Fraser Health

Strategic Energy Management Plan 2016-17 (SEMP)

The FH 2016-17 SEMP is a foundational document of the Energy & Environmental OUR PASSION Sustainability within Facilities Management and reports on past, current, and forecasted energy consumption and conservation projects within Fraser OUR MANDATE Health. OUR POTENTIAL

Issued: October 12, 2016

Energy Management Team: Energy Manager: Robert Bradley Energy Coordinator: Jeson Mak Energy Specialist: Vacant

Executive Support VP, Corporate Services & Facilities Management (interim): Paul Becker

Director, Corporate Services and EES: Mauricio Acosta

Signature:

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Table of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 2. INTRODUCTION & CONTEXT ...... 6

2.1 LOWER MAINLAND CONSOLIDATION ...... 6 2.2 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY TEAM ...... 6 2.3 GREENCARE STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK ...... 7 3. OUR COMMITMENT ...... 9

3.1 ENERGY POLICY ...... 9 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY POLICY ...... 9 3.3 COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY ...... 10 3.4 THE IMPORTANCE OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT ...... 11 3.5 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN ...... 12 4. UNDERSTANDING OUR SITUATION ...... 14

4.1 ORGANIZATION PROFILE ...... 14 4.2 ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENTS (EMA) ...... 15 4.3 FACILITY PROFILES ...... 16 4.4 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ...... 17 4.5 UTILITY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS ...... 18 4.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 20 4.7 SITE PERFORMANCE ...... 21 4.8 SITE OPPORTUNITIES ...... 25 5. OUR ACTIONS ...... 27

5.1 OVERALL GOALS & OBJECTIVES ...... 27 5.2 SITE REDUCTION EUI GOALS & TARGETS ...... 28 5.3 ENERGY EXPENDITURE & AVOIDANCE ...... 29 5.4 BAU ANALYSIS ...... 31 5.5 PLANNED ACTIONS ...... 31 5.6 ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA) PROGRESS ...... 42 6. APPENDICES ...... 43

6.1 APPENDIX A: BC HYDRO SEMP REQUIREMENT FORM ...... 44 6.2 APPENDIX B: EES COMMUNICATIONS & ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY EXERT ...... 46 6.3 APPENDIX C: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ...... 53 6.4 APPENDIX D: EMA COVER LETTER ...... 58 6.5 APPENDIX E: SITE DETAILS ...... 59 6.6 APPENDIX F: 3 YEAR ENERGY DATA ...... 72 6.7 APPENDIX G: SITE TARGETS CHARTS ...... 75 6.8 APPENDIX H: COMPLETED ENERGY STUDY LIST ...... 78 6.9 APPENDIX I: COMPLETED PROJECT LIST ...... 81

Page | 1

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

List of Tables

Table 1: LMHA Key Issues, Priorities, & Drivers ...... 11 Table 2: FH Key Stakeholders ...... 12 Table 3: FH Profile ...... 15 Table 4: EMA Results ...... 16 Table 5: Site Energy Profile (2015) ...... 17 Table 6: Performance Metrics ...... 18 Table 7: Actual Utility Consumption and Cost for 2015 ...... 18 Table 8: Actual Energy Consumption since 2007 ...... 19 Table 9: Adjusted 2015 Energy Consumption against the 2007 Base Year ...... 19 Table 10: Actual Non Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from owned building portfolio ...... 21 Table 11: Annual EUI Performance & Targets ...... 27 Table 12: Energy Costs since 2009 ...... 29 Table 13: Planned Energy Studies for F17 & F18 ...... 32 Table 14: 3 Year Project Funnel ...... 33 Table 15: C.Op. Program Sites ...... 35 Table 16: LEED Certified FH Buildings ...... 39 Table 17: NC Program Process & Stakeholders ...... 40 Table 18: FH New Construction Program Projects ...... 40 Table 19: EMA Focus areas and Progress updates ...... 42

Page | 2

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

List of Figures

Figure 1: FH Core Site EUI Performance & Targets ...... 4 Figure 2: FH Energy Business as Usual Report ...... 5 Figure 3: Current EES and Corporate Services Organization Chart ...... 6 Figure 4: GreenCare Logo ...... 7 Figure 5: EES Strategic Framework ...... 7 Figure 6: LMFM Client Outcomes ...... 10 Figure 7: EM Operational Impacts and Outcome ...... 10 Figure 8: Energy Management Stakeholder Map ...... 12 Figure 9: EES Project Planning and Delivery process...... 13 Figure 10: Region & ...... 14 Figure 11: Actual Utility Cost for 2015 ...... 18 Figure 12: 2015 GHG Reported In-Scope Carbon Emissions ...... 20 Figure 13: 2015 Breakdown of Building Emissions ...... 21 Figure 14: 2015 Acute Care Site BEPI – Energy Use Intensity (EUI) ...... 22 Figure 15: 2015 Residential & Other Care Site BEPI - Energy Use Intensity (EUI) ...... 23 Figure 16: 2015 Acute Care Site BEPI – EUI Patient Days ...... 24 Figure 17: 2015 Building Energy Cost Performance Indicators ...... 25 Figure 18: Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI ...... 26 Figure 19: Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI ...... 26 Figure 20: Annual EUI Performance & Target ...... 27 Figure 21: Site Reduction EUI Goals for the 6 largest sites ...... 29 Figure 22: Energy Costs since 2009 ...... 30 Figure 23: Energy Cost and Cumulative Avoidance since 2009/10 ...... 30 Figure 24: Energy Consumption BAU Report...... 31 Figure 25: CUSUM Chart for PAH from EMIS ...... 37 Figure 26: Key Features from the Energy Wise Network program ...... 38 Figure 27: 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. 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) The short term target for the F17 fiscal year is to reduce the overall energy consumption by 2.5%. This will be achieved by implementing the technical projects and initiatives, as detailed in section 5.5; utilizing the approved energy project budget of $1.8m. 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 and by focusing on individual site energy reduction opportunities; the 15% target is expected to be achieved before 2020.

Figure 1: FH Core Site EUI Performance & Targets

The FH utility cost in 2015 was over $17m and 89% of this cost was related to energy (electricity and natural gas) consumption, with water and sewer making up the balance of 11%. For the first time since 2010, we saw the annual energy expenditure decrease in 2015 compared to the previous years. With no significant portfolio changes planned, we expect this trend to maintain in 2016, despite a further increase in the electricity rates.

Page | 4

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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, is estimated at over $4m. 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 2, there has been a 12% increase avoided, due to energy projects and without our comprehensive Energy Management program, the increase in consumption would have been 38% taking into consideration portfolio growth.

