phsa management plan 2015 (semp) · currently led by acting ceo carl roy. the executive team...

PHSA Strategic Energy Management Plan (SEMP)

2015 The PHSA 2014 SEMP is a foundational document of the Energy & Environmental Sustainability within Lower Mainland Facilities Management and reports on past, current, and forecasted energy consumption and conservation projects within Provincial Health Services Authority. Issued: April 21, 2016

Energy Management Team: Energy Manager: Alex Hutton Energy Coordinator: Sabah Ali

Energy Specialist: Richard Wellwood Energy Volunteers: Green+ Leaders

Executive Support

Energy Committee: Environmental Sustainability Advisor Committee (ESAC) VP Lower Mainland Facilities Management (LMFM): Peter Goldthorpe

Energy & Environmental Sustainability Director, LMFM: Mauricio Acosta

Signature:

OUR PASSION OUR MANDATE OUR POTENTIAL

PHSA Strategic Energy Management Plan

Preface

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

LMFM Strategic Energy Management Plan Preface Provincial Health Service Authority (PHSA) SEMP

Page i


Provincial Health Service Authority (PHSA) Strategic Energy

Management Plan (SEMP)

Page ii


Table of Contents

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

I.I BC HYDRO SEMP EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................... 2

II. ORGANIZATION .................................................................................................................................4

II.I ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................................. 5 II.II STRATEGIC PLAN ............................................................................................................................................... 7 II.III KEY STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................................................................................... 8 II.IV BUDGET PROCESS AND CYCLE .............................................................................................................................. 9 II.V FACILITY PROFILE ............................................................................................................................................. 12 II.VI KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI’S) ............................................................................................................. 21

III. UNDERSTANDING THE PHSA SITUATION ........................................................................................... 23

III.I EVOLUTION OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT .............................................................................................................. 23 III.II ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA) ...................................................................................................... 23 III.III UTILITY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS .................................................................................................................... 24 III.IV BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS .................................................................................................... 28 III.V END USE BREAKDOWN ..................................................................................................................................... 34 III.VI GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 37

IV. PHSA GOALS & OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 40

IV.I OVERALL ........................................................................................................................................................ 40 IV.II ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................... 40 IV.III ENERGY COST & AVOIDANCE ............................................................................................................................. 44 IV.IV SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................... 47

V. STRATEGIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 48

V.I SWOT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 48

VI. PLANNED ACTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 50

VI.I EXISTING BUILDINGS ........................................................................................................................................ 50 VI.II NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS (NC&MR) .................................................................................... 57 VI.III ENGAGEMENT & BEHAVIOUR CHANGE ................................................................................................................ 59 VI.IV SYSTEMIC CHANGE .......................................................................................................................................... 61 VI.V INNOVATION & DEMONSTRATION ...................................................................................................................... 62

VII. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 64

VII.I EMA ASSESSMENT LETTER ............................................................................................................................... 65 VII.II PHSA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ........................................................................................................................ 66 VII.III RESOURCES AND LINKS ..................................................................................................................................... 68 VII.IV DETAILED PROJECT TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 69


List of Tables Table PHSA-1: Key Members of PHSA Executive .................................................................................................................... 6 Table PHSA-2: PHSA Strategic Directions and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 7 Table PHSA-3: Key Stakeholders............................................................................................................................................. 9 Table PHSA-4: Facility Profile (2014) .................................................................................................................................... 13 Table PHSA-5: PHSA Core Sites ............................................................................................................................................. 14 Table PHSA-6: CWHC Campus, Individual Buildings ............................................................................................................. 17 Table PHSA-7: Key Non-Core Sites ........................................................................................................................................ 18 Table PHSA-8: Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) ............................................................................................................... 22 Table PHSA-9: EMA Results .................................................................................................................................................. 23 Table PHSA-10: PHSA Actual Utility Consumption, GHG Emissions, and Cost, 2014 ........................................................... 24 Table PHSA-11: Actual Energy Consumption with Variance Relative to 2007 Base Year .................................................... 27 Table PHSA-12: Adjusted Annual Energy Consumption with Variance Relative to 2007 Base Year .................................... 27 Table PHSA-13: Core Site Energy Profile (2014) ................................................................................................................... 29 Table PHSA-14: Core Site Energy Intensity and Ranking, 2014 Actual Consumption .......................................................... 31 Table PHSA-15: Worst Performing Facilities, Explanation and Actions ............................................................................... 32 Table PHSA-16: Core Site Electricity Intensity & Ranking Comparison ................................................................................ 33 Table PHSA-17: Core Site Fuel Intensity & Ranking Comparison ......................................................................................... 34 Table PHSA-18: Actual Non-Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from Owned Building Portfolio ........................................... 39 Table PHSA-19: Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from Owned Building Portfolio .............................................................. 39 Table PHSA-20: Overall Energy and Climate Neutral Goals and Targets ............................................................................. 40 Table PHSA-21: Annual Electricity EUI Performance and Goals ........................................................................................... 41 Table PHSA-22: Annual Fuel EUI Performance and Goals .................................................................................................... 42 Table PHSA-23: Actual Energy Costs since 2009 .................................................................................................................. 44 Table PHSA-24: Avoided Energy Costs since 2009 ............................................................................................................... 45 Table PHSA-25: Summary of Performance, 2014 and 2013 ................................................................................................. 47 Table PHSA-26: Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis ........................................................................................................... 48 Table PHSA-27: Status of Energy Studies by Core Facility .................................................................................................... 50 Table PHSA-28: Summary of Projects, In-Progress ............................................................................................................... 53 Table PHSA-29: Summary of Projects, Pending, Planned, and Potential ............................................................................. 54 Table PHSA-30: C.Op. Project Summary ............................................................................................................................... 56 Table PHSA-31: New C.Op. Sites Approved ........................................................................................................................... 56 Table PHSA-32: Summary of Current and Anticipated NCP Projects ................................................................................... 58 Table PHSA-33: Detailed Summary of In-Progress Projects ................................................................................................. 69 Table PHSA-34: Detailed Summary of Pending, Planned, and Potential Projects ................................................................ 70 Table PHSA-35: Detailed Summary of Complete Projects .................................................................................................... 73


