reviewed in 2018. The policy provides a high level statement of commitment for efforts to improve the sustainability of the four Lower Mainland health organizations: Fraser Health, Providence Health Care, Provincial Health Services and Vancouver Coastal Health.
The Lower Mainland health organizations are mindful of the importance of developing a triple bottom- line approach to sustainability, one that balances ecological, societal and economic imperatives and recognizes the link between a healthy environment and a healthy population.
“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” – quote from approved FH Environmental Policy
The key policy details are focused on developing sustainable operations, facilities, and partnerships as summarised below: a. Sustainable Operations: - adopt sustainable best practices and processes in all operations and departments; - identifying ways to minimize the consumption of non-renewable energy, water, and solid/organic/hazardous waste products; - achieve the legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets contained in relevant provincial legislation. b. Sustainable Facilities: - incorporate environmentally-sound techniques (energy and water conservation, space utilization management) in their decision-making processes; investments will balance quality, cost and sustainability; - long-term life cycle costs of capital will be assessed. c. Sustainable Partnerships: - Progressive partnerships to expand capacity and integrate sustainability into healthcare operations, initiatives and programs - Partnerships will be strengthened through a commitment to open and transparent decision-making processes that balance economic, social and ecological imperatives.
Page | 10
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
As stated in the policy, the “EES department has a responsibility to promote and develop a sustainability strategy, including a Strategic Energy Management Plan”. The Environmental Sustainability Policy was approved by FH in September 2010 and revised in March 2014. The policy was reviewed in July 2018, as part of the four year mandatory review process.
3.3 Alignment with LMFM and Health Outcomes Environmental Sustainability is one of the six LMFM key client outcomes. It is recognized that the environmental impact from healthcare facilities, operations and services influences the health of the populations and patients they are meant to serve.
Figure 7: LMFM Client Outcomes
These client outcomes support the three year FH Strategic and Operational plan to improve patient outcomes and make our operations more sustainable. The goals and objectives from FH plan are aligned with the Ministry of Health overall intentions for the BC health system and include the underlying principle of providing patient and family centre care that continues to drive policy, accountability, service design and care delivery. The three specific goals are: 1. Support the health and well-being of British Columbians 2. Deliver a system responsive and effective health care service across British Columbia 3. Ensure value for money
Energy Management is clearly aligned with the third goal and combined with our environmental sustainability initiatives, is also contributes to the first goal. As detailed in our EES GreenCare Strategic Framework, the center core of our work is Health and Wellness of the populations that we serve.
Page | 11
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
There is a significant and growing body of evidence available that links the impacts of buildings (from the energy they consume to the materials used in their construction) on people (both their occupants as well as local and global populations affected by their impacts). The impacts of buildings span time (short term impacts versus long term impacts) and space (from occupants inside the buildings to the broader global population impacted by climate change).
Figure 8 below, provides a simple visualization of the relationship between Energy Management and Health, including how it relates to some of the other key priorities. This visual is intended to convey the fact that Energy Management can contribute to the goals of each of the other spheres around it.
Ecological Health
Human & Population Health
Climate Resiliency & Adaptation
Carbon & Financial Management
Energy Managment
Figure 8: Conceptual Relationship between Energy Management and Health
3.4 The Importance of Energy Management Understanding our organizational drivers and how they related to energy is important to ensure that our SEMP is aligned with overall organizational objectives and priorities. In reality there are multiple stakeholders whose drivers influence the importance of Energy Management, such as the Provincial Government of British Columbia’s GHG Reduction Targets Act (passed in 2007).
The primary and obvious drivers for energy management within the health authority include: - Improve Human Health - Financial Management - Asset and Risk Management
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
Page | 12
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
key issues and priorities facing the health authorities, a more complete list of potential drivers for energy management can be developed. Table 1 provides a non-exhaustive selection of examples of how energy projects can help to support various health authority priorities.
Table 1: LMHA Key Issues, Priorities, & Drivers
The Energy Management Stakeholder map, shown below in Figure 9, summarizes the link and priorities of each key 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, but remain a priority when selecting projects.
Page | 13
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Figure 9: Energy Management Stakeholder Map
There is a need to balance these sometimes complementary and sometimes competing priorities. The focus of the SEMP is to address the aspects of energy management in a holistic, integrated, and strategic manner. Being able to frame and communicate the benefits of Energy Management in ways that are relevant to the stakeholder in question is imperative.
3.5 Stakeholder Engagement Plan The EES team, led by the Sustainability Consultants, developed a Communication and Engagement strategy in 2014. The strategy was developed to ensure engagement and communications tools and practices are maximized and leveraged to their full potential in the achievement of the EES team’s goals and targets.
A segment of this strategy can be viewed in Appendix B: EES Communications & Engagement Strategy Exert. The Energy Management team have utilized this strategy to improve relationships and collaboration with our stakeholders by identifying gaps, barriers, and effective responses. The summary table below provides a list of the main Energy Management key stakeholder groups.
Page | 14
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Table 2: FH Key Stakeholders
3.5.1 Internal Stakeholders All the internal stakeholders listed in the table 2 require a varied level of engagement. The LMFM Facilities Maintenance and Operation (FMO) teams are arguably one of the most important and influential stakeholders, when it comes to optimizing the energy performance of our existing buildings. We rolled out a FMO Engagement Strategy several years ago and the success of this pilot at Peace Arch Hospital has resulted in the strategy being adopted at six other FH sites and this will continue to be rolled out to all main core sites in FH.
The LMFM Planning and Projects (P&P) teams are our new focus group. FH has seen a significant growth in portfolio over the last few years and will continue to do so. For example, the RCH campus has been approved for a multiphase redevelopment, including a new Mental Health building, Energy Centre and Acute Care tower. These types of large redevelopment projects are initiated by the needs of the Healthcare system and are part of the site Master Planning process. Our involvement in the project process is shown in figure 10 below. We have developed an EES Design Guideline document that will be used as a reference tool for our Project and Planning teams moving forward for all future projects. An engagement strategy for this group is currently being developed following Figure 10 - EES Project Planning and Delivery process.
Page | 15
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Figure 10: EES Project Planning and Delivery process
The other internal stakeholders, with the exception of the FH Executives and Finance teams, may have less influence on our Energy Management program, but they are still considered to be an important stakeholder and one that we will continue to engage and build relationships.
3.5.2 External Stakeholders The collaborative partnerships with external stakeholders will continue to evolve. Both BC Hydro and Fortis BC are certainly key stakeholders and maintaining our strong relationships with their Key Account Managers (KAM) will allow us to continue to: • Optimize program support and incentive opportunities • Utilize the expertise of their engineering teams • Engage in dialogue over programs changes and challenges The continued engagement with the BC Government’s stakeholder groups, including Ministry of Health (MoH) and the Climate Action Secretariat (CAS), will allow us to: • Be an influential part of the Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) working group • Develop an understanding of the role of various government stakeholders and their priorities • Actively participate in roll out of a new carbon emissions reporting tool
A full list of stakeholders and specific individuals within each of the stakeholder group can be seen in Appendix C: List of Stakeholders.
Page | 16
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
4. UNDERSTANDING OUR SITUATION
4.1 Organization Profile Fraser Health (FH) is one of 5 Regional Health Authorities in British Columbia. FH covers an area that stretches from Burnaby to White Rock to Boston Bar and serves nearly 1.8 million people. It is the fastest growing health authority in British Columbia and has more than doubled in population since 1986. Between 2016 and 2021, the population is expected to increase by 8.5% to over 1.9 million people.
Figure 11: Fraser Health Region & Hospitals FH is a major force in health care and more importantly, we are a community of 25,000 people who share a common goal. The goal of ensuring every resident in the health authority has access to quality care when they need it. Our quality health care services range from acute care hospitals to community- based residential, home health, mental health and public health services.