Figure 2: FH Energy Business as Usual Report

To ensure that we continue the momentum and build on the Energy Management program successes, the following summary of planned actions will be undertaken: i. Promotion of Energy Conservation via our Policy & Strategic Framework; ii. Site specific energy studies and audits will continue to be carried out on inefficient processes and plant; iii. Energy conservation measures will be identified and technical projects implemented; iv. Existing buildings will continue to be optimized; v. Energy awareness and educational strategies will be implemented; vi. Energy efficient solutions will be recommended for new construction and major renovations, including connections to potential District Energy Systems.

These six 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 | 5 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) - 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, 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 3.

Figure 3: Current EES and Corporate Services Organization Chart Page | 6

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 4, is the hub for environmental sustainability in the Lower Mainland health care organizations.

Figure 4: GreenCare Logo

The GreenCare Sustainability Strategic Framework, as shown in Figure 5, 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 5: EES Strategic Framework

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.

Page | 7

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

• Goals: To create healthy communities, healthy environment and healthy facilities, including practices and systems. • Focus Areas: GreenCare’s current areas of action used to embed sustainability in healthcare & support the GreenCare goals (Smart Energy and Water, Zero Waste and Toxicity, Active and Clean Transportation, Culture Change, and 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. BC Hydro plays an important role in supporting our commitment to Energy Management and this document, as seen in Appendix A is a key requirement and deliverable of the Energy Manager program.

Page | 8

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

3. OUR COMMITMENT

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. 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.

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.

Page | 9

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

3.3 Commitment to Sustainability Environmental Sustainability is one of the five 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 6: 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 EES GreenCare Strategic Framework, as detailed in section 2.3, outlines our prime objectives to provide Healthy Workplaces, Environments and Communities by implementing sustainable strategies for the five focus areas. For each of these five areas, it is essential to be able to link the impact and outcomes related to our Strategic Framework. Thus, the following chart is an example for the Smart Energy and Water focus area and was recently presented to the Lower Mainland Environmental Sustainability Advisory Committee (ESAC).

Figure 7: EM Operational Impacts and Outcome

These key Operational impacts, linked to the potential Environment and Health outcomes help visualize our efforts to work towards our GreenCare Mission of Health and Wellness.

Page | 10

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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 ’s GHG Reduction Targets Act (passed in 2007) and various utility provider mandates.

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 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 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

LMHA Issues, Potential Co-Benefits of Energy Priorities, & Example Energy Projects or Initiatives Initiative Drivers Improved thermal zone control Improved occupant comfort & Air sealing around windows and doors Improve Human productivity Re-commissioning Health Improved air quality Coil cleaning Improved recovery time Design to optimize daylighting Reduce or avoid operating costs All energy conservation projects BC Hydro support provides an Energy Manager at a reduced cost to health authority Maximize incentive funding Financial Various incentives reduce capital cost of Management projects Vortisand side stream filtration reduces the Reduced maintenance cost time to clean out cooling tower LED lighting can be replaced less frequently Reduced mechanical equipment Connecting equipment to DDC controls failures Improved energy security Alternative energy source heating plant Reduced staff errors Design to optimize daylighting Asset and Risk Support compliance with Measuring and reporting carbon emissions Management Provincial Regulations (Bill 44) Improved staff engagement through G+L energy campaign Attract and retain staff Improved staff satisfaction through design to optimize daylighting Page | 11

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

The Energy Management Stakeholder Map shown below in Figure 8 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.

Figure 8: Energy Management Stakeholder Map

3.5 Stakeholder Engagement Plan The EES team, led by the Sustainability Coordinators, 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. 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.

Table 2: FH Key Stakeholders Involvement in Steps of EM Main Stakeholder Groups Identify Fund Implement Verify LMFM EES Y Y Y Y LMFM FMO Y Y Y Y LMFM Strategic Planning Team Leads Y Y LMFM Capital Project Team Leads Y Y Purchasing Departments Y Y

Internal Green+ Leaders Y Y FHA Executive & Finance Teams Y IMIT Y Clinical Staff Y Utilities (BC Hydro, Fortis BC, etc.) Y Y Y Y External Engineering Consultants Y Y Y BC Government Ministries Y

External Other BC Health Authorities Y Provincial Environmental Technical Team (PETT) Y Page | 12

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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 has resulted in the strategy being adopted at four other FH sites and this will continue to be rolled out to all main core sites in FH.

The LMFM Strategic Planning (SP) and Capital Planning (CP) 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 9 below. We have developed an EES Design Guideline document that will be used as a reference tool for our SP and CP teams moving forward for future projects. An engagement strategy for this group is currently being developed.

Figure 9: 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. Page | 13

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

4. UNDERSTANDING OUR SITUATION

4.1 Organization Profile Fraser Health (FH) is one of 6 Health Authorities in British Columbia. FH covers an area that stretches from to White Rock to Boston Bar and serves 1.6 million people. 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 10: Fraser Health Region & Hospitals FH is a major force in health care and more importantly, we are a community of 22,000 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 | 14

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Table 3: FH Profile Organization Profile P E Sector Health O P Number of Number of Employees 25,926 (15,169 FTE) 25 (~ 80 buildings) L Core Sites E . Patient comfort levels & clinical needs. . Code and Standard requirements. . Funding availability. Energy Management . Lack of resources dedicated to EM program. O Issues / Obstacles . Uncontrollable variables i.e. weather, new equipment, plug load P . Lack of control on P3 & leased sites. E . Lack of sub-metering for accurate monitoring and verification. R . Increasing portfolio1. A . Internal Gross Floor Area Performance Metrics T . Patient Treatment Days I Business Year Apr 1 – Mar 31 (Budget & Maintenance Cycle as per Business Year) O Maintenance Budget F16 $24.6m F17 $25.0m F18 $26m F19 $26.0m F20 $26.5m N Utilities Budget F16 $16.4m F17 $15.0m F18 $15.5m F19 $16m F20 $16.5m S FM Capital Project F16 $4.9m F17 $5.0m F18 $5.0m F19 $5.0m F20 $5.0m Budget2 Operations Project F16 $2.9m F17 $3.0m F18 $3.0m F19 $3.0m F20 $3.0m Budget3 Energy Projects Budget4 F16 $2.0m F17 $1.8m F18 $2.0m F19 $2.2m F20 $2.4m Notes: 1. Increase in actual energy consumption, but potentially lower EUI, as newer buildings are generally more energy efficient. 2. 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 3. Energy projects are sometimes “piggy-backed” onto Operation Projects (aka MCIP) 4. The Energy Projects Budget includes: a. Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) b. Green Revolving Funding (GRF) c. Energy Operations funding d. Utility Incentives Energy projects are predominately funded via the “Energy Project Budget” funding source. However, funds are also available through the “FM Capital Project Budget” via an application process and the “Operations Project Budget” in coordination with the Facilities Maintenance and Operations department.