List of Figures Figure PHSA-1: PHSA Organizational Chart ........................................................................................................................... 5 Figure PHSA-2: PHSA Strategic Framework ........................................................................................................................... 8 Figure PHSA-3: Funding Cycle Summary .............................................................................................................................. 10 Figure PHSA-4: Core Sites Actual Utility Cost Breakdown, 2014 .......................................................................................... 25 Figure PHSA-5: Core Sites Building GHG Emissions Breakdown, 2014 ................................................................................. 25 Figure PHSA-6: Site Energy Intensity, 2014 Actual Consumption......................................................................................... 30 Figure PHSA-7: Acute Care Facility Typical End Use Breakdown .......................................................................................... 35 Figure PHSA-8: 2014 Breakdown of Building Emissions (tCO2e) .......................................................................................... 37 Figure PHSA-9: Annual Electricity EUI Performance and Goals ............................................................................................ 41 Figure PHSA-10: Annual Fuel EUI Performance and Goals ................................................................................................... 42 Figure PHSA-11: Actual Energy Costs since 2009 ................................................................................................................. 44 Figure PHSA-12: Electricity Cost and Avoidance since 2009 ................................................................................................ 46 Figure PHSA-13: Fuel Cost and Avoidance since 2009 ......................................................................................................... 46 Figure PHSA-14: Food Services Equipment Purchase Procedure ........................................................................................... 62


I. BC HYDRO SEMP EVALUATION

Energy Manager 4th Quarter Assessment Form

SEMP Evaluation For BC Hydro to complete

Company Name Energy Manager

File Number

Quarter PSE Signature: SEMP Completed

Date:

Projects that used PS incentives:

PS Program Incentive kWh PSP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________ PSP Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________ New Construction . . . . . . . . . ________ Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________ Behaviour Program (2%) . . . . ________

Turn around time for 4th Q review: _______days Energy Manager: Please complete appropriate year below Note: All areas (in your contract Year) must be covered in order to receive 4th quarter payment

Page 1


i.i BC HYDRO SEMP EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS

Year 2+ Strategic energy Management Plan Requirements

6 Critical elements must be included in the SEMP Page Number where

the element is addressed in the SEMP

EM evaluation

PSE Agrees

1) A purpose statement which answers the following questions: a) What is your kWh reduction target? 40, 41

Yes

b) What are the Key Performance Indicator(s) for your organization? 21 c) Who do you need to engage to make your plan successful?

8 , LMFM Preface Appendix

2) A table that compares all the buildings in your portfolio a) BEPI - updated to the current year 28, 29 Yes b) Explanation of the worst performing buildings 31 3) Explain the opportunities to become more efficient a) Project list 52

Yes

b) Initiative List: Behavioral and Organizational 59, 60 c) Studies: Outline which buildings have had studies completed 50 4) Outline the budget to implement projects a) If no budget or unable to forecast, WHY? What do you need to enable a budget / forecast?

Error! Bookmark not defined., 9 Yes

5) Conclusion: How is your plan doing? a) Outline kWh saved 41, 47

Yes

b) Outline GHG tons saved 38, 47 c) Outline total dollars saved to the organization 44, 47 d) Outline avoided cost 44, 47 e) Outline total dollars saved 44, 47 6) Senior Management Support a) Approval of the SEMP: Signature on the SEMP Front Cover Yes

Page 2


Tracking: 2nd Q

Draft SEMP Submitted Date

Date PSE Coaching Comments Returned to EM

4th Q SEMP submitted date

Reviewed and Coaching comments returned to EM: Date

*If EM needed to resubmit :date

If PSE reviewed: Date

Energy Manager

PSE

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

Date: Duration Date: Duration Date: Duration Date: Duration Energy Manager contacted PSE for assistance

Page 3


PHSA provides specialized health

care across the province

For Energy Management, our focus is the core

“owned” sites

II. ORGANIZATION

Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) is one of the Province’s six health authorities. While the other five HA’s serve geographic regions of BC, PHSA provides specialized health care services across the province. PHSA provides health care to over 1 million people (approximately one third of the population of BC). PHSA operates nine (9) agencies that provide province-wide health care services, including the following: BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) BC Centre for Disease Control (BCDC) BC Children's Hospital (BCCH) and Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children (SHHC) BC Mental Health & Addiction Services BC Renal Agency BC Transplant BC Women's Hospital & Health Centre (BCWH) Cardiac Services BC Perinatal Services BC

PHSA also operates and manages selected provincial programs and services, including the following: BC Ambulance Service BC Autism Assessment Network (BCAAN) Health Shared Services BC (HSSBC) PHSA Aboriginal Health Program Provincial Blood Coordinating Office Provincial Infection Control Network of British Columbia (PICNet) Provincial Surgical Services Program Provincial Emergency Services Project Trauma Specialized diagnostics Specialized cancer surgery Telehealth

Note that for the purpose of this document and energy management in general, the focus is on the core owned site, since these are the ones which the Energy Manager has the most control and influence over. As such, data reported herein relates to the core owned sites unless otherwise stated.

Page 4


ii.i ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

A variety of agencies and services are managed by PHSA, as listed in Section 2. These are all managed with a common approach but to a large extent each agency operates independently. For example, each Cancer Agency has their own executive structure that operates fairly independently of the overall PHSA executive. This impacts Energy Management, in particular our capacity to advance projects in a variety of ways including the following:

• Increased complexity of the organizational structure, which adds time and difficulty to navigating processes, procedures, lines of communication and decision-making

• Increased number of individuals with whom to develop relationships and gain buy-in from to secure funding for projects, adding time and complexity

The current Energy Manager is working to understand and document this organizational structure and endeavouring to build relationships with the key individuals. Figure PHSA-1summarizes the PHSA organizational structure from a high level as it relates to Energy Management.