Our Purpose To improve the health of the population and the quality of life of the people we serve.
Our Values Respect, caring and trust characterize our relationships.
Our Commitment - To be passionate in pursuit of quality and safe health care. - To inspire individual and collective contribution. - To be focused on outcomes, open to evidence, new ideas and innovation. - To embrace new partners as team members and collaborators. - To be accountable.
Page | 17
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Table 3: FH Profile Organization Profile P E Sector Health O P Number of Number of Employees 18,332 FTE 25 (~ 80 buildings) L Core Sites E . Patient comfort levels & clinical needs. . Code and Standard requirements. . Funding availability. O Energy Management . Lack of resources dedicated to EM program. P Issues / Obstacles . Uncontrollable variables i.e. weather, new equipment, plug load E . Lack of control on P3 & leased sites. R . Lack of sub-metering for accurate monitoring and verification. A . Increasing portfolio1. T . Internal Gross Floor Area Performance Metrics I . Patient Treatment Days O Business Year Apr 1 – Mar 31 (Budget & Maintenance Cycle as per Business Year) N Maintenance Budget F18 $26m F19 $26.0m F20 $26.5m F21 $27.0m S Utilities Budget F18 $17.5m F19 $18.0m F20 $18.5m F21 $19.0m
Operations Project F18 $3.0m F19 $3.0m F20 $3.0m F21 $3.0m Budget2 Energy Projects Budget3 F18 $2.5m F19 $2.75m F20 $3.0m F21 $3.25m Notes: 1. Increase in actual energy consumption, but potentially lower EUI, as newer buildings are generally more energy efficient. 2. Energy projects are sometimes “piggy-backed” onto Operations Projects (aka MCIP) 3. The Energy Projects Budget includes: a. Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) b. Green Revolving Funding (GRF) c. Energy Operations funding d. Utility Incentives In addition to the budgets listed in the table there is a FM Capital Project Budget and these funds are available via an application process. 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.
4.2 Energy Management Assessments (EMA) FH has undergone six 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.
Page | 18
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Table 4: EMA Results LR1 CBR2 EMA Session Date Diagnostic Tool Score % Change Score % Change 23-Jun-08 One-2-Five 1.09 N/A N/A N/A 12-Aug-09 One-2-Five 1.39 27.5% N/A N/A 18-Apr-11 SEGEMA 1.53 10.1% 0.60 N/A 23-May-13 SEGEMA 1.71 11.8% 0.68 -13.3% 05-Dec-14 SEGEMA 1.71 0% 0.62 8.8% 12-Jun-17 SEGEMA 1.81 5.7% 0.67 -7.6% Notes: 1. LR is the Level of Rigor with a maximum score of 4.00. 2. CBR is Component Balance Rating (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 June 12, 2017 and based upon the input from the LMFM team, including the Chief Facilities Management Officer, the results indicated that our LR Score was 1.81 and CBR was 0.67.
The LR is an indication of our current overall energy management business practices profile and a score of 1.81 signals that the organization has established a strategic approach to energy management and is integrating energy management initiatives into standard operations. Our aim for the next EMA session will be to continue to increase the LR score to greater than 2.0 (operationally integrated approach to energy management).
The CBR of 0.67 indicates that current business practices associated with managing the energy function in the organization is still somewhat unbalanced. It was discussed during the session, that there is unbalance even within the LMFM team, notably with energy management best practices and Planning and Projects team. The aim for next EMA session will be to reduce the CBR to 0.5 (somewhat balanced).
Based upon the results of the June 12, 2017 EMA session, our focus moving forward should be directed towards: 1. Leadership and Governance 2. Vision and Strategy 3. Targets, Accountability and Reporting 4. Organizational Integration 5. Planning Discipline
The outcomes and the action task related to these recommendations will be included within this SEMP. The EMA cover letter is included in Appendix D: EMA Cover Letter.
4.3 Facility Profiles Over 80% of the usable floor space within the FH portfolio is classed as owned space. FH has twelve Acute Care facilities and over fifteen Residential Facilities/Treatment Centres. All the Acute Care and a
Page | 19
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
large percentage of the Residential Facilities/Treatment Centres are classed as our Core facilities and are detailed in the table 5 below. The energy management and maintenance of the majority of these core sites falls under the responsibility of the 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 5: Site Energy Profile (2017)
Notes: 1. Sizes are interior gross areas excluding parkades and interstitial space. 2. Actual consumption not adjusted for weather. 3. P3 facilities. 4. Includes new Critical Care Tower (CCT) which is a P3 building. 5. Leased facilities, but maintained by LMFM
Page | 20
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Further details of the twelve Acute Care sites and the new JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre are shown in Appendix E: Site Details.
4.4 Key Performance Indicators As detailed in the Organizational Profile, the performance metrics to be used for this SEMP will be Internal Gross Floor Area and Patient Treatment Days. Table 6: Performance Metrics
Year Metric 2007 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Internal Gross Floor Area 396,166 520,065 571,479 571,479 571,691 571,691 (m2) Patient Treatment Days Unknown 1,055,113 1,089,771 1,087,671 1,026,468 1,007,321 Note: 1. Patient data not available for 2007 base year. 2. 2007 floor area data does not include the old MSA General Hospital as the energy use data is unknown and thus could not be included in the KPI
The energy and cost measured against internal gross floor area is considered the main Key Performance Indicator. As shown above in table 6, FH has had a significant portfolio increase since the 2007 base year. Patient Treatment days is core business metric and can be used to compare performance, but is only applicable to Acute Care sites.
4.5 Utility Consumption and Costs All of the twenty five core sites use electricity and natural gas as primary energy sources. For the 2017 calendar year, the energy consumption breakdown and utility cost breakdown percentages are shown below in table 7. These are similar to the previous years, but we are starting to see an increase in electricity use over natural gas, as the recent new buildings are being constructed with heat pumps, which are used as a primary heating source. Table 7: Actual Utility Consumption and Cost for 2017
Note: 1. Sewer water not metered separately & the consumption is based upon 80% of the metered water consumption.
Page | 21
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Figure 12: Actual Utility Cost for 2017 In 2017, we saw a total energy consumption increase based upon actual data. Compared to 2016, electricity use increased by 1.9%, natural gas increased by 11.6%, resulting in an overall energy consumption increase of 7.4%. As seen in table 8 below, the total 2017 consumption is nearly 29% higher than the 2007 base year consumption. However, considering the FH portfolio growth of core sites has increased by approximately 40% since 2007, an increase in energy would be expected. Note that the 2007 base year was selected to align with the BC Governments Climate Natural base year as part of their Climate Change Accountability Act (title amendment from “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act” in May 2018).
Table 8: Actual Energy Consumption since 2007
Since this base year, the following new buildings have been added to the FH portfolio: - 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
Page | 22
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
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 9 provides details of the corrected consumption for weather temperatures, using regression analysis, against the 2007 base year.
Table 9: Adjusted 2017 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 weather normalization for electricity is generally fairly minimal, due to building energy use and the heating climate in the Lower Mainland. However, with extreme hot summer months that require above normal cooling loads and with more buildings utilizing heat pump technology, weather adjustment for electricity will become more relevant in our energy use analysis moving forward. Weather normalization for natural gas is a key component to analyse the use and the differences between actual and adjusted use, as seen in the table above, can be significant. Full energy use data for all core sites can be viewed in Appendix F: 3 Year Energy Data.