4.2 Energy Management Assessments (EMA) FH 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. Page | 15

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% 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 (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. 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 5 2014 EMA session, our focus has been directed towards: 1. Policy 2. Targets and Reporting 3. Plans and Action 4. Teams and Committees 5. Employee Awareness and Training

In our opinion, these five recommendations do not have a set timeline and are generally on-going action items. In fact, the majority of these actions were being worked upon prior to this EMA session. Having said that, as part of the EMA process we have advanced these actions to a level whereby we can confirm completion. Details are provided in the section 5.6 and the EMA cover letter is included in Appendix D.

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 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 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. Page | 16

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Table 5: Site Energy Profile (2015)

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

Further details of the twelve Acute Care sites and the new JP Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre are shown in Appendix E.

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. Page | 17

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Table 6: Performance Metrics Year Metric 2007 2013 2014 2015 Internal Gross Floor Area (m2) 401,418 523,538 576,006 576,006 Patient Treatment Days Unknown 1,055,113 1,089,771 1,087,671 Note: 1. Patient data not available for 2007 base year.

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 2015 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 2015 Consumption Cost Utility (2015) Units ekWh % $ % Electricity 126,926,930 kWh 126,926,930 43% 10,556,446 62% Natural Gas 602,047 GJ 167,236,565 57% 4,568,053 27% Water / Sewer1 1,245,464 m³ N/A N/A 1,947,491 11% Note: 1. Sewer water not metered separately & the consumption is based upon 80% of the metered water consumption.

Figure 11: Actual Utility Cost for 2015 In 2015, we saw a reduction in total energy consumption based upon actual data. Both electricity and natural gas had reductions of 0.8% and 8.1% respectively, resulting in a total energy reduction of over 5% compared to 2014. As seen in table 8 below, the total 2015 consumption is still 20% higher than the 2007 base year Page | 18

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

consumption, but considering the FH portfolio growth of 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 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act.

Table 8: Actual Energy Consumption since 2007

Since this base year, the owned portfolio of FH (including the P3 sites) has increased significantly and the major increases were: - Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center in 2009 - Jim Pattison Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre in 2011 - Critical Care Tower at in 2014 - Complex Residential Care building at Mission Memorial Hospital in 2014

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 2015 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 8 follow a similar trend to those in table 9. Generally the weather normalization for electricity is fairly minimal, due to building energy use and the heating climate in the Lower Mainland. However, with more buildings utilizing heat pump technology, weather adjustment for electricity

Page | 19

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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. Full energy use data for all core sites can be viewed in Appendix F.

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 emissions reported in the 2015 calendar year was 36,384 tC02e and this represents a decrease of 6.4% compared to 2014. The carbon offset cost that FH paid to the Ministry of Health was $955,001 including taxes. By far, FH biggest emissions source is related to our “Stationary Fuel Combustion and Electricity” from our buildings. As seen below in figure 12, this makes up nearly 96% of our overall reported in-scope emissions. The majority of the building emissions are due to fuel combustion. Of the 34,847 tonnes of C02 emitted in 2015 from our buildings, as shown below in figure 13, nearly 83% was due to owned fuel plant and only 3.5% was due to electricity from our owned facilities. The remaining 14% of the building emissions were from our leased facilities.

FHA 2015 GHG In-Scope Emissions

1,434 tCO2e 103 tCO2e 3.94% 0.28%

34,847 tCO2e 95.78%

Mobile Fuel Combustion (Fleet and other mobile equipment) Stationary Fuel Combustion and Electricity (Buildings) Supplies (Paper)

Figure 12: 2015 GHG Reported In-Scope Carbon Emissions

Page | 20

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

FHA 2015 Building Emissions 215 tCO2e 0.62% 1,202 tCO2e 3.45%

4,600 tCO2e 13.19%

28,832 tCO2e 82.74%

Fuel Owned Fuel Leased Electricity Owned Electricity Leased

Figure 13: 2015 Breakdown of Building Emissions Notes: 1. Emissions from our buildings are not normalized (adjusted) for weather and they are based upon actual energy consumption.

Since the 2007 base year, the overall non adjusted emission from our core buildings ONLY has increased 3%, but the FH core building portfolio has increased by 43%. Thus, the 2015 carbon emission per m2 of Core site floor space has actually reduced by 28% compared to 2007. Table 10: 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

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 Page | 21

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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 2015 was 522 ekWh/yr/m². This represents a 6% decrease compared to 2014 and 15% since the 2007 base year. Two of the 12 sites, as seen from the chart in figure 14 below, had lower EUI than the NRCan benchmark of 438 ekWh/yr/m². Interestingly, with the previous NRCan benchmark of 519 (as used in previous SEMPs), six of the 12 sites would have been lower. There is a fairly wide range of energy performance ranging from 415 for compared to the 625 for Langley Memorial Hospital.

Figure 14: 2015 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.

4.7.2 BEPI - Residential & Other Care Facilities The overall FH Energy Use Intensity (EUI) for the Residential & Other Care sites in 2015 was 443 ekWh/yr/m². Although this represents a 5% increase compared to 2014, the 2015 EUI is 19% below 2007 base year. Six of the 12 sites, as seen from the chart in figure 15 below, had lower EUI than the NRCan benchmark of 400

Page | 22

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

ekWh/yr/m². Similar to the acute care site BEPI, there is wide range of energy performance, ranging from 326 for the Czorny Alzheimer Centre compared to 573 for JP Out-Patient Care and Surgical Centre.

Figure 15: 2015 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 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.

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 probably the most accurate metric, as this would account for the bed use.

Page | 23

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Figure 16: 2015 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 16, it appears that (FCH) and Mission Memorial Hospital (MMH) are poor performing sites when using this metric. However the BEPI chart in figure 14 would contradict this, as these two hospitals are in the top four 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 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, even some of the “medium” and “large” Acute Care facilities have Residential and Extended Care services, so using patient data as a metric can be a little misleading. Having said that, the BEPI in figure 16, still provides us with an initial overview of performance and if we remove FCH and MMH, we can see that Langley Memorial and Chilliwack General Hospitals are the two poor performing sites using both metrics.

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 17. Firstly, the electricity to natural gas ratio is significantly different between overall consumption and cost. As seen in table 7, the consumption is a 43:57 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

Page | 24

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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 17: 2015 Building Energy Cost Performance Indicators

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 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 2015 will be compared to the base and previous calendar years. The base year is 2007 unless stated otherwise.

As shown on the charts below in figures 18 and 19, 20 sites have seen a decrease and 5 have seen an increase in their EUI compared to their base year. Needless to say, further energy studies and investigation is required to continue to identify site opportunities and drive the energy management program forward.