Figure PHSA-1: PHSA Organizational Chart

The PHSA Executive Team consists of over 20 individuals responsible for various agencies and is currently led by acting CEO Carl Roy. The executive team reports to the Board of Directors, currently chaired by W Powell. The following agencies have large sites that are considered core sites (as described in Section 2.7) and which are the focus of Energy Management efforts:

• BC Cancer Agency • BC Centre for Disease Control • BC Children’s Hospital and Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children • BC Women’s Hospital & Health Centre • BC Mental Health & Addiction Services (including Forensic Psychiatric Services and Child and

Youth Mental Health)

PHSA Board of Directors PHSA Executive

Children's & Women's and SHHC

BCCH SHHC BCWH

BCCA

Regional Cancer Centres

Other Agencies

BCCDC, etc.

Page 5


The other agencies services are dispersed between numerous small sites that are not currently a central focus. The following are key members of the executive team of most relevance to Energy Management:

• Carl Roy, President & CEO, PHSA • Arden Krystal, Executive VP and COO • Thomas Chan, CFO, PHSA • Dr. Max Coppes, President, BC Cancer Agency, PHSA • Shannon Griffin , VP, Strategic Planning, Transformation Support and Innovation (SPTSI) • Leslie Arnold, President, BC Children's Hospital and SHHC and VP, PHSA • Dr. Mark Tyndall, Executive Medical Director, BC Centre for Disease Control • John Andruschak, VP, Clinical and Support Services

Table PHSA-1 summarizes plans to increase engagement of a few key members of the PHSA executive.

Table PHSA-1: Key Members of PHSA Executive

Executive Team Member

Connection to Energy Management

Plans to Increase Engagement in Energy Management

Vacant Executive Sponsor for Energy Management within PHSA

Thomas Chan Signs off annually on the carbon offset payment and carbon neutral self-certification process

Having a reason to meet with Thomas annually provides an opportunity to present the business case for further investment in Energy management and potentially gain further support. We plan to have further discussions with Thomas this year in regard to the potential Green Revolving Fund.

Page 6


PHSA’s Strategic Objective 3.2: “Optimize the use of our scarce resources” aligns with Energy Management efforts

ii.ii STRATEGIC PLAN

Table PHSA-2 summarizes PHSA’s strategic directions, as shown in the 2010-2013 Strategic Plan.

Table PHSA-2: PHSA Strategic Directions and Objectives

Strategic Direction Objectives 1: Improving Quality Outcomes and Better Value for Patients

1.1 Provide seamless patient-centered care for populations within our mandate. 1.2 Continue to implement the foundational elements of a Clinical Information Solution (CIS). 1.3 Increase the application of evidence and leading practices. 1.4 Enhance service delivery to provide safe, reliable and efficient care for patients and families.

2: Promoting Healthier Populations

2.1 Improve childhood development. 2.2 Promote health in high risk populations. 2.3 Help people living with chronic disease maintain independence and stay as healthy as possible.

3: Contributing to a Sustainable Health Care System

3.1 Achieve economies of scale and greater integration within PHSA and with our partners. 3.2 Optimize the use of our scarce resources and align them with the programs / services that provide best value to the people we serve. 3.3 Leverage our clinical services and research expertise to generate revenue or added value.

It is important to understand the organizations strategic direction and priorities in order to align energy conservation initiatives with other priorities and ideally to find synergies. Energy conservation initiatives that can contribute toward non-energy strategic objectives are more likely to be supported and receive funding. Objective 3.2 is highlighted in italics because it is the one that Energy Management is most likely to align with, since when we reduce energy consumption we reduce operating costs. Figure PHSA-2 shows the strategic framework visually.

Page 7


Better health is the ultimate goal, so

initiatives that also improve health

should be prioritized

Figure PHSA-2: PHSA Strategic Framework

From a simplified perspective, better health is the ultimate goal, so any energy conservation initiatives that also improve health should be prioritized. For example, efforts to encourage optimized use of daylight in new construction could be prioritized based on the proven health benefits associated with access to daylight.

ii.iii KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Table PHSA-3 summarizes the key individuals and groups of people whom the Energy Manager needs to engage with in order to make their plan successful, linked to the four key steps of the EES EM Framework.

Page 8


Table PHSA-3: Key Stakeholders

Stakeholder Groups Involvement in Steps of

Energy Management Identify Fund Implement Verify

LMFM FMO Y Director Y Y FMO Manager Y Y Y FMO Site Managers Y Y Y On-Site Maintenance & Operations Staff Y Y Y PHSA Executive Y Capital Planning Lead Y Y Y LMFM Project Manager Y Y Utilities (BC Hydro, Fortis BC, etc.) Y Y Y Y Consultants Y Y Y Purchasing Y Green+ Leaders Y Y Y IMIT Y Clinical Staff Y Y Significant progress was made in the past 2 years as the Energy Manager began establishing contact and developing good working relationships with dozens of stakeholders from across various organizations. In their first 2 years with PHSA, the current Energy Management team has made contact with over 110 stakeholders, over 60 of whom they met with in person, over 40 of whom they worked directly with on a project or initiative, and 20 of those have developed into a strong working relationship. Critical stakeholders have been identified with whom a stronger working relationship is required, and efforts will be made in the coming year to strengthen those. Refer to the LMFM Preface Appendix for a more complete list of specific individuals within each of the stakeholder groups noted above.

ii.iv BUDGET PROCESS AND CYCLE

A critical element of successful energy management is to understand the process, timing, and key decision-makers within the annual cycle of budget allocation. Since PHSA operates 9 different agencies, there are different processes within some of the different agencies for gaining access to funding. It is important to differentiate between Capital and Operating budgets with respect to existing buildings.