4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In accordance with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act, passed in 2007, FH is committed to reducing its carbon emissions. The Act legally required all public sector organisations to be carbon neutral beginning 2010. FH 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 absolute emissions reported in the 2017 calendar year was 40,547 tC02e and this represents an increase of 11.2% compared to 2016. The carbon offset cost that FH paid to the Ministry of Health was $1,064,516 including taxes and a very minor offset adjustment from 2016. By far, FH biggest emissions source is related to our “Stationary Fuel Combustion and Electricity” from our buildings. As seen below in figure 13, this makes up nearly 97% of our overall reported in-scope emissions.
Page | 23
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
FHA 2017 GHG In-Scope Emissions
1,123 tCO2e 100 tCO2e 2.8% 0.2 %
39,324 tCO2e 97.0 %
Mobile Fuel Combustion (Fleet and other mobile equipment)
Stationary Fuel Combustion and Purchased Energy (Buildings)
Supplies (Paper)
Figure 13: 2017 GHG Reported In-Scope Carbon Emissions
The majority of the building emissions are due to fuel combustion. Of the 39,324 tonnes of C02 emitted in 2017 from our buildings, as shown below in figure 14, 83.6% was due to owned fuel plant. Only 3.8% was due to electricity from our owned facilities. The remaining 12.6% of the building emissions were from our leased facilities.
Figure 14: 2017 Breakdown of Building Emissions Notes: 1. Emissions from our buildings are not normalized (adjusted) for weather and they are based upon actual energy consumption.
Page | 24
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Since the 2007 base year, the overall non-adjusted emission from our core buildings ONLY has increased by 15.5%, but the FH core building portfolio has increased by nearly 37%. Thus, the 2017 carbon emission per m2 of Core site floor space has actually reduced by 20% compared to 2007.
Table 10: Actual Non Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from owned building portfolio
Table 11: Owned building portfolio Core Site Floor Area and Carbon Emission Intensity
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 3. 2007 floor area data does not include the old MSA General Hospital
Page | 25
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
4.7 Site Performance To allow us to compare the energy performance of the FH facilities, the KPI metrics, detailed in section 4.4 will be used. This data will allow us to create Building Energy Performance Indicators (BEPI) and they are used as an initial review tool to compare performance of similar type of facilities. For this review, the FH facilities will be split into two types: - Acute Care Facilities - Residential/Other Care facilities
4.7.1 BEPI - Acute Care Facilities The overall FH Energy Use Intensity (EUI) for all Acute Care sites in 2017 was 565.9 ekWh/yr/m². This represents a 1% increase compared to 2016 and 9.3% decrease since the 2007 base year. None of the 12 sites, as seen from the chart in figure 15 below, had lower EUI than the NRCan benchmark of 438 ekWh/yr/m². There is a wide range of energy performance ranging from 446 for Delta Hospital compared to the 696 for Langley Memorial Hospital.
Figure 15: 2017 Acute Care Site BEPI – Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Notes: 1. Benchmarks published in the 2013 NRCan Survey of Commercial and Institutional Energy Use: Buildings 2009. 2. The EUI is not corrected for weather.
Page | 26
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
4.7.2 BEPI - Residential & Other Care Facilities The overall FH Energy Use Intensity (EUI) for the Residential & Other Care sites in 2017 was 462.9 ekWh/yr/m². Although this represents a 2% increase compared to 2016, the 2017 EUI is 15.4% below 2007 base year. Six of the thirteen sites, as seen from the chart in figure 16, had a lower EUI than the NRCan benchmark of 400 ekWh/yr/m². Similar to the Acute Care site BEPI, there is wide range of energy performance, ranging from 315 for the Czorny Alzheimer Centre compared to 624 for Cottage & Worthington Pavilions.
Figure 16: 2017 Residential & Other Care Site BEPI - Energy Use Intensity (EUI) Notes: 1. Benchmarks published in the 2013 NRCan Survey of Commercial and Institutional Energy Use: Buildings 2009. 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 and there are no other similar facilities in the FH region. Thus, they have only been included in this section to provide a visual indication of their EUI.
As previously mentioned, these two BEPI charts provide an initial indication of the sites where energy reduction opportunities may exist and further investigation is required. A full understanding of the sites and healthcare services that it provides is required for a more in depth review.
Page | 27
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
4.7.3 BEPI (Patient Days) - Acute Care Facilities There is numerous patient data that can be used as an additional metric, such as bed numbers, patient cases etc. For acute care facilities, patient treatment days are is most accurate metric, as this would account for the bed use.
2017 Acute Care Patient Treatment Days BEPI
Electrical Intensity Natural Gas Intensity
Fraser Canyon Hospital… 390 855
Mission Memorial… 283 321
Langley Memorial Hospital… 105 250
Chilliwack General… 109 216
Peace Arch Hospital (PAH) 107 207
Abbotsford Regional… 114 172
Surrey Memorial Hospital… 134 127
Burnaby Hospital (BUH) 76 180
Delta Hospital (DEH) 98 143
Royal Columbian Hospital… 91 140
Ridge Meadows Hospital… 87 135
Eagle Ridge Hospital (ERH) 99 123
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 ekWh/yr/patient days
Figure 17: 2017 Acute Care Site BEPI – EUI Patient Days Notes: 1. The annual energy consumption is not corrected for weather.
From viewing the chart above in Figure 17, it appears that Fraser Canyon Hospital (FCH) and Mission Memorial Hospital (MMH) are poor performing sites when using this metric. However, the BEPI chart in figure 15 would contradict this, as these two hospitals are in the top three very with respect to energy use against floor area. Both FCH and MMH are considered smaller “community” type hospitals and have limited Acute Care services. Residential type Care accounts for a greater percentage of the service care in these facilities, so they could effectively be included into the Residential/Other Care types of facilities for BEPI comparisons. In fact, most of the “medium” and “large” Acute Care facilities have Residential and Extended Care services, so using patient data as a metric can be misleading and should only be used to support the internal gross floor area KPI.
Page | 28
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
4.7.4 BECPI – All Sites Another performance indicator tool which can be used for initial reviews are Building Energy Cost Performance Indicators (BECPI). These are useful for a quick cost comparison and are used in FH for short term utility budget forecasting.
There are several interesting points from the chart below in figure 18. Firstly, the electricity to natural gas ratio is significantly different between consumption and cost. As seen in table 7, the consumption is a 40:60 ratio of electricity compared to natural gas, whereas the cost is a 70:30 ratio of electricity compared to natural gas. This varies from site to site and is dependent upon type of facility and building services equipment within. The Acute sites have the higher cost intensity, generally because of the intense electrical equipment, such as MRI machines and the high air flow requirements. The standout site from the chart below is undoubtedly the JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre. Although this site relies on heat pump technology for its prime heating requirements, the electrical cost intensity is above expectation.
Figure 18: 2017 Building Energy Cost Performance Indicators
Page | 29
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
BEPI and BECPI charts have their limitations when using to compare different types of facilities. There are many variables with healthcare facilities which need to be considered and even then, to compare one facility to another could be misleading. Thus, most accurate way of comparing the energy performance of a site is to compare its weather adjusted Energy Use Intensity performance against itself over a period of time.
4.8 Site Opportunities FH 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 studies and projects undertaken during this time. To determine if the individual FH sites are becoming energy efficient and to continue to identify energy conservation opportunities, we need to compare the energy use performance of the site against a base year. The weather adjusted Energy Use Intensity (EUI) for 2017 is compared to the base and previous calendar years. The base year is 2007 unless stated otherwise.
As presented below in figure 19, all Acute Care sites except Abbotsford Regional Hospital have seen a reduction in their EUI compared to the base year. The EUI variances range from 2% increase (Abbotsford Regional Hospital) to 40% decrease (Fraser Canyon Hospital).