Page | 25

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Figure 18: Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI

Figure 19: Acute Site EUI Performance BEPI Notes: 1. The EUI is corrected for weather. 2. The percentages are variances between the 2015 compared to the 2007 base year.

These charts certainly provide a clear indication of our success to date, but clear defined actions are essential to continue the momentum and achieve our short and long term energy and GHG conservation goals.

Page | 26

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 achieved; with the exception of 2013. This was due to a higher than expected electricity usage for the large construction projects at Surrey Memorial Hospital and Mission Memorial Hospital.

Figure 20: Annual EUI Performance & Target

As seen below in table 11, a EUI reduction of 12.2% has been achieved in 2015 compared to the base year and this surpassed the 10% target. Table 11: Annual EUI Performance & Targets

Page | 27

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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 space area. These 7 sites will continue to be monitored and the appropriate LMFM contact 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 charts provide an example of performance and potential EUI reduction for the six largest core sites, excluding Abbotsford Regional Hospital, up to 2020.

SMH Performance & Targets RCH Performance & Targets

700 600

600 500

500 354 368 400 322 322 400 253 238 300 300 500 495 kWh//yr/m2

kWh//yr/m2 200 200 251 272 262 243 220 220 100 100 - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

BUH Performance & Targets PAH Performance & Targets

600 700 600 500

500 400 459 332 400 284 389 360 300 276

kWh/yr/m2 300 420 510 kWh//yr/m2 200 200 100 181 156 148 100 188 170 160 - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

Page | 28

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

LMH Performance & Targets CGH Performance & Targets

800 800 700

600 600 500 482 461 445 464 420 400 400 372 300 595 575 kWh/yr/m2 200 kWh//yr/m2 200 219 220 100 206 200 215 207 - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

Figure 21: Site Reduction EUI Goals for the 6 largest sites 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

Although Abbotsford Regional Hospital (ARH) is the third largest Hospital in FH, this is a P3 site and energy management is not directly covered by LMFM. Having said that, we have engaged the General Manager of ARH and the JP Outpatient Care and Surgical Centre (our other independent P3 site), and began discussions for potential energy management initiatives.

As eluded to in section 4.7, each healthcare site is different and contains many variables which influence the energy consumption. The six sample sites shown in figure 19 have various targets predicted for 2020. These targets have been set based upon future opportunities and site master planning. Charts for the other 12 sites can be seen in Appendix G.

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 18%. Our electricity costs have increased by 79%, due to significant changes in the FH portfolio and increased utility rates. Nearly 20% is due to the actual electricity consumption increase and the remaining percentage is due to changes in the rate structure. The natural gas cost has reduced by 33% and 5% of this reduction is due to the decrease in actual natural gas us, despite a 20% growth in portfolio since 2009. Natural Gas commodity prices fluctuate and are driven by many factors, such as supply and demand. For 2015, we saw commodity rates drop below $3 per GJ compared to over $6 per GJ in 2009. Table 12: Energy Costs since 2009

Page | 29

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Figure 22: Energy Costs since 2009

For the first time since 2010 we saw the annual energy expenditure decrease in 2015 compared to the previous years. With no significant portfolio changes planned for 2016, we expect this trend to maintain in 2016, despite a further increase in the electricity rates. The natural gas rate has been fairly stable over the last few years and many experts are predicting a potential small increase in commodity prices over the next few years.

The energy expenditure would have been significantly higher without the implementation of energy reduction initiatives. As seen in figure 23 below, the cumulative cost avoidance since the F10 fiscal year is just over of $4m.

Figure 23: Energy Cost and Cumulative Avoidance since 2009/10 Notes: 1. Annual and cumulative avoidance shown in fiscal years. 2. The cumulative avoidance includes non-persistence factor.

Page | 30

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

The avoided cost is calculated for each year by multiplying the estimated savings from completed energy conservation projects by the average 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 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. In other words, taking into consideration portfolio growth, what would our consumption have been without the implementation of energy conservation projects and initiatives?

Figure 24: Energy Consumption BAU Report

As shown figure 24, there is a 12% increase avoided due to energy projects, but effectively without the energy management program, the increase in consumption would have been 38% taking into consideration portfolio growth.

5.5 Planned Actions To enable FHA to continue to reduce our Energy Use Intensity (EUI) the following actions will be undertaken: i. Promotion of Energy Conservation via our Policy & Strategic Framework; ii. Site specific energy studies and audits will continue to be carried out on inefficient processes and plant; iii. Energy conservation measures will be identified and technical projects implemented; Page | 31

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

iv. Existing buildings will continue to be optimized; v. Energy awareness and educational strategies will be implemented; vi. Energy efficient solutions will be recommended for new construction and major renovations, including connections to potential District Energy Systems.

5.5.1 Policy & Strategic Framework Both the Policy and Strategic Framework are mentioned in Section 3 (Our Commitment). 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 2010. The policy is posted on the Fraser Health Authority intranet site and it is always integrated into Sustainability and Energy Management presentations.

The 2015 refreshed Strategic Framework provides a clear outline of the Energy and Environmental Sustainability Focus Areas, including “Smart Energy” use. It provides a link to the Health and Wellness of our community and will be used moving forward, as a tool to drive our commitment and continue our collaboration with the key stakeholders.

5.5.2 Energy Studies There has been a large number of energy studies carried out across the FH region since 2008 and quite a few of these studies have resulted in capital incentive agreements with BC Hydro and Fortis BC, which in turn has provided supplementary funding to implement energy conservation projects. A full list of studies and dates can be seen in Appendix H.

Energy studies and reviews are required to continue the improve performance and meet our long term energy and emission reduction goals. Table 13 details the sites with studies/reviews/assessments that we are targeting for the next two fiscal years. Table 13: Planned Energy Studies for F17 & F18 Year Core Site Type Status CNCP GHG Reduction Assessment Complete Burnaby Hospital Revised Fortis Custom Study In Progress Ridge Meadows Hospital Fortis Custom Study (phase 2) In Progress Czorny Alzheimer Centre C.Op. investigation study In Progress F17 New Construction Energy Study In Progress Burnaby Hospital Lighting Audit Planned Chilliwack General Hospital Fortis / Hydro Custom Study Planned Fortis / Hydro Custom Study Planned JP Out-Patient Care & Surgical Ctr. C.Op. investigation study Planned Langley Memorial Hospital C.Op. investigation study (Rd. 2) Planned Peace Arch Hospital C.Op. investigation study (Rd. 2) Planned New Construction Energy Study Planned F18 Abbotsford Regional Hospital C.Op. investigation study Potential Heritage Village Fortis / Hydro Custom Study Potential Ridge Meadows Hospital Lighting Audit Potential Surrey Memorial Hospital Lighting Audit Potential Page | 32

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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.