• Capital budgets with respect to existing buildings are those which increase the value of a facility o For example, replacing existing lighting with higher quality / more energy efficient

lamps / ballasts / fixtures • Operating budgets are associated with ongoing day to day operations and maintenance of

existing facilities o For example, replacing burn-out lighting with same

Capital and Operating budgets are allocated to PHSA annually and come primarily from the Provincial Government (the Ministry of Health). Capital budgets are approved and allocated by PHSA’s senior executive team (SET) and the PHSA Board of Directors. Operating budgets related to facilities maintenance and operations are established and controlled by the Director of Facilities Maintenance &

Page 9


Operations and approved by PHSA SET and the Board. The budget allocation process and timing for PHSA is summarized in Figure PHSA-3.

Figure PHSA-3: Funding Cycle Summary

ii.iv.i Capital Cycle

As shown in the Figure above, requests for capital budget from all hospital departments need to be submitted to PHSA’s Capital Finance in October of each year. Capital Finance then reviews each submission to ascertain whether they may require an Information Technology or Facilities component in order to implement. If so they are forwarded to these two departments to assess the added funding requirements necessary to support the submission. Capital Finance then sorts and prioritizes the submissions by department to create a master list of all submissions. These are then reviewed in December by a PHSA panel consisting of representatives from Capital Finance, Facilities, IT and Procurement. They screen the master list in an effort to short list the requests to the top 6 items from each requesting department. These are then categorized into the three streams of available capital funding. These are Capital renovations, Information Technology and Clinical Equipment. The final list is presented to SET for approval with a final approval by the PHSA board of Directors. Capital Finance then provides confirmation of funding to each successful department in April. Over and above the standard annual budgets, sometimes additional funding is received from the

Page 10


The Carbon Neutral Capital Program for K-12 is being expanded to the health sector, ensuring that

funds paid by the sectors for carbon offsets are invested in capital improvements to help the sectors

reduce carbon emissions.

Ministry of Health (MoH) to target special HA needs. In fiscal 2012-13 (F13) such a program was made available to target Facilities infra-structure renewal needs. This program was labelled as the Accelerated Routine Capital Investment (RCI). The total Accelerated RCI funding received by PHSA in F13 was $1.685 M dollars. The Energy Manager coordinates with the FMO Director to seek synergies between energy projects and RCI funding when such funding is made available.

ii.iv.i.i Carbon Neutral Capital Program

There is another source of capital funding available to the health authorities as of 2014. On February 18, 2014 the British Columbia three-year fiscal plan was released containing exciting news for the BC health authorities. The Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) for the k-12 Education sector was expanded to the health sector this year, enabling carbon offset payments to be invested in capital improvements that reduce carbon emissions. The amount that PHSA was eligible to apply for in F16 was ~$511,424. This was great news for the health authorities and the timelines meant that we needed to move rapidly to meet the associated funding timelines. We submitted applications through CNCP for carbon reduction (i.e. primarily natural gas saving) projects in May 2015 and received confirmation of approval by July 2015. This funding was issued as a RCG (restricted capital grant) and must be spent by March 2016. The CNCP projects are discussed further in Section 6: Planned Actions. We anticipate the CNCP program will continue at least for the next 3 years and that the timeline for “Year 4” applications will follow, as summarized below:

• Identify Year 4 projects eligible for CNCP funding (by Dec 2016) • Submit Year 4 applications to CNCP (January 2017) • Award CNCP Year 4 funding (April 2017) • Complete Year 4 projects (March 2018)

As such, a critical task this year is to identify appropriate projects to submit for CNCP funding in Year 3.

ii.iv.ii Operating Cycle

The operating budget is typically similar from year to year, with causes for an increase to the budget described as “cost pressures”. As shown in the Figure above, requests for operating budget (or cost pressures) need to be submitted in October of the previous year in order to have any likelihood of that budget increase being approved. Not all requests are approved.

ii.iv.ii.i Utility Budget

The utility budget is a portion of the annual operating budget and is estimated annually in October for the following fiscal year. The Energy Manager assists in the process of developing the utility budgets. This process consists of the following steps:

Page 11


• Account for known or anticipated changes to utility rate structures • Account for changes in consumption (due to expansions, renovations, added equipment, etc.) • Project consumption based on typical weather data

It is noted that there will be a change to how utility budgets are managed moving forward. The utility budgets, traditionally managed through accounts within the different Maintenance & Operations cost centres, will now be within a separate cost centre per site, which will be managed by the Energy and Environmental Sustainability team. The main purpose of this change is to provide more control (and accountability) to the energy managers. The Energy Manager has made efforts to understand and document the budget cycle process and has set timelines to submit budget requests in keeping with the budget cycles to maximize the likelihood of energy projects receiving funding.

ii.iv.ii.ii Corporate Maintenance Fund (CMF)

Another source of funding is the Corporate Maintenance Fund (CMF), which is analogous to an operating budget and is $1 million each year for all of PHSA. This is intended for unforeseen emergencies and failures that affect safety, comfort, etc. The money is held until a specific need arises and the Director of Facilities Maintenance and Operations (FMO) must apply to The CFO in order to use this fund. The criteria for using this fund are relaxed somewhat in the 3rd quarter in order to allow the funds to be fully utilized by addressing non-urgent maintenance needs also. The Energy Manager coordinates with the Director of FMO to identify projects that reduce energy as well as addressing maintenance issues.

ii.v FACILITY PROFILE

In describing the PHSA facility profile, it is important to define what we mean by a “site.” The term site can refer to a building, group of buildings, or portion of a building, which are defined as a site due to a particular set of clinical and/or operational functions performed therein and an associated organizational (ie; a service area) or financial (ie; cost centre) boundary. For example, the Children and Women’s campus at 4500 Oak Street in Vancouver is considered one site, although it consists of over a dozen individual distinct buildings. By contrast, some of the leased sites consist of just a few floors within a building.

ii.v.i Existing Sites

A full facility profile for PHSA would include descriptions of over 80 individual buildings across 60 sites, with a total floor area over 340,000 m2, as summarized in Table PHSA-4.