900 Acute Sites EUI Performance 0.05
800 0 -5% -0.05 700
-9% -13% -12% -0.1 600 -5% -9% -2% -10% -0.15 -40% 2% 500 -16% -20% -0.2 400 -0.25 300 -0.3 200 -0.35 Energy BEPI (ekWh / Yr / m2) / Yr / (ekWh BEPI Energy
100 -0.4
0 -0.45 SMH RCH BUH PAH LMH CGH ERH RMH DEH MMH FCH ARHCC Base Year Electricity BEPI (kWh / m²) Base Year Fuel BEPI (ekWh / m²) 2016 Electricity BEPI (kWh / m²) 2016 Fuel BEPI (ekWh / m²) 2017 Electricity BEPI (kWh / m²) 2017 Fuel BEPI (ekWh / m²) Figure 19: Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI Notes: 1. The EUI is corrected for weather. 2. The percentages variances shown are comparing 2017 to the 2007 base year.
Page | 30
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
The performance variances for the Residential and Other type of healthcare sites (non-Acute), shown below in figure 20, display a varying degree of energy management success. Four of the thirteen sites have actually seen an increase in their EUI compared to their base year, ranging from 3% (Chilliwack Health Center) to 26% (Jim Patterson Out-Patient and Surgical Care Center). The reasons for these increases will vary from site to site. One of these four sites are leased sites (Arbutus Place) and is only included for energy monitoring. The Jim Patterson Out-Patient and Surgical Care Center is a P3 site and to date, we have had very limited involvement. However, as part of our Planned Actions we will be addressing this energy performance.
Non-Acute Sites EUI Performance 800 0.3
700 0% 0.2 26% 600 -29% 3% 0.1
500 -1% -17% 23% 0 -36% -31% -6% 400 -30% 24% -6% -0.1 300
-0.2 200 Energy BEPI (ekWh / Yr /m2) Yr / (ekWh BEPI Energy 100 -0.3
0 -0.4 JPOC QPCC TCB HV MSA-CW FCC CGH-PP CAC CHC MRTC CWMC AP YR Base Year Electricity BEPI (kWh / m²) Base Year Fuel BEPI (ekWh / m²) 2016 Electricity BEPI (kWh / m²) 2016 Fuel BEPI (ekWh / m²) 2017 Electricity BEPI (kWh / m²) 2017 Fuel BEPI (ekWh / m²) Figure 20: Non-Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI Notes: 1. The EUI is corrected for weather. 2. The percentages are variances between the 2017compared to the 2007 base year.
The charts in figures 19 and 20 certainly provide a clear indication of our success to date, but clear defined actions are essential to continue the momentum to achieve our short and long term energy and GHG conservation goals.
Page | 31
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
5. OUR ACTIONS
5.1 Overall Goals & Objectives The current target objective for FH is to reduce the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of the core sites by 15% by 2020 (relative to a 2007 baseline). The reduction target for each year has been surpassed; with the exception of 2013 and 2017. In 2013, there was a higher than expected electricity usage for the large construction projects at Surrey Memorial Hospital and Mission Memorial Hospital. In 2017, there was also a higher than expected gas usage due to equipment issues in Royal Columbian Hospital and Surrey Memorial Hospital.
FH Core Site Annual Energy Performance and Targets
800
700 618 618 611 605 599 593 581 600 568 556 550 544 537 531 525 ) 2 500
393 386 400 361 373 369 366 356 336 318 319 323
BEPI (ekWh/yr/m BEPI 300
200
100 224 225 222 216 216 221 225 222 222 217 222
- 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Adjusted ELEC BEPI Adjusted Nat Gas BEPI Target
Figure 21: Annual EUI Performance & Target
As seen below in table 12, a EUI reduction of 11.9% has been achieved in 2017 compared to the base year and this on track to the 12% target.
Page | 32
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Table 12: Annual EUI Performance & Targets
To enable FH 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.
5.2 Site Reduction EUI Goals & Targets 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. 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 core space area. These 7 sites will continue to be monitored and the appropriate LMFM contacts notified if there are variances from base year EUI’s.
Although numerous energy reduction projects have been undertaken across the core sites, further energy reduction opportunities have been identified and will be implemented. The following chart provides an example of performance and potential EUI reduction for the largest core site in FH: Surrey Memorial Hospital.
Figure 22: Site Reduction EUI Goals for the SMH Notes: 1. 2018 EUI is based upon the estimated savings in the 2 year project plan 2. 2020 EUI is based upon further potential and master planning
Page | 33
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
As previously mentioned, two of our large cored sites (Abbotsford Regional Hospital and JP Outpatient Care and Surgical Centre) are P3 sites and energy management does not fall directly under the LMFM – EES team. That said we have engaged the General Manager of both sites and began discussions for potential energy management initiatives. In fact, we have recently partnered with FM service provider for the JP Outpatient Care and Surgical Centre and this building has just completed the investigation phase of the BC Hydro Continuous Optimization program.
As eluded to in section 4.7, each healthcare site is different and contains many variables which influence the energy consumption. These targets have been set based upon future opportunities and site master planning. Target charts for all applicable sites can be seen in Appendix G: Site Targets Charts.
5.3 Energy Expenditure & Avoidance Even though a large number of energy conservation projects and initiatives have been implemented since 2009, the annual energy expenditure has increased by 26%. Table 13: Energy Costs since 2009
Our electricity costs have increased by 91% since 2009 due to significant changes in the FH portfolio and increased utility rates. The natural gas cost has reduced by 30% since 2009 mainly due to commodity prices fluctuates driven by many factors, such as supply and demand.
Figure 23: Energy Costs since 2009
Page | 34
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
The energy expenditure would have been significantly higher without the implementation of energy reduction initiatives. As seen below in figure 24, the cumulative cost avoidance since the 2009 is estimated at approximately $9.3m.
Figure 24: Energy Savings Cumulative Cost Avoidance since 2009
The avoided cost is calculated for each year by multiplying the estimated savings from completed energy conservation projects by the prevailing annual rates for electricity and gas respectively. The annual rates for this purpose are calculated by dividing the annual cost by annual consumption. Cumulative cost avoidance is based on the previous year avoided costs plus the current year avoided costs.
To account for a level of energy saving persistence (energy drift change due to operations etc.), the projects are classed as either “high” or “low” persistent projects. For “low” projects, the annual savings are reduced by 10 percent every year after the third year of savings. This is a general rule of thumb approach for a high level regional review. Depending upon the type, some projects include monitoring and verification process using Energy Management Information Software and this allows us to accurately monitor persistence
5.4 BAU Analysis An alternative approach to understand how effective our Energy Management program has been to date is to analyze the “Business As Usual” (BAU) scenario. This can be analyzed by taking into consideration portfolio growth and calculating the energy consumption without the implementation of energy conservation projects and initiatives.
Page | 35
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Figure 25: Energy Consumption BAU Report
As shown figure 25, there is a 13% increase avoided due to energy projects, but effectively without the energy management program, the increase in consumption would have been 42% taking into consideration portfolio growth.
5.5 Planned Actions To enable FHA to continue advancing our Energy Management program we will continue to build on the successes from previous strategies and combine with the recommendations from the 2017 Energy Management Assessment (EMA). The following actions will be undertaken: i. Reaffirm leadership support and governance; ii. Continue to report on energy performance and update targets; iii. Identify and implement energy conservation initiatives in our existing building portfolio; iv. Improve LMFM integration for new projects.
5.5.1 Leadership and Governance FH has a long standing commitment to energy conservation and the previous Strategic Energy Management Plans have guided the energy conservation program for 10 successful years. However, there have been some recent organization changes, both in FH senior executive and LMFM, which has led to some potential ambiguity around what may be considered success in the area of energy
Page | 36
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
management; how to best allocate limited resources to achieve expectations; and the organizational milestones needed to keep key stakeholder groups engaged in achieving the desired progress.