5.5.3 Energy Conservation Technical Projects Since the commencement of the BC Hydro’s Energy Manager Program in 2008, over 100 energy conservation projects have been completed. These projects along with other energy reduction initiatives have resulted in energy use savings of over 30 eGWh and an estimated cost avoidance of over $4m. A list of completed projects can be viewed on Appendix I.

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, a Public Sector Energy Conservation Agreement (PESCA) was established to provide funding to the Public Sector for the implementation energy reduction projects. FH received over $4m and this helped the energy management program in the early years to gather momentum.

In F15, the BC Government Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) was expanded to the health sector and the amount of funding received directly relates to the purchases of carbon offsets. For the last three fiscal years, FH has received approximately $1m per year to reinvest into energy and GHG reduction projects. It is expected that the CNCP funding will continue for the foreseeable future.

Following a successful pilot with VCHA, an agreement was signed at the end of F15 fiscal year, between BC Hydro and FH for a Green Revolving Fund (GRF). Seed money of $250k, including $200k from BC Hydro and $50k from FH, 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. For F17, $155,000 was added to the GRF as a result of 90% of the electricity cost savings in F16.

A combination of CNCP, GRF, internal capital and operating funds, complete with utility incentives will enable the following list of projects to be implemented.

Table 14: 3 Year Project Funnel Estimated Savings Yr. Site Project Name Status kWh GJ ekWh FCC DDC & HVAC Upgrade 60,000 1,500 476,670 Complete MMH COp Implementation 88,000 2,100 671,338 Complete MMH HVAC Upgrade 70,000 980 342,224 Complete RMH Various HVAC Upgrades 152,000 1,230 493,669 Complete SMH Exterior Lighting Upgrade (phase 4) 5,000 - 5,000 Complete BUH Exterior Lighting Upgrade (phase 1) 14,000 - 14,000 Complete

FCH Ext. Lighting Upgrade & Int. LED Replacement 54,000 - 54,000 Complete MMH Ext. Lighting Upgrade & Int. LED Replacement 40,000 - 40,000 Complete F17 RCH Exterior Lighting (phase 3) 20,000 - 20,000 Complete LMH Condensate Heat Recovery to Preheat DHW - 1,290 358,336 Complete SMH Data Center Cold Aisle Containment system 21,000 - 21,000 Complete SMH SMH - COp Implementation 579,000 5,550 2,120,679 In progress QPC Ext. Lighting Upgrade & Int. LED Replacement 95,000 - 95,000 In progress SMH Parkade Lighting Upgrade 184,000 - 184,000 In progress SMH Generator Heater Retrofit 117,000 - 117,000 In progress Page | 33

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

SMH Various HVAC and Controls Upgrades 138,000 730 340,779 In progress BUH Boiler and Controls Upgrade - 3,000 833,340 In progress BUH Int. Lighting Controls & LED Replacement 80,000 - 80,000 In progress BUH Various HVAC and Controls Upgrades 385,000 2,000 940,560 In progress REG Generator Heater Retrofit Phase 1 360,000 - 360,000 Pending Estimated F17 total: 2,462,000 18,380 7,567,596 CAC COp Implementation 150,000 500 288,890 Pending REG Generator Heater Retrofit Phase 2 373,000 373,000 Pending CGH Ext. Lighting Upgrade & Int. LED Replacement 63,000 - 63,000 Pending HV Ext. Lighting Upgrade & Int. LED Replacement 10,000 - 10,000 Pending ERH ECU Secondary HW Pump VFD 14,000 50 27,889 Pending ERH Chiller Plant and Pump Upgrade 177,000 - 177,000 Pending CGH Boiler Plant Upgrades - 2,000 555,560 Potential CGH HVAC & Controls Upgrade 400,000 1,000 677,780 Potential CGH Internal Lighting Controls & LED Replacement 100,000 - 100,000 Potential DH Internal Lighting Controls & LED Replacement 40,000 - 40,000 Potential

F18 ERH Various HVAC/Control Upgrades 524,000 5,000 1,912,900 Potential ERH Heat Recovery Chiller - 7,000 1,944,460 Potential ERH Condensing Boiler - 1,000 277,780 Potential ERH Ext. Lighting Upgrade & Int. LED Replacement 100,000 100,000 Potential LMH HW Pump Upgrade 100,000 200 155,556 Potential MMH Internal Lighting Controls & LED Replacement 50,000 - 50,000 Potential RMH Domestic Hot Water Heat Exchangers - 2,000 555,560 Potential RMH Stack Economizer or Condensing Boiler - 1,000 277,780 Potential RMH Internal Lighting Controls & LED Replacement 100,000 - 100,000 Potential Estimated F18 total: 2,201,000 19,750 7,687,155 DH DI & Lab Expansion (New Construction) 100,000 200 155,556 Potential HV Boiler Plant Upgrade & DHW Upgrade - 1,500 416,670 Potential HV Various HVAC and Controls Upgrades 50,000 500 188,890 Potential LMH COp Implementation (round 2) 200,000 1,000 477,780 Potential JPOC COp Implementation 400,000 200 455,556 Potential 19 F PAH Emergency Expansion (New Construction) 250,000 300 333,334 Potential PAH COp Implementation (round 2) 150,000 700 344,446 Potential SMH Int. Lighting Controls & LED Replacement 250,000 - 250,000 Potential TC COp Implementation (round 2) 100,000 500 238,890 Potential Estimated F19 total: 1,500,000 4,900 2,861,122

As seen in table 14, 11 projects have already been completed in F17 and the remaining 9 are in progress or pending. A large majority of projects for F18 and F19 are listed with a “potential” status. This effectively means that they are subject to funding and resource availability. Having said that, we are confident that with our various funding sources that these will be implemented.

5.5.4 Continuous Building Optimization Building optimization, also known as re-commissioning, is a systematic approach to improve the building operating systems performance. As part of their Power Smart offers, BC Hydro’s launched a Continuous Optimization (C.Op.) program in 2008 to encourage building owners and operators to take advantage of the Page | 34

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

re-commissioning. FH signed up all 14 eligible sites, as detailed in table 15, and they were rolled out as part of a phased approach, with PAH and LMH being selected as pilot sites in 2010.

Table 15: C.Op. Program Sites

Note: 1. The ECM’s for SMH have not been fully implemented, so the data in the table is from the investigation study.

SMH was the last site on our list and the implementation of the identified and approved ECMs is currently in progress. As seen in table 15, the total savings divided by cost equates to a simple payback of less than 2 years. Thus, we can conclude that the C.Op. program has been a successful approach to optimize our buildings and reduce energy consumption.