Page 12


Table PHSA-4: Facility Profile (2014)

Floor Area

(m²)

Portion of Total by

Area Sites Distinct

Buildings Owned Sites 232,626 67% 8 31

Leased Sites 73,128 21% 38 39

SSBC Sites 39,202 11% 14 14

Total 344,956 100% 60 84

Over 60% of the usable floor space within the PHSA portfolio is classed as owned space, with the rest being contract, leased or sub-leased. For the purpose of the SEMP, the focus is on those facilities that are owned and operated by Lower Mainland Facilities Management team. In other words, the facilities whose energy management falls under the responsibility of the LMFM, and therefore the facilities over which we have the most influence.

ii.v.i.i Core Sites

The facilities of focus for the SEMP fall within 7 owned sites, referred to as the “Core Sites,” as summarized in Table PHSA-5. There are 8 owned sites; however, one of these sites (Cancer Centre for the South Interior) is not operated by LMFM and is therefore not included within the Core Sites definition. The Cancer Centre for North is operated under a P3 (Public Private Partnership) model by Project Co. (the P3 consortium); however, it is included in the definition of Core Sites because the health authority has some ability to influence the operation of the facility. The EM is involved in the ongoing process related to the energy appendix of the project agreement, which includes a maximum $1 million penalty if the design and construction energy target is not met. In particular, the EM has been leveraging past experience to ensure that the process of verifying the design and construction target is fair and equitable for PHSA.

Page 13


Table PHSA-5: PHSA Core Sites

Site Name Site

Abbrev'n

Floor Area (m²)

Location (Address,

City) Description Children's and Women's Hospital

CWHC 150,400 4500 Oak Street,

Vancouver

Children's & Women's Health Centre (CWHC), also referred to the Oak Street Campus is located in Vancouver, BC. The campus includes 21 distinct buildings that offer a variety of services and represent a variety of the PHSA agencies. The largest building includes the BC Children's Hospital and BC Women's Hospital & Health Centre. C&W Site Map

Vancouver Cancer Centre

VCC 29,300 600 West 10th Ave,

Vancouver

The Vancouver Centre for the care and treatment of cancer brings together an interdisciplinary team of people to treat cancer. The building includes a variety of functions including Ambulatory Care Chemotherapy, Clinical Trials, Inpatient Units, Patient and Family Counseling, Pharmacy, Radiation Therapy, Radiology, and Surgical Suites.

Page 14


Site Name Site

Abbrev'n

Floor Area (m²)

Location (Address,

City) Description Sunny Hill Health Centre

SHHC 8,300 3644 Slocan Street,

Vancouver

SHHC is the child rehabilitation and development program of BC Children's Hospital. SHC provides acute rehabilitation and transition planning to support children and youth aged birth to 19 years to return to their home community. This site consists of 3 distinct buildings.

BCCA - Vancouver Island Centre

VICC 11,900 2410 Lee Ave,

Victoria

The Vancouver Island Centre is one of five full service cancer centres of the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA). It provides oncology consultations, chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments for people who live on Vancouver Island. This site is undergoing an expansion at present. This site includes the Deeley Research Centre.

BCCA - Fraser Valley Centre

FVCC 6,700 13750 96th Ave,

Surrey

BC Cancer Agency's Fraser Valley Centre is one of five full service cancer centres of the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA). It provides oncology consultations, chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatments for people who live in the Fraser Valley.

Page 15


Site Name Site

Abbrev'n

Floor Area (m²)

Location (Address,

City) Description Cancer Research Centre

BCCRC 21,400 675 West 10th Ave,

Vancouver

BCCRC is one of Canada's largest cancer research facilities. This faciltiy integrates cancer treatment and research under one roof, making it unique in BC. The facility has a high intensity of lab spaces with high exhaust volumes.

BCCA - Cancer Centre for the North

BCCN 4,600 1215 Lethbridge

St, Prince George

The BC Cancer Agency Centre for the North (BCCN) was completed in July 2012 and patients moved in by November 2012. It is adjacent to the University Hospital of Northern BC in Prince George. The facility includes a CT simulator (used for treatment planning); a pharmacy; Teleoncology capability; a chemotherapy treatment unit; and general outpatient clinics.

Total 232,600

Page 16


The CWHC campus makes up over 40% of the total PHSA portfolio floor area and is therefore a high priority site, given the ability to achieve economies of scale and efficiencies by focusing on a single campus. As such, it is important to understand the individual buildings that make up this campus. These buildings are summarized in Table PHSA-6, listed from largest to smallest. Changes this year include the addition of the Child Care Centre, which officially opened in March 2014 and demolition which has commenced for a number of buildings on the campus to make way for the new Teck Acute Care Centre. These changes are not yet reflected in the CWHC site area as noted in Table PHSA-5 since we are reporting primarily on 2013 data which was not affected by these changes.

Table PHSA-6: CWHC Campus, Individual Buildings

Building Name Abbrev'n Floor Area (m²)

Year Built Building Type Comments

Children's and Women's Hospital 1982 Bldgs 61,795 1979 Clinical/Inpatient/Office

Shaughnessy DEF Blocks SH-DEF 17,442 1980 Clinical/Inpatient/Office

CFRI Centre for Translational Research CFRI-TRB 11,248 2007 Research / Lab

Ambulatory Care Building (K Bldg) ACB 10,961 2000 Clinical/Office CFRI CMMT CFRI-CMMT 7,483 1996 Research / Lab

Shaughnessy A Block SH-A 7,388 1940 Clinical/Office Demolition started Aug ‘14

Shaughnessy B Block SH-B 6,412 1944 Clinical/Office

Mental Health Bldg (P Bldg) MHB 6,405 1947 Clinical/Inpatient/Office

Shaughnessy C Block SH-C 4,843 1957 Clinical/Inpatient/Office

Shaughnessy Lab Bldg (L Block) SH-L 3,776 2006 Clinical Labs/Research Demolition started Aug ‘14

CFRI Variety Research CFRI-Variety 3,489 1983 Research Plant Services Building (S Bldg) PSB 2,748 2007 Service/Office Clinical Support Building (CSB) CSB 2,400 2012 Clinical/Office CFRI Education Centre CFRI-ED 1,683 1999 Research Shaughnessy H Block SH-H 872 1966 Clinical/Office

Child Care Centre CCC 850 2013 Child Care Opened March 2014

Maintenance Stores MS 574 1968 Service Heather Sub Station HSS 325 1983 Service

Medical Research Unit (J Bldg) MRU 247 1955 Research Demolition started Aug ‘14

Green House GH 176 1979 Service 3TMRI 3TMRI 150 2012 Research Flammable Stores FS 33 1983 Service

Total 151,300 There is limited sub-metering at CWHC, so the precise EUI of each building is not known.