Reviewing the FH 3 year Operational Plan and ensuring that SEMP objectives are aligned with the relevant key business drivers will serve to reinforce the importance of energy conservation. As detailed in section 3.4, the primary drivers include:
- Improve Human Health - Financial Management - Asset and Risk Management
Obtaining executive endorsement of this 3 year SEMP, as part of the key focus area in the EES Strategic Framework, will support the tangible aspects of the energy management program and provide necessary governance success implementation.
5.5.2 Reporting and Targets Reporting energy use and performance to key stakeholders has been in place since the commencement of the energy manager program. Quarterly and annual reports are predominantly created from an energy use database (E-Factor). In addition, an Energy Management Information Software (EMIS) tool, installed as part of the BC Hydro C.Op. program, is also utilized to monitor real energy use and provide supplementary reporting. This tool has been particular useful for the Facilities Maintenance and Operations (FMO) Engagement roll out and will continued to be deployed as an effective communication tool for the site FMO energy meetings.
Sofi Enterprise software tool is being rolled out as part of the BC Government Carbon Reporting replacement initiative and they are committed to having this available for 2019 reporting year. To improve resource efficiency, the existing E-Factor utilities database needs to be replaced and utilise Sofi assuming that the Energy Management module will be included in this roll out. This will greatly enhance our process to analyze and benchmark energy performance for our sites and the entire FH portfolio. In addition, it can also provide value ads, such as advanced forecasting and project management tools. This new software solution will enable the energy management team to meet and refine the FH overall and site energy targets.
Overall and site reduction energy targets have already been determined up to 2020. These targets have been set based upon future opportunities and site master planning. As identified in the 2017 EMA session, “stretch” targets will be considered that go beyond savings achieved through retrofit and replacement projects. Behaviour and operational opportunities have always been included as part of the overall energy conservation initiatives, but they have not been converted into individual targets. It is recognized that the FMO teams can strongly influence energy use and building performance, hence the start of the FMO Engagement program back in 2014. Moving forward, operational energy targets will be discussed with the FMO teams with the overall objective of promoting greater accountability for the site FMO Managers. BC Hydro's EnergyWise Network program was incorporated into the 2017 and 2018 new FMO sites’ engagement development for professional consulting and additional resources.
5.5.3 Energy Conservation Initiatives Since the commencement of the BC Hydro’s Energy Manager Program in 2008, over 140 energy conservation projects have been completed. The large majority of implemented energy projects were
Page | 37
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
identified through an energy study process. A full list of planned F19-F21 studies, including custom, C.Op program, New Construction modelling studies, plus those completed since 2009 can be seen in Appendix H: Energy Study List.
This key process allows us determine priorities and allocate funding accordingly. In addition to the studies, 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.
Implemented projects along with other energy reduction initiatives have resulted in energy savings of over 36 eGWh and an estimated cost avoidance of nearly $9.3m. A list of all completed projects can be viewed in Appendix I: Completed Project List.
With the continuation of BC Governments Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP), combined with the successful Green Revolving Fund (GRF), plus utility incentives and operating funds, the annual energy initiative budget for the next 3 fiscal years is estimated to range from $2.75m to $3.25m. In addition, there are internal capital funds available to supplement larger projects. The following tables provide a summary of projects planned for the next 3 years.
Table 14: F19 Project Funnel
Page | 38
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Table 155: F20-F21 Project Funnel
The savings from the majority of projects planned for F20 and F21 fiscal years are subject to study results. Thus they are estimated based upon the potential site opportunities and previous study examples. These projects will be refined and updates when the studies are completed. The Continuous Optimization (C.Op.) projects are part of the BC Hydro / Fortis BC C.Op. program, which was launched in 2008 to encourage building owners and operators to take advantage of re-commissioning. The success of the program has resulted in a round 2 offer and FH will be fully utilising this program for all 10 qualified sites over 5 year phased timeline.
In addition to studies and projects, awareness and education strategies will continue. The Green + Leaders initiative, including the energy reduction campaign, will be going through a refresh. The program lead with support from the EES team is currently looking at options and an updated revised program is expected to be launched in F19 / F20. FH signed up to the BC Hydro Energy Wise Network program in 2018. Three behaviour change campaigns were initiated, including: The behaviour change campaign will be focused at FMO (Facilities Maintenance and Operations) staff Engagement. This campaign is actually a continuation of a program that was initially launched in 2013. Not only has this engagement process provided the FMO teams with a better understand of their sites energy use and impact; it has also been a valuable tool identifying energy reduction opportunities. Seven sites have
Page | 39
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
been engaged through this process and over the next 4 years, all other large energy consuming cores sites will be added to this very successful strategy.
5.5.4 LMFM Integration for New Projects New Construction and Major Renovations of existing facilities are essential to ensure FH continues to deliver an effective and efficient health service to its rapidly growing community. Since 2007, the FH portfolio has increased by 37% (includes MSA General Hospital), with the construction of new facilities such as the Critical Care Tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital.
A new building does not always constitute to an energy efficient building. In fact, to meet code and other patient comfort requirements, some new facilities can have higher Energy Use Intensity (EUI) than older healthcare buildings. Thus, providing energy management input and guidance throughout all phases of the project from Business Case to Operation is a key objective for the Energy & Environmental Sustainability (EES) team.
To support this initiative the EES team has created a Design Guidelines for New Construction & Major Renovation projects. The intent for this guideline is to ensure health care related new construction and major renovation projects are built to the highest standard of human / environmental health, performing efficiency, and financial investment. The Guideline includes requirements, such as mandatory credits for the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification rating system. In addition, Energy and Carbon Benchmark Summaries are being developed as a supplement to enable the setting of realistic energy and carbon target as early as the Business Plan stage. Guidelines are dynamic and latest version can be seen in our EES GreenCare Community site. See following link:
One of the recommendations from the recent Energy Management Assessment session (see section 4.2), was to develop a process to improve the LMFM project integration. The latest version of the dynamic Guidelines now includes a Process section and the table below highlights some of these processes and where they need to be embedded into the various phases of the projects. Table 16: Example of Process for Energy Management Requirements
Page | 40
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
There are 13 major construction and renovation projects, as detailed below in table 17, currently in progress across the FH region. The EES team are engaging with the Planning and Project teams on these projects with the intent of utilizing the EES Design Guidelines where applicable. The Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH) Redevelopment Phase 1 provides a good example of this engagement process. The EES team provided input during the Procurement phase, which led to specific energy targets and the requirement of specific LEED credits, such as Enhanced Commissioning. In addition, this project also qualified for the BC Hydro New Construction program and is currently going through the modelling study process. Table 177: FH Major Projects
The phased RCH Redevelopment project, shown below, includes a new energy centre for the complete campus.
Figure 26: RCH Redevelopment site
Page | 41
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
It has also provided a unique opportunity to partner with the City of New Westminster (CoNW) and connect to a potential District Energy System (DES). The two DES options being considered are: a Biomass Boiler plant or a Sewer Waster Heat Recovery plant. If approved, the CoNW owned and operated DES, will provide provide RCH with hot water to satisfy the base heating and hot water loads at a cost effective utility rate. The added benefit of receiving hot water from the “renewable” DES will be a significant reduction in carbon emissions for the RCH site.
With further FH site redevelopment plans approved for the next 10 years, such as Burnaby Hospital, it is essential that we continue to build partnerships with our key stakeholders and provide guidance for site master planning process.