In addition those listed in table 15, we managed to add the following sites, prior to the program being fully subscribed: i. Czorny Alzheimer Centre (CAC) ii. Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre (ARHCC) iii. Jim Pattison Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre (JPOCSC)

Two of the above are P3 sites (ARHCC & JPOCSC) 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 for the throughout 2016, with a hope that these sites will join the program in the forthcoming years. The program will commence at CAC this fiscal year.

Following the success of the C.Op. program within the public sector, BC Hydro in partnership with Fortis BC, have recently finalized their business case for a C.Op. program Round 2 offer. There will be two different C.Op. program offers for Round 2: i. Standard Re-commissioning ii. Automated Re-commissioning

Page | 35

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

These offers will be available for buildings that have been through the program once (5 years after implementation date) and other eligible buildings. The standard Re-commissioning offer is effectively a repeat of the round 1 program with some minor changes, including a reduction in incentives for Consultant fees and removal of an Energy Management Information Software (EMIS) package. The Automated Re- commissioning offer utilizes Automatic Fault Diagnostic Detection (AFDD) software. AFDD software has been around for several years in North America and latest development with this software tool has now made this a viable and potentially a cost effective solution for commission and a re-commissioning buildings.

As listed in table 14, FH has 3 sites included in the project funnel for C.Op. program Round 2 and we are currently reviewing the two offers in more detail before committing to either the standard or automated re- commissioning approach.

5.5.5 Awareness and Education Strategies The following behavioural programs have been rolled out at FH: i. Green + Leaders program (G+L) ii. FMO Engagement iii. BC Hydro Energy Wise Network program

Green + Leaders program (G+L) The G+L program was launched at FH and during the fall of 2011. The aim of the program is to recruit 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 behaviours. The 3 target areas include energy reduction, alternative transportation and materials reduction. In 2015, 13 volunteers joined the program, making a total of 76 active G+Ls in Fraser Health.

The FH Energy Team will continue to fully support the Sustainability Coordinator with the evolution of the program and assist with the development of energy reduction tools. For example, a simple Energy Calculator was created using an excel spreadsheet for G+L’s to implement and review a “turn off” lighting and equipment campaign. This was rolled in 2016 and further toolkits, similar to this will be developed in partnership with the Sustainability team.

Full details of the G+L program can be found on our online interactive GreenCare Community resource website at the following link: https://bcgreencare.ca/program/greenleaders

FMO Engagement As eluded to in section 3.5, the Facilities Maintenance and Operations (FMO) team are very influential stakeholders, especially when it comes to optimizing the energy performance of our existing buildings. As part of our planned actions, we will continue to engage and educate the FMO managers and their site teams on a regular basis.

The FH FMO managers meet on a regular monthly basis and the subject of Energy Conservation is a routine agenda item every third month. This aligns with our Energy Management Consumption quarterly reporting cycles. These quarterly Energy Reports are presented to the FMO Managers for their information and to promote awareness.

In addition to the quarterly Energy Management presentations to the FMO Managers, approximately 3 years ago we commenced a direct communication strategy with the front line FMO teams. Following the success of

Page | 36

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

the pilot at Peace Arch Hospital, this FMO Engagement Strategy has now been rolled out to 4 FH core sites. The strategy follows a modified version of the “coaching” phase of the Continuous Optimization (C.Op.) program and we meet every 3-4 months with site FMO Manager, Supervisor/s and Chief Engineer to discuss: i. Energy Performance ii. Significant Building / Plant / Equipment Changes iii. Opportunities & Potential Issues Moving Forward

For energy performance we use data from our energy use database and our Energy Management Information System (EMIS). The chart shown in figure 25 below is from our EMIS and this tool uses real time data from pulse meters.

Figure 25: CUSUM Chart for PAH from EMIS

This shows the sum of the energy savings over a period of time. In this instance, the period of time is from January 2016 to part way through August 2016 and the electricity cumulative savings from the Peace Arch Hospital Acute building is approximately 120,000 kWh, equating to cost avoidance $9,000. Sharing this information with the site teams is invaluable and they can easily see the importance of their role with respect to energy performance.

Ensuring that the FMO teams understand their site energy performance is essential and this prompts the discussion regarding building and equipment changes. But the real benefit of these sessions is conversing on energy use reduction opportunities. These discussions have led to the implementation of many projects and this process has certainly helped PAH to have the lowest Energy Use Intensity of all Acute Care sites in FH.

The roll out of this FMO Engagement Strategy will continue to the remaining applicable core sites following the completion of the “coaching” phase of the C.Op. program. The target sites for F17 are Burnaby Hospital, Heritage Village, Fraser Canyon Hospital, Ridge Meadow Hospital and the Cottage and Worthington Pavilions.

Page | 37

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

BC Hydro Energy Wise Network Program 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. This program has now been replaced and the new offer is the Energy Wise Network program. In partnership with FortisBC, this program will provide customers with training, networking opportunities, campaign toolkits and some customized coaching and incentive funding.

Figure 26: Key Features from the Energy Wise Network program

FH has recently entered into an agreement with BC Hydro for the Energy Wise Network program. Our goal is to use this program to support our efforts with the G+L program and FMO Engagement Strategy. The following 3 campaigns will be: i. Facility staff engagement ii. Promote “lights off” and “equipment unplug” with front line staff iii. Educate and provide energy awareness to kitchen staff

These campaigns will be delivered by March 2017 with support from Prism Engineering (BC Hydro’s dedicated Energy Wise support Consultant)

5.5.6 New Construction & Major Renovations 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 following new buildings have been added to FH portfolio: i. Abbotsford Regional Hospital & Cancer Center; ii. Czorny Alzheimer Centre Phase 1 and 2; iii. Timber Creek Building opposite Surrey Memorial Hospital; iv. Jim Pattison Surrey Out-Patient Care & Surgical Centre; v. Critical Care Tower at Surrey Memorial Hospital; vi. Complex Residential Care Building at Mission Memorial Hospital.

These 6 new buildings, plus other major site redevelopments, such as the Chilliwack General Hospital, expansion for example, has resulted in a portfolio increase of over 40% to the FH core sites since 2008

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 have higher Energy Use Intensity (EUI) than older healthcare buildings. Thus, providing energy efficiency input and guidance throughout all phases of design ,

Page | 38

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

construction and commissioning is seen as a key objective for the Energy & Environmental Sustainability (EES) team.

The support that this initiative the EES team have 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 main content of the guideline includes information on Design Standards – Best Practices and Required Base Design.

Design Standards – Best Practices Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) has been recognized for some time as “best practice” design approach. LEED is a rating system devised by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to evaluate the environmental performance of a building and encourage market transformation towards sustainable design. All pubic new buildings over 600 m2 are required to achieve LEED Gold Certification, as per BC Governments Climate Action Plan. As shown below in table 16, FH currently has 12 LEED certified buildings within its owned and leased portfolio. Table 16: LEED Certified FH Buildings

Note: 1. Leased buildings

To ensure that we adopt the best design approach for the a specific building type, other “best practices” methods, such as Passive House, have been included in the guideline and will be considered moving forward.