Page 17


ii.v.i.ii Non-Core Sites

The majority of effort is focused on the Core Site for the reasons stated previously; however, some of the larger sites that are not owned and/or operated directly by PHSA are prioritized above the majority of non-core sites due to their size, and associated potential for impact. These facilities are summarized in Table PHSA-7.

Table PHSA-7: Key Non-Core Sites

Site Name Ownership

Model Floor Area

(m²)

Location (Address,

City) Description & Comments BCCA - Cancer Centre Southern Interior (CCSI)

Contract 6,740 399 Royal Avenue, Kelowna

Although the staff who operate the CCSI are contracted from the adjacent Kelowna General Hospital site, energy conservation projects can still be implemented.

Shared Services Facility

Leased 10,609 8521 - 198A Street, Langley

This large leased site may be eligible to go through the C.Op. program.

FPSC - Forensic Psychiatric Hospital

Leased 19,300 70 - Colony Farm Road, Port Coquitlam

This large site will be explored for potential energy conservation measures.

BCCA - Centre for Disease Control (BCCDC)

Lease 16,355 655 - West 12th Avenue,

Vancouver

This large leased site includes lab spaces making it quite energy intensive. Since PHSA pays the utility costs, it is worthwhile exploring opportunities to reduce energy consumption and associated costs. The site has its own Energy Manager through HSSBC so we will coordinate with them when identifying any opportunities.

Page 18


Site Name Ownership

Model Floor Area

(m²)

Location (Address,

City) Description & Comments Vancouver Consolidation

Leased 12,530 1795 - Willingdon Avenue, Burnaby

PHSA signed a 15-year lease for this office building in 2012. Major tenant improvements were completed prior to PHSA staff moving into the facility in September 2012. Due to the large size of the leased space and the long term lease agreement, this site rises on the priority scale.

ii.v.ii Planned Site Changes

This section summarizes major changes or additions to the PHSA portfolio due to new construction, major renovation, demolition, or added/removed leases. Note that only leases of significant size (>5,000 m2) are noted here.

ii.v.ii.i CWHC Redevelopment

Through PHSA, BC Children's and Women's Health Centre (CWHC) campus is undergoing a Redevelopment Project. The Redevelopment Project is expected to take six years to complete and has been organized for implementation in three phases:

• Phase 1: Relocation and Demolition

• Phase 2: Acute Care Centre Construction

• Phase 3: Renovation, Relocation and Expansion

The timeline and scope of each phase is described below at a high level and then individual new construction projects are described in more detail in the sub-sections following. Phase 1: Relocation and Demolition Timeline: Ongoing until 2014

Page 19


Provide 3 new Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) beds (completed Fall 2011) Construct new Ronald McDonald House (groundbreaking Summer 2012)1 Construct new 2,400m2 Clinical Support Building (CSB) (completed in Fall 2012) Construct a new Child Day Care Centre (opened March 2014)2 Provide additional space for the UBC Medical School

Most of the activities planned for Phase 1 are complete as noted by the check marks above; demolition of Shaughnessy A and L-wings is in progress and some relocation projects are still underway. Phase 2: Acute Care Centre (ACC) Construction

• Timeline: 2014 - 2017 • Design and construction of the new Acute Care Centre (see Section 6.2.1.1)

The Acute Care Centre, now officially called the Teck Acute Care Centre or TACC for short is in the detailed design phase with the chosen P3 proponent team, Affinity. Phase 3: Renovation, Relocation and Expansion

• Timeline: 2017 - 2018 • Relocate Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children to this site • Renovate 1982 building and expanding the birthing program

Some of the existing buildings on the Oak Street campus will be renovated to support the move of the Sunny Hill Health Centre for Children to the site, and BC Women's Hospital programs will be expanded.

1 The Ronald McDonald House will be located on the CWHC campus, but will not be owned or operated by PHSA 2 The Child Day Care Centre House is located on the CWHC campus, but is not owned or operated by PHSA Page 20


ii.vi KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI’S)

Key performance indicators (KPI’s) are used to summarize progress toward a particular goal. As noted in Table LMFM-2 of the Preface, there are a number of KPI’s that are required in order to quantify performance relative to the priorities of our various stakeholders. In addition to tracking and reporting progress, KPI’s are also used to analyze trends and correlations, as well as to prioritize efforts. In summary, KPI’s are used to assist with the following:

1. Tracking progress 2. Reporting successes 3. Analyzing trends and correlations 4. Prioritizing efforts

From a strictly energy-management point of view, one of the simplest and most common KPI’s is Energy Utilization Intensity (EUI), measured in kWh/m²/year. From a broader healthcare perspective it is useful to have one or more KPI’s that relate to intensity of clinical use within buildings in order to correlate intensity of clinical use with energy consumption. Examples of such KPI’s are energy use per patient treatment (kWh/PT) and energy use per full time equivalent (FTE) staff. Due to the variety of different agencies within PHSA, the only metric that is available across the health authority is full time equivalent staff. Full time equivalent staff data for all of PHSA is available, so kWh/FTE will be used as a measure of energy intensity relative to healthcare services delivered. KPI’s have limitations in terms of relevance to different facility types and also in their ability to capture the reality of what is happening when rolled-up to a macro-level. As such, having more than one KPI is useful to gain a more balanced perspective of progress. At present the appropriate data has been collected to facilitate reporting on the KPI’s summarized in Table PHSA-8. Some of these will be used at the portfolio level and others at the individual building or site level.