Page | 42
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6. APPENDICES
Page | 43
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.1 Appendix A: BC Hydro SEMP Requirement Form
Energy Manager Name Jeson Mak 1 yrs been a BCH funded Energy Manager Organization Name Fraser Health Authority 10 yrs had a BCH funded Energy Manager BC Hydro file number Date submitted to BC Hydro February 28, 2019
Key Requirements SEMP page number(s) BC Hydro to where this is included complete 1. Executive Summary 4-6 1-2 pages summary that includes a) Energy Target (short term / long term) 4 b) kWh target for current year 4 c) Budget approval for current year plan 4 d) Progress to date on longer term goal 4&6 e) Benefits of energy savings (ie avoided costs, 5 payback, improved comfort) 2. Our Commitment 10-16 a) Alignment with organization’s goals 11 b) Stakeholder engagement plan 14-16 3. Situational Analysis 17-30 a) Organizational Profile 17&18 b) EMA Outcome 19 c) BEPI of buildings in portfolio 25-28 d) Explanation of strategy for prioritizing projects (such as: target sites with highest energy 25-30 consumption, highest BEPI, highest number of occupants) e) Opportunities / Challenges to be taken into 18, 26-30 account for energy management plan 4. Our Actions 31-41 a) Current year project list that outlines kWh saved and cost per project and total for year 37 & Appendix I (including stakeholder engagement plan) b) Budget approval for plan (or explanation of 37 how/ when funding will be in place) c) Potential projects outlined for the following 1-2 38 years d) Show how projects contributes to achievement 34 of energy target e) Progress on 5 EMA critical items 35-41
Page | 44
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
5. Executive Sign Off Signature on current plan, or update summary Title Page if mid- way through a multi-year plan Tracking
For BC Hydro to complete
Date received by BC Hydro
Shared with FortisBC
Reviewed by
Date sent to customer with requested revisions
Date coach assigned
Date next draft submitted
Date approved
Uploaded to xRM & completed task
Coaching Comments For Improvements (Not required for sign-off)
Consultant assigned Date: Duration Date: Duration Date: Duration
Page | 45
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.2 Appendix B: EES Communications & Engagement Strategy Excerpts The following is a screen capture of some relevant excerpts from the EES Team Communication and Engagement Strategy; the full strategy is available upon request.
Page | 46
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 47
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.3 Appendix C: List of Stakeholders
KEY STAKEHOLDERS Department Name Position
Lower Mainland Consolidation (LMC) Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM) Vacant VP, Corporate Services & Facilities Paul Becker Chief Facilities Operating Officer LMFM, Executive Alan Grossert ED, Facilities Planning & Projects Orin Jonat ED, Business Performance and Corporate Support Stef Schiedon ED, Facilities Management Mauricio Acosta Director, Corporate Services & Energy & Environment Sustainability Robert Bradley Energy Manager (FHA) Alex Hutton Energy Manager (PHSA & PHC) Kori Jones Energy Manager (VCHA) Glen Garrick Sustainability Manager Jeson Mak Energy Coordinator Sabah Ali Energy Coordinator Olive Dempsey Sustainability Cordinator (Green + Leaders) Sonja Janousek Sustainability Coordinator (Reduction and Recycling Coordinator) Helen Williams Sustainability Coordinator (Reduction and Recycling Coordinator) LMFM, Corporate Services & Energy & Eiselle Omampo Sustainability Coordinator (TDM) Environment Sustainability Alan Lin Energy Specialist (VCHA) Richard Wellwood Energy Specialist (PHSA & PHC) Vacant Energy Specialist (FHA Peter Beckett Manager, Facilities Management Procurement Al Kroeker Facilities Procurement Coordinator Elizabeth Zhu Facilities Procurement Coordinator Jason Jew Facilities Procurement Coordinator Al Kroeker Facilities Procurement Coordinator Carolyn Wiens Faculties Construction Procurement Buyer Vacant Manager, Operating Business Affairs Page | 48
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Darilyn Kehler Facilities Capital Project Planner Dawn Chan Business Analyst, FMO Vacant Business Analyst, FMO Joanne Stich Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning Ken Mah Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning Larry Harder Director, Capital Projects Sharon Petty Director, Capital Projects Sue Melnychuk Director, Clinical Planning and Lean Design Paul Frew Director, Space Management & Service Request Don Mah Manager, Capital Projects (FHA) Phil Delory Manager, Capital Projects (FHA) George Desierto Project Manager LMFM, Facilities Planning & Projects George Cawdry Project Manager Sarah Thorn Project Manager Martin Wright Project Manager Marie Fontaine Manager, Facilities Planning Mary Lynn Nicodemus Sr. Facilities Planning Michael Wilson Sr. Facilities Planning Deanna Clarke Capital Project Planner Angela Bennett Capital Project Planner Scott Staniui Capital Project Planner Sher Flemming Director, Real Estate, Leasing & Property Management vacant Director, Land & Capital Develpoment Glen Kirk Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning vacant Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning Maureen Chow Manager, Property & Asset Management Nick Bodie Manager, Real Estate & Leasing LMFM, Real Estate, Leasing & Property Adrianna Appel Manager, Real Estate & Leasing Management Cam Frewin Manager, Real Estate & Leasing Rolando Catapia Manager, Property & Asset Management Corey Thomas Manager, Property & Asset Management Stephen Cheung Capital Project Planner Carol Jones Property & Asset Management Coordinator Jennifer Jarvis Property & Asset Management Analyst Vacant Director, Technical Services LMFM, Technical Services Marc Dagneau Manager, Integrity Programs
Page | 49
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Mark Doucette Sr. Manger, Regional Initiatives Rob Kolen Project Manager (FMBOK) Maureen Haddock Project Planner (FMBOK)
Fraser Health Authority (FHA) Michael Marchbank President and Chief Executive Officer Brenda Liggett Chief Finance Officer vacant VP, People & Organization Develpoment FHA Executive (Corporate Services) Naseem Nuraney VP, Communication & Public Affairs Philip Barker VP, Planning, Information & Analytics Paul Becker VP, Corporate Services & Facilioties Management (interim) FHA/LMFM FMO Mitch Weimer Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations RCH Tim Kelly Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Alan Kelly Maintenance Supervisor (Mech) Pat O'Neil Maintenance Supervisor (Elec) Dan Brownell Maintenance Supervisor (Build) Rick Kormendy Chief Engineer SMH Steve McTaggart Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Paul Niemi Maintenance Supervisor (Build) Gary Reitmayer Maintenance Supervisor (Elec) Sergey Fedorchuk Maintenance Supervisor (Mech) Ryan Vidulich Maintenance Supervisor Amar Girn Chief Engineer BUH Risto Tauriainen Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Roy Miller Maintenance Supervisor Ned Causevic Chief Engineer CGH/FCH/HV Sean Barber Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Ian Barager Maintenance Supervisor (FCH) Dennis Cross Maintenance Supervisor (HV) Rick Knocke Maintenance Supervisor (CGH) Carter Waugh Chief Engineer ERH/QPC/FCC Darrell Vanderbaaren Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Don Tessier Chief Engineer / Supervisor (ERH) Wayne Pleasants Maintenance Supervisor (QPC/FCC) LMH Barry Lilburn Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Martin Donaldson Maintenance Supervisor
Page | 50
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Mark Gushulak Chief Engineer PAH/DEH Andy Emes Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Ron Stevenson Maintenance Supervisor (PAH) Marwan Zubair Chief Engineer & Maintenance Supervisor (DEH) Derrick Zehner Chief Engineer (PAH) RMH/MMH/MSA Rick Molnar Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Shaun Keech Chief Engineer & Maintenance Supervisor (RMH) Rod Silliphant Maintenance Supervisor (MMH/MSA) REGIONAL Stefan Manea Technical Coordinator REGIONAL Brad Donovan Technical Coordinator REGIONAL Dave Simmons Maintenance Supervisor REGIONAL Linda Williams Admin Assistant Karen Teixeira Financial Manager Brian Scudder Manager, Facilities Capital Planning FHA Finance Mildred van Rooyen Financial Analyst Nadia Vivanco Coordinator, Accounts Payable Barry Pearce Chief Project Officer (RCH Redevelopment) Sarah Thorn Project Manager (Mental Health Building) Martin Wright Project Manager (Energy Centre) RCH Redevelopment Project Team Randy Elgert Jennifer Sue Partnerships BC