Required Base Design The Required Base Design section is broken down into our GreenCare Strategic focus areas. For Energy, Design Targets and Incentive program are the prime focus in the guidelines. A proposed energy target for each major project is required to be a percent improvement compared to the baseline building performance as defined by the methodology outlined in the ASHRAE 90.1 Energy Standards. The EES team will work in partnership with the design team to develop the proposed building performance targets. Potential project energy savings and holistic project cost implications related to all affected systems will be considered.

Page | 39

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

A key component of the design and construction of new buildings is to partner with BC Hydro (BCH) and Fortis BC (FBC) to utilize their New Construction (NC) Program. This program provides funding and independent support for energy modelling and the study process. Table 17 below provides an indication of the process and stakeholder involvement. Table 17: NC Program Process & Stakeholders

The implementation of approved Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) identified during the energy study, could lead to a tired capital incentive agreement, up the maximum amount of $500,000 (recent program change). The NC program has been utilised for the last 4 newly constructed buildings in FH and a summary of the savings and capital incentives is shown below in table 18. Table 18: FH New Construction Program Projects

Note: 1. Savings and incentive for Lighting only

This EES Design Guidelines guideline is currently being updated and will be used for all applicable new construction projects. The following two new construction projects are approved and are in the design phase of the construction process: i. DEH Medical Imaging and Lab expansion; ii. RCH Redevelopment Phase 1.

DEH Medical Imaging and Lab expansion The Medical Imaging and Lab expansion at Delta Hospital (DEH) is a traditional Design Bid Build (DBB) project. This project is in the final stages of design and construction work is due to commence in 2017. The design

Page | 40

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

team is hoping that this 1,800 m2 expansion will achieve LEED Gold certification and the mechanical engineers are currently finalizing the energy modelling and study for the BCH and FBC NC program.

RCH Redevelopment Phase 1 The phase 1 redevelopment project at Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH) is predominately a new Mental Health (MH) facility, plus a new Energy Centre. The new Energy Centre will supply the electrical and mechanical services to the new MH facility and the rest of the existing site. This project will be constructed using a Design Build (DB) approach and is scheduled to commence in 2017. When the successful DB proponent is selected the EES team will form a partnership to ensure that our guidelines are adopted.

Phase 2 & 3 of the RCH redevelopment project is currently at the final business case stage. This planned project will include a new acute care tower and renovations to existing buildings (Health Care Centre and Columbia Tower).

Figure 27: RCH Redevelopment site

The RCH Redevelopment project has provided a unique opportunity to partner with the City of (CoNW). Several years ago as part of the original business case, an Energy Plan was developed for the site which included connecting to a potential District Energy System (DES). A Memorandum of Understanding was created between FHA and CoNW for joint analytical work to help develop a DES Business Case. The two DES options being considered are a Biomass Boiler plant or a Sewer Waster Heat Recovery plant. If approved, the goal will be for the City owned and operated DES system to 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 | 41

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

5.6 Energy Management Assessment (EMA) Progress As mentioned in section 4.2, FH has undergone five annual BC Hydro sponsored Energy Management Assessment (EMA) sessions with the last one being in December 2014. The outcome of this exercise resulted in 5 focus areas and a summary of actions related to these areas are detailed below in table 19. Table 19: EMA Focus areas and Progress updates Focus Area Action Updates Policy in place for both FH and the LM Health Organizations Our GreenCare Framework has been refreshed and is integrated into our work Policy Environmental Sustainability is a LMFM key client outcome Continued effort to align our work with core focus of the organization: health and wellness Overall and Core Site Targets established for 2018 and 2020 Targets and Reporting Quarterly & Annual Energy Reports created and shared with stakeholders Site energy use variances investigated with site FMO leads Refreshed SEMP, including an Executive Summary, with a focus on health and wellness Energy Management drivers and barriers identified and prioritised Plans and Action accordingly 3 year study and project plan established Engagement strategies and communication plan being developed for key stakeholders Environment Sustainability Advisory Committee restrcuted with dedicated Executive team 76 active Green + Leaders volunteers in FH LMFM Senior Leadership Team represented by EES Director Teams and Committees LMFM EES team continue to be active members of the Provincial Environmental Technical Team Climate Change Resiliency Working Group formed

LMFM Body of Knowledge team to be formed with representation from EES FMO engagement strategy continues to roll out to raise energy awareness and provide education Green + Leaders trained and educated in energy reduction initiatives Employee Awareness Training Greencare Community website continues to be used a “communication tool” to build education, awareness, and engagement Aiming for EES topics to be included in future site leadership meetings These focus areas are generally considered “on-going” action items. Having said that, as part of the EMA process we feel that we have advanced these actions to a level whereby we can confirm completion. Planning for the sixth EMA session is in progress with the intention of aligning with the F17 annual Energy Report.

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 Robert Bradley 8 yrs been a BCH funded Energy Manager Organization Name Fraser Health Authority 8 yrs had a BCH funded Energy Manager BC Hydro file number Date submitted to BC Hydro October 10, 2016

Key Requirements SEMP page number(s) BC Hydro to where this is included complete 1. Executive Summary 1-2 pages summary that includes a) Energy Target (short term / long term) b) kWh target for current year c) Budget approval for current year plan d) Progress to date on longer term goal e) Benefits of energy savings (ie avoided costs, payback, improved comfort) 2. Our Commitment a) Alignment with organization’s goals b) Stakeholder engagement plan 3. Situational Analysis a) Organizational Profile b) EMA Outcome c) BEPI of buildings in portfolio d) Explanation of strategy for prioritizing projects (such as: target sites with highest energy consumption, highest BEPI, highest number of occupants) e) Opportunities / Challenges to be taken into account for energy management plan 4. Our Actions a) Current year project list that outlines kWh saved and cost per project and total for year (including stakeholder engagement plan) b) Budget approval for plan (or explanation of how/ when funding will be in place) c) Potential projects outlined for the following 1-2 years d) Show how projects contributes to achievement of energy target e) Progress on 5 EMA critical items 5. Executive Sign Off Signature on current plan, or update summary if mid- way through a multi-year plan

Page | 44

FH Strategic Energy Management 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 Exert

Page | 46

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 47

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 48

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 49

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 50

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 51

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 52

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 | 53

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 | 54

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 | 55

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 | 56

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

Page | 57

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

6.4 Appendix D: EMA Cover Letter

Page | 58

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

6.5 Appendix E: Site Details

Page | 59

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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