Page 21


Table PHSA-8: Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)

KPI used to:

STAKEHOLDER REQUIREMENT / PRIORITY

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (KPI)

Units Track Target

1 Report Success Analyze Prioritize

Provincial Gov’t Compliance with

Bill 44

GHG emissions reduction below 2007

% *

Health Authority

Total carbon reduction

Tonnes CO2e

Cost Savings Cost Savings per year $/yr

Cost Avoidance Avoided costs per year $/yr

BC Hydro Achieve annual energy target

“Booked” electricity savings2

GWh/yr *

FortisBC

Pursue FortisBC incentives

Incentive dollars achieved per year

$/yr *

Achieve natural gas savings

“Booked” natural gas savings4

GJ/yr *

EES Team

Demonstrate progress 5

Energy Reduction3 %

Energy Use Intensity

kWh/m2/yr

Relate energy to service delivery

Energy use per full time equivalent staff

kWh/FTE

1 A check mark indicates a KPI that is being tracked relative to a specific target. An asterix (*) indicates a KPI that is tracked to show progress relative to a mandated target versus a self-imposed target 2 Target varies by Health Authority and by year and is based on energy savings approved by BC Hydro 3 Percentage energy reduction for owned and operated buildings only, relative to 2007 baseline 4 FortisBC has not set specific targets yet. Savings are based on gas savings approved by FortisBC 5 A number of the other KPI’s noted above are also used to demonstrate progress toward our various goals

Page 22


III. UNDERSTANDING THE PHSA SITUATION

This section provides an overview of where PHSA is with respect to energy management in general and progress toward the stated targets.

iii.i EVOLUTION OF ENERGY MANAGEMENT

PHSA has some degree of Energy Management in place for over 7 years; however, there has been a high turnover of staff in the role of Energy Manager for PHSA over the past 6 years. As such, the current state of energy management is in its infancy in some respects and well advanced in other respects. For example, relationships built by one energy manager are not readily transferrable to the next, so these must be built up from scratch. Projects, initiatives, and processes begun by past energy managers can be carried forward with only a partial drop in the rate of progress due to hand-over.

iii.ii ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT (EMA)

As explained in the Preface, the Energy Management Assessment (EMA) is a structured methodology to evaluate, identify and prioritize the critical energy-related business practices to target for improvement. Strategic Energy Group (SEG), in partnership with BC Hydro, led PHSA through an EMA workshop for the fourth time on December 5th 2014. The EMA exercise is designed to provide an initial assessment of current energy management business practices and identify the range of corrective actions available to optimize energy efficiency and performance. It has been agreed that the EMA will be carried out every two years. The results and improvement in the ratings from year to year can be seen in the table below.

Table PHSA-9: EMA Results

EMA Session Date Diagnostic Tool One-2-Five IBR1 Score

SEGEMA LR2 Score %

Change TBR/ CBR3

% Change

15-Nov-07 One-2-Five 1.52 1.18 N/A N/A N/A 5-Dec-08 One-2-Five 1.84 1.42 20.3% N/A N/A

20-Apr-114 SEGEMA N/A 1.58 11.3% 0.69 N/A 5-June-13 SEGEMA N/A 1.59 0.6% 0.63 -8.7% 5-Dec-14 SEGEMA N/A 1.61 1.3% 0.59 -6.3%

Notes: 1. IBR is the International Benchmark Rating and is not applicable in the new SEGEMA tool. For reference the

1.74 score from 2009 gave PHSA a 2 star rating and the score was above the industry and national average. 2. LR is the Level of Rigor with a maximum score of 4.00. 3. CBR is Component Balance Rating and provides an indication of how “balanced” the organisation is. The lower

the CBR, the more balanced the organization (0.00 – 0.25 indicates a high balance rating whereas a 0.75 – 1.00 indicates highly unbalanced).

4. There was a delay in the 3rd EMA due to the consolidation of the Lower Mainland Health Authorities. In 2011, the SEGEMA diagnostic tool was introduced and replaced the previously used One-2-Five tool. The outcomes from the previously used one-2-five tool were inputted into the SEGEMA tool to provide an indication of change and improvement.

Page 23


Based on the input provided by the PHSA management team during the EMA workshop session in 2013, the current overall energy management business practices profile has an LR score of 1.59 signalling that the organization has established a strategic approach to energy management and is integrating energy management initiatives into standard operations. However, the overall, or total, balance rating (CBR) of 0.63 indicates that current business practices associated with managing the energy function in the organization are somewhat unbalanced. The EMA cover letter summarizing suggested priority actions can be found in Appendix 7. The next EMA session will be scheduled for June 2015.

iii.iii UTILITY CONSUMPTION AND COSTS

All of the core owned buildings use electricity and natural gas (or purchased steam generated from natural gas) as energy sources. In addition, many of the sites also use fuel oil to power emergency generators and/or as a back-up energy source for heating boilers; however, this represents a very small portion of total energy consumption. The overall utility consumption, costs, and associated GHG emissions for PHSA, based on the available data for core buildings for the 2013 calendar year, are rounded for ease of reading and summarized in Table PHSA-10, Figure PHSA-4, and Figure PHSA-5.

Table PHSA-10: PHSA Actual Utility Consumption, GHG Emissions, and Cost, 2014

Utility Annual Consumption 2014 Emissions Cost Quantity units % Tonnes % $ %

Electricity 62,481,400 kWh 46% 600 4% $ 4,849,300 64% Fuel / Steam 72,492,300 ekWh 54% 13,000 96% $ 2,289,300 30% Water / Sewer 355,100 m³ n/a n/a n/a $ 475,100 6% Total 134,973,700 ekWh 100% 13,600 100% $7,613,700 100%

Notes: 1. This data is actual consumption and cost without adjustments for weather variation. 2. Water and sewer costs are not available for all core sites 3. GHG emissions are for core buildings only and exclude fleet, paper, and fugitive emissions

Page 24


Figure PHSA-4: Core Sites Actual Utility Cost Breakdown, 2014

Figure PHSA-5: Core Sites Building GHG Emissions Breakdown, 2014

Page 25


Table PHSA-11 shows that a greater portion of energy consumption is associated with natural gas than with electricity; however, Figure PHSA-4 shows that the magnitude of cost associated with electricity is significantly higher than gas due to the cost of electricity being higher relative to gas. Both energy utilities are much greater than the cost of water and sewer charges; however, it should be noted that this data is incomplete at present due to lack of accurate metering and billing data for water. Figure PHSA-5 shows that although the PHSA buildings consume only slightly more natural gas than electricity, the majority (94%) of GHG emissions are associated with fuel (or purchased steam) consumption. As noted in the preface, the disproportionately large portion of GHG emissions associated with natural gas does not reduce the importance of reducing energy consumption associated with electricity; efforts targeted at all energy sources will be required in order to meet both the energy and GHG reduction targets. In summary, the above data suggests that from the point of view of reducing total energy consumption, energy cost, and GHG emissions, attention should be focused fairly evenly between electricity and gas. Efforts to reduce water consumption are also important, but are secondary to energy from the energy management perspective. The overall actual (unadjusted) energy consumption from to the 2007 base year up to the 2013 is shown in Table PHSA-11, rounded to the nearest 10 megawatt hours for ease of reading. The cumulative variance relative to the base year is also shown.

Page 26


Table PHSA-11: Actual Energy Consumption with Variance Relative to 2007 Base Year

Year Electricity Fuel Total

Cons'n Variances Cons'n Variances Cons'n Variances MWh Yr to Yr Cumulative eMWh Yr to Yr Cumulative eMWh Yr to Yr Cumulative

2007 53,270 N/A N/A 74,550 N/A N/A 127,820 N/A N/A 2008 56,000 5.1% 5.1% 77,880 4.5% 4.5% 133,870 4.7% 4.7% 2009 56,560 1.0% 6.2% 78,850 1.2% 5.8% 135,410 1.2% 5.9% 2010 58,330 3.1% 9.5% 76,340 -3.2% 2.4% 134,670 -0.5% 5.4% 2011 59,370 1.8% 11.5% 83,540 9.4% 12.1% 142,910 6.1% 11.8% 2012 60,730 2.3% 14.0% 82,590 -1.1% 10.8% 143,320 0.3% 12.1% 2013 62,350 2.7% 17.0% 77,690 -5.9% 4.2% 140,040 -2.3% 9.6% 2014 62,480 0.2% 17.3% 72,490 -6.7% -2.8% 134,970 -3.6% 5.6%

Note: 1. The 2007 calendar year was selected to align with the carbon neutral emission targets. Table PHSA-11 shows that actual electricity consumption for the core sites has increased 17% and actual fuel consumption has decreased 2.8%, with a net increase of 5.6% in comparison to the 2007 base year. In order to understand these changes, weather variations must be taken into account as well as changes to the core sites since the base year. Table PHSA-12 shows the consumption adjusted based on the following types of adjustments:

1. Weather a. Using regression analysis on the data from our utility management database

2. Meter reading period length

Table PHSA-12: Adjusted Annual Energy Consumption with Variance Relative to 2007 Base Year

Year

Electricity Fuel Total

Cons'n Var. to Base Cons'n Var. to

Base Cons'n Var. to Base

MWh % eMWh % eMWh % 2007 53,270 N/A 74,550 N/A 127,820 N/A 2008 55,800 4.7% 74,590 0.1% 130,390 2.0% 2009 55,860 4.9% 75,190 0.9% 131,050 2.5% 2010 58,180 9.2% 81,720 9.6% 139,900 9.5% 2011 59,290 11.3% 80,320 7.7% 139,610 9.2% 2012 59,470 11.6% 82,180 10.2% 141,650 10.8% 2013 61,660 15.7% 77,110 3.4% 138,770 8.6% 2014 61,720 15.9% 76,160 2.2% 137,890 7.9%

Based on adjusted data, electricity consumption has increased by 15.9% and fuel consumption has increased by 2.2%, resulting in an overall energy use increase 7.9% above the base year.

Page 27


The increase in energy consumption is largely explained by major changes since the base year that affect actual and weather-adjusted consumption including the following:

• The 121,000 ft² Centre for Translational Research (CFRI) facility was opened on the CWHC campus in November of 2008.

• The Vancouver Cancer Centre (VCC) site expanded during the Spring of 2010. • The new cyclotron at VCC came into operation in 2011. • The 3TMRI building was added to the CWHC campus in 2011. • As part of Phase 1 of the C&W Redevelopment, there have been numerous renovation and new

construction projects since 2010 including the Clinical Support Building (CSB) complete in Sept 2012, the Child Care Centre substantially completed in 2013, and the Ronald MacDonald house.

• An expansion to the VICC started in 2011 and completed by Dec 2012. In order to separate changes in energy consumption associated with changes in the portfolio size, from changes due to implementation of energy projects other metrics is needed, as discussed in the following section.

iii.iv BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

To allow comparison of the energy performance of individual facilities, a Building Energy Performance Indicator (BEPI) is often used. Although BEPIs have their limitations, they can be used as an initial review tool to compare performance. The performance metric used in this section will be the energy used per unit of conditioned floor area, also known as Energy Utilization Intensity (EUI), in units of ekWh/m2/year. Ideally the facilities should be broken down into similar categories to enable a like for like comparison; however, the best comparison for relative performance (ie; things are improving or getting worse) is comparison again the same building’s data from previous years. The core facilities consist of acute hospitals, cancer clinics, a rehabilitation centre, and a research centre. For the purpose of characterizing these facilities in terms of energy intensity, they have been broken down into two categories: “Acute Facilities” and “Nursing and Residential Care.” A key differentiator between acute and non-acute facilities is the magnitude of outdoor air exchange. High outdoor air ventilation rates are required for certain space types within acute facilities such as operating rooms (OR’s). Similarly, high air exchange rates are found in buildings with laboratory spaces, which have fume hoods and other exhaust equipment