Other Stakeholders and Partners Tanya Stockman Manager Environmental Sustainability Interior Health Carolyn Reid Energy Manager Deanna Fourt Director, Energy Efficiency & Conservation Albert Boulet Energy Manager Joe Ciarniello Energy Manager Island Health Kevin Ramlu Energy Specialist Björn Richt Energy Specialist Claudette Poirier Energy Specialist Ken Vanaaslst Director, Capital Planning & Support Services Northern Health Les Sluggert Energy Manager Keith Hebert Energy Specialist
Page | 51
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Ministry of Health Joel Palmer Executive Director Capital Service Branch Dragana Perisic Director, Capital Policy and Planning James Postan Director Capital Services Ministry of Environment Climate Action Susanna Laaksonen- Secretariat (CAS) Craig Head, Climate Action Secretariat Timothy Lesiuk Executive Director and Chief Negotiator Suzanne Spence Executive Director Louise Takeda Sr. Policy Analyst Orest Maslany Director, Carbon Measurement & Reporting, Shared Services BC Ministry of Environment Ron Colquhoun Senior Business Analyst Carbon Measurement and Reporting Branch Michael Creekmore Business Analyst (CMRB) Stuart Hall Business Analyst Mark Borland Business Analyst
Jeff Whitson Senior Key Account Manager - Health Sector Paul Seo Program Manager - Power Smart Marketing Heather Scholefield Program Manager, Commercial Marketing Conservation and Energy Management Oscar Ceron Program Manager of NCP Graham Henderson Senior Program Manager, C.Op. BC Hydro Tommy Yim Energy Management Engineer (C.Op.) Bojan Andjelkovic Senior Energy Management Engineer, NCP Nikolay Smirnov Lighting Specialist, NCP Justine Lepage Parco 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 Energy Solutions & Key Accounts Manager, Private Healthcare Jenelle Anderson Marketing Coordinator FortisBC Jaime-Ann Lew Program Specialist Ramsay Cook Program Manager Commercial Buildings Alicia Hearn Conservation Education and Outreach Jermin Hsieh Energy Utilization Manager, Market Development
Department Name Position
Page | 52
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Lower Mainland Consolidation (LMC) Lower Mainland Facilities Management
(LMFM) Brenda Liggett Facilities Management & Chief Financial Officer Paul Becker Chief Facilities Operating Officer Sharon Petty ED, Facilities Management Planning & Projects Gavin Blackstock ED, Strategic Development & Real Estate LMFM, Executive Mauricio Acosta ED, Business Performance and Corporate Support vacant ED. Facilities Maintenance & Operations Ken Mah Chief Project Officer & ED Noor Esmail Chief Project Officer & ED Tom Sparrow Chief Project Officer & ED Robert Bradley Director, Energy & Environment Sustainability Jeson Mak Energy Manager (FHA) Alex Hutton Energy Manager (PHSA & PHC) Kori Jones Energy Manager (VCHA) Glen Garrick Sustainability Manager Vacant Energy Coordinator Sabah Ali Energy Coordinator Sarah Currie Sustainability Consultant (Green + Leaders) Sonja Janousek Sustainability Consultant (Reduction and Recycling Coordinator) LMFM, Corporate Services & Energy & Environment Marianne Dawson Sustainability Consultant (Reduction and Recycling Coordinator) Sustainability Vacant Sustainability Coordinator (TDM) Jacob Vu Energy Specialist (VCHA) Richard Wellwood Energy Specialist (PHSA & PHC) Cathy McDonald Energy Specialist (FHA Peter Beckett Manager, Facilities Management Procurement Al Kroeker Facilities Procurement Coordinator Elizabeth Zhu Facilities Procurement Sr. Consultant Jason Jew Facilities Procurement Coordinator Lew Shrubsole Facilities Procurement Coordinator Shin Yun-Young Facilities Procurement Buyer Page | 53
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Rodrigo Lecompte Manager, Operating Business Affairs Darilyn Kehler Facilities Capital Project Planner Dawn Chan Business Analyst, FMO Joanne Stich Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning Ken Mah Director, Facilities (Strategic) Planning Don Mah Director, Planning and Capital Projects Kelly Duke Manager, Capital Projects (FHA) Kevin Pan Manager, Capital Projects (FHA) Paul Frew Director, Space Management & Service Request Wendy Peare Project Manager Jeff Bergen Project Manager LMFM, Facilities Planning & Projects George Desierto Project Manager George Cawdry Project Manager Sarah Thorn Project Manager Marie Fontaine Manager, Facilities Planning Mary Lynn Nicodemus Sr. Facilities Planning Michael Wilson Sr. Facilities Planning Deanna Clarke Capital Project Planner Angela Bennett Capital Project Planner Maureen Chow Director, Real Estate, Leasing & Property Management Gavin Blackstock Director, Land & Capital Development Glen Kirk Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning Maureen Chow Sr. Manager, Real Estate & Strategic Planning Maureen Chow Manager, Property & Asset Management Nick Bodie Manager, Real Estate & Leasing LMFM, Real Estate, Leasing & Property Management Adrianna Appel Manager, Real Estate & Leasing Cam Frewin Manager, Real Estate & Leasing Rolando Catapia Manager, Property & Asset Management Corey Thomas Manager, Property & Asset Management Stephen Cheung Capital Project Planner Carol Jones Property & Asset Management Coordinator Jennifer Jarvis Property & Asset Management Analyst Page | 54
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Wakako Thomson Director, Asset, Risk & Quality Technical Services Dave Marier Manager, Integrity Programs LMFM, Technical Services Alan Lin Asset Information Manager Brian Postlethwaite Asset Lifecycle Manager
Fraser Health Authority (FHA) Dr Victoria Lee President and Chief Executive Officer Brenda Liggett Facilities Management & Chief Financial Officer Cameron Brine VP, Employee Experience FHA Executive (Corporate Services) Naseem Nuraney VP, Communication & Public Affairs Philip Barker VP, Planning, Information & Analytics Dr. Martin Lavoie VP, Population Health & Chief Medical Health Officer FHA/LMFM FMO Mitch Weimer Director, Facilities Maintenance & Operations RCH Martin Wright Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Jajar Singh Maintenance Supervisor (Mech) Pat O'Neil Maintenance Supervisor (Elec) Hassan Fereidouni Maintenance Supervisor (Build) Rick Kormendy Chief Engineer SMH Steve McTaggart Senior Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Paul Niemi Maintenance Supervisor (Build) Leon Beausoleil Maintenance Supervisor (Elec) Sergey Fedorchuk Maintenance Supervisor (Mech) Ryan Vidulich Maintenance Supervisor Amar Girn Chief Engineer BUH Stefan Manea Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Roy Miller Maintenance Supervisor Ned Causevic Chief Engineer CGH/FCH/HV Sean Barber Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Ian Barager Maintenance Supervisor (FCH) Dennis Cross Maintenance Supervisor (HV) Rick Knocke Maintenance Supervisor (CGH) Derrick Zehner Chief Engineer Page | 55
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
ERH/QPC/FCC Darrell Vanderbaaren Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Don Tessier Chief Engineer / Supervisor (ERH) Wayne Pleasants Maintenance Supervisor (QPC/FCC) LMH Barry Lilburn Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Martin Donaldson Maintenance Supervisor Mark Gushulak Chief Engineer PAH/DEH Ron Stevenson Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Wes Cooper Maintenance Supervisor (PAH) Marwan Zubair Chief Engineer & Maintenance Supervisor (DEH) Amarjit Parmar Chief Engineer (PAH) RMH/MMH/MSA Rick Molnar Manager, Facilities Maintenance & Operations Shaun Keech Chief Engineer & Maintenance Supervisor (RMH) Rod Silliphant Maintenance Supervisor (MMH/MSA) REGIONAL Brad Donovan Technical Coordinator REGIONAL Dave Simmons Project Manager REGIONAL Linda Williams Admin Assistant Karen Teixeira Financial Manager Brian Scudder Manager, Facilities Capital Planning FHA Finance Mildred van Rooyen Financial Analyst Nadia Vivanco Coordinator, Accounts Payable Barry Pearce Chief Project Officer (RCH Redevelopment) RCH Redevelopment Project Team Ron Johannes Senior project Manager Kevin Zembik Senior project Manager
Other Stakeholders and Partners Tanya Stockman Manager Environmental Sustainability Interior Health Carolyn Reid Energy Manager Deanna Fourt Director, Energy Efficiency & Conservation Albert Boulet Energy Manager Island Health Joe Ciarniello Energy Manager Kevin Ramlu Energy Specialist Björn Richt Energy Specialist Page | 56
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Claudette Poirier Energy Specialist Ken Vanaaslst Director, Capital Planning & Support Services Northern Health Les Sluggert Energy Manager Keith Hebert Energy Specialist Joel Palmer Executive Director Capital Service Branch Ministry of Health Dragana Perisic Director, Capital Policy and Planning James Postan Director Capital Services Susanna Laaksonen-Craig Head, Climate Action Secretariat Ministry of Environment Climate Action Secretariat Timothy Lesiuk Executive Director and Chief Negotiator (CAS) Suzanne Spence Executive Director Louise Takeda Sr. Policy Analyst Ministry of Environment Orest Maslany Director, Carbon Measurement & Reporting, Shared Services BC Ron Colquhoun Senior Business Analyst Michael Creekmore Business Analyst Carbon Measurement and Reporting Branch (CMRB) Stuart Hall Business Analyst Mark Borland Business Analyst Jeff Whitson Senior Key Account Manager - Health Sector Paul Seo Program Manager - Power Smart Marketing Program Manager, Commercial Marketing Conservation and Energy Melodie Bell Management BC Hydro Oscar Ceron Program Manager of NCP Graham Henderson Senior Program Manager, C.Op. Tommy Yim Energy Management Engineer (C.Op.) Bojan Andjelkovic Senior Energy Management Engineer, NCP Nikolay Smirnov Lighting Specialist, NCP Jennifer Coulthard Energy Solutions & Key Accounts Manager, Public Healthcare Colin Norman EEC Program Manager, Portfolio Projects Angela Falbo Energy Solutions & Key Accounts Manager, Private Healthcare FortisBC Jenelle Anderson Marketing Coordinator Jaime-Ann Lew Program Specialist Ramsay Cook Program Manager Commercial Buildings Alicia Hearn Conservation Education and Outreach
Page | 57
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Jermin Hsieh Energy Utilization Manager, Market Development
Page | 58
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.4 Appendix D: EMA Cover Letter
Page | 59
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.5 Appendix E: Site Details
Page | 60
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 61
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 62
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 63
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 64
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 65
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 66
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 67
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 68
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 69
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 70
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 71
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 72
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.6 Appendix F: 3 Year Energy Data
Page | 73
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 74
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 75
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.7 Appendix G: Site Targets Charts
Page | 76
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 77
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.8 Appendix H: Energy Study List PLANNED (by Year):
Page | 78
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Completed (by site):
Core Site Type of Study Full Energy Study 2003 Revised Partial Energy Study 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study 2008 External Parkade Fluorescent Lighting Study 2009 Burnaby Hospital (BUH) AHU Coil Survey 2011 C.Op. Investigation Study 2012 Exterior Lighting Study 2014 Fortis Custom Study 2015 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2016 Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Full Energy Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Chilliwack General Hospital (CGH) 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 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2017 No studies (building added to FHA portfolio in 2008) Chilliwack Health Centre (CHC) Fortis Commercial Energy Assessment in 2017 Lighting Study in 2010 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Cottage & Worthington Pavilions (CWP - MSA) COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Creekside Withdraw Unit (CWU) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 No studies (new building opened in 2007) Czorny Alzheimer Centre (CAC) COp Investigation Study 2017 Full Energy Study in 2003 Full Lighting Study in 2010 Steam Trap Survey in 2011 Delta Hospital (DEH) COp Investigation Study in 2012 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 Renewable Energy System Feasibility Study in 2017 Full Energy Study in 2003 Thermal Energy Study in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Revised Thermal Energy Study in 2010 Eagle Ridge Hospital (ERH) AHU Coil Survey in 2010 Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Steam Trap Study in 2011 Insulation Survey in 2011
Page | 79
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 COp Investigation Study in 2014 Hydro Custom Study in 2016 Fortis Custom Study in 2017 Full Energy Audit in 2003 Revised Partial Energy Audit in 2008 Fellburn Care Centre (FCC) Lighting Study in 2010 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2015 Fortis Custom Study in 2016 Full Energy Study in 2003 Thermal Energy Study in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Fraser Canyon Hospital (FCH) Full Lighting Study in 2009 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Fortis Custom Study in 2018 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Heritage Village (HV) Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 Fortis Commercial Energy Assessment in 2017 Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 COp Investigation Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Thermal Energy Study in 2011 Langley Memorial Hospital (LMH) Steam Trap Survey in 2011 Full Lighting Study in 2011 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 Fortis Custom Study in 2015 Maple Ridge Treatment Centre (MRTC) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Full Energy Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Mission Memorial Hospital (MMH) New Construction Energy Study for ECU building in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in progress COp Investigation Study in 2014-15 Fortis Custom Study in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2015 Parkholm Place (PP) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Full Energy Study in 2003 Peace Arch Hospital (PAH) Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008
Page | 80
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
COp Investigation Study in 2010 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Steam Trap Survey in 2011 Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Exterior Lighting Review in 2012 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 Chiller Plant Study in 2017 Fortis Custom Study in 2018 Full Energy Study in 2003 Thermal Energy Study in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Queens Park Care Centre (QPCC) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment in 2012 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Fortis Custom Study in 2018 Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2007 Boiler Plant Study in 2008 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 COp Investigation Study in 2013 Ridge Meadows Hospital (RMH) Exterior Lighting Review in 2014 Fortis Custom Study in 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2015 Interior Lighting Review in 2017 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2017 Full Energy Audit in 2003 Revised Partial Energy Audit in 2008 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Chilled Water Study in 2008 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH) Incandescent Lighting Study in 2011 Thermal Energy Study in 2011 Steam Trap Study in 2011 COp Investigation Study in 2012 Exterior Lighting Review in 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment in 2014 Full Energy Study in 2003 Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2008 Thermal Energy Study in 2011 External Parkade Fluorescent Lighting Study in 2009 AHU Coil Survey in 2011 Surrey Memorial Hospital (SMH) Steam Trap Survey in 2011 New Construction Energy Study for CCT building in 2012 COp Investigation Study in 2014 South Parkade Lighting Review in 2015 Interior Lighting Review in 2017
Page | 81
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Timber Creek (TC) New Construction Energy Study in 2011
Page | 82
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
6.9 Appendix I: Completed Project List
Page | 83
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 84
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 85
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 86
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 87
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 88
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 89
FH Strategic Energy Management Plan
Page | 90