6.6 Appendix F: 3 Year Energy Data

Page | 72

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 73

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 74

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

6.7 Appendix G: Site Targets Charts

ARH Performance & Targets BUH Performance & Targets CGH Performance & Targets

700 600 700 600 500 600 500 400 336 336 500 464 420 283 459 400 372 400 300 389 360 550 300 575 300 kWh/yr/m2 kWh/yr/m2

510 kWh//yr/m2 200 200 200 225 232 232 220 215 207 100 100 188 170 160 100 - - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

DEH Performance & Targets ERH Performance & Targets FCH Performance & Targets

600 600 800 500 500 700 600 400 299 311 335 400 591 274 270 500 300 199 300 400 440 379 379 kWh//yr/m2 kWh/yr/m2 kWh//yr/m2 200 400 300 200 450 266 100 193 184 174 244 204 200 100 211 100 151 144 - - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

Page | 75

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

LMH Performance & Targets MMH Performance & Targets PAH Performance & Targets

800 700 600 700 600 500 600 500 400 500 482 394 332 461 445 400 251 284 400 192 300 276 595 300

kWh/yr/m2 420 kWh//yr/m2 300 415 kWh//yr/m2 200 200 200 219 223 234 225 100 181 156 100 206 200 100 148 - - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020

Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

RCH Performance & Targets RMH Performance & Targets SMH Performance & Targets

600 700 700 500 600 600 354 500 400 322 322 500 368 386 394 253 400 338 400 238 300 500 300 300 540 495

kWh//yr/m2 200 kWh//yr/m2 kWh//yr/m2 200 200 243 220 220 251 272 262 100 241 221 213 100 100 - - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

Page | 76

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

CAC Performance & Targets FCC Performance & Targets HV Performance & Targets

400 700 600 600 500 300 185 500 400 404 191 543 200 170 400 300 279 300 387 186 250 200 kWh/m2/yr kWh//yr/m2 284 kWh//yr/m2 320 100 200 150 123 350 99 100 175 146 137 100 145 112 97 - - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

JPOC Performance & Targets QPCC Performance & Targets TC Performance & Targets

600 500 500

500 208 203 400 400 173 301 325 400 300 264 264 300 222 300 191 390 460 200 200 kWh/m2/yr kWh/m2/yr 200 373 361 kWh//yr/m2 300 304 100 178 100 134 128 100 172 163 141 - - - Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Base 2015 2018 2020 Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target Elec EUI NG EUI Target

Page | 77

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

6.8 Appendix H: Completed Energy Study List

Core Site Type of Study Year Full Energy Study 2003 Revised Partial Energy Study 2008 Interior Lighting Study 2008 Parkade Lighting Study 2009 Burnaby Hospital (BUH) AHU Coil Survey 2011 C.Op. Investigation Study 2012 Exterior Lighting Review 2014 Fortis Custom Study 2015 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2016 Full Energy Study 2002 Interior Lighting Study 2008 Full Energy Study 2010 AHU Coil Survey 2011 Chilliwack General Hospital Steam Trap Survey 2011 (CGH) Chilled Water Study 2013 COp Investigation Study 2013 Exterior Lighting Review 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2014 Interior Lighting Study 2010 Cottage & Worthington Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Pavilions (CWP - MSA) COp Investigation Study 2013 Exterior Lighting Review 2014 Creekside Withdraw Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Management Unit (CWMU) Full Energy Study 2003 Interior Lighting Study 2010 Steam Trap Survey 2011 Delta Hospital (DEH) COp Investigation Study 2012 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2014 Full Energy Study 2003 Thermal Energy Study 2008 Interior Lighting Study 2010 Revised Thermal Energy Study 2010 Eagle Ridge Hospital (ERH) AHU Coil Survey 2011 Steam Trap Study 2011 Insulation Survey 2011 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Exterior Lighting Review 2014

Page | 78

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2014 COp Investigation Study 2014 Full Energy Audit 2003 Revised Partial Energy Audit 2008 Fellburn Care Centre (FCC) Interior Lighting Study 2010 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2015 Fortis Custom Study 2015 Full Energy Study 2003 Thermal Energy Study 2008 Fraser Canyon Hospital (FCH) Interior Lighting Study 2009 COp Investigation Study 2013 Exterior Lighting Review 2014 Interior Lighting Study 2008 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Heritage Village (HV) COp Investigation Study 2013 Exterior Lighting Review 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2014 Full Energy Study 2003 Interior Lighting Study 2008 COp Investigation Study 2010 AHU Coil Survey 2011 Langley Memorial Hospital Thermal Energy Study 2011 (LMH) Steam Trap Survey 2011 Revised Interior and Exterior Lighting Study 2011 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2014 Fortis Custom Study 2015 Maple Ridge Treatment Centre Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 (MRTC) Full Energy Study 2003 Interior Lighting Study 2008 Full Energy Study 2010 AHU Coil Survey 2011 Mission Memorial Hospital New Construction Energy Study for CRC building 2013 (MMH) Exterior Lighting Review 2015 COp Investigation Study 2015 Fortis Custom Study 2015 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2015 Parkholm Place (PP) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Full Energy Study 2003 Interior Lighting Study 2008 Peace Arch Hospital (PAH) COp Investigation Study 2010 AHU Coil Survey 2011 Page | 79

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Steam Trap Survey 2011 Exterior Lighting Review 2012 Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2014 Full Energy Study 2003 Thermal Energy Study 2008 Queens Park Care Centre Interior Lighting Study 2008 (QPCC) Solar Hot Water Thermal feasibility assessment 2012 COp Investigation Study 2013 Exterior Lighting Review 2014 Full Energy Study 2003 Interior Lighting Study 2007 Boiler Plant Study 2008 AHU Coil Survey 2011 Ridge Meadows Hospital (RMH) COp Investigation Study 2013 Exterior Lighting Review 2014 Fortis Custom Study 2014 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2015 Full Energy Audit 2003 Revised Partial Energy Audit 2008 Interior Lighting Study 2008 Chilled Water Study 2008 AHU Coil Survey 2011 Royal Columbian Hospital (RCH) Thermal Energy Study 2011 Steam Trap Study 2011 COp Investigation Study 2012 Exterior Lighting Review 2013 Carbon Neutral Capital Program Assessment 2014 Full Energy Study 2003 Interior Lighting Study 2008 Thermal Energy Study 2011 North Parkade Lighting Study 2009 Surrey Memorial Hospital AHU Coil Survey 2011 (SMH) Steam Trap Survey 2011 New Construction Energy Study for CCT building 2012 COp Investigation Study 2014 South Parkade Lighting Study 2015 Generator Heater Feasibility Review 2016 Timber Creek (TC) New Construction Energy Study 2011

Page | 80

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

6.9 Appendix I: Completed Project List

Page | 81

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

Page | 82

FH Strategic Energy Management Plan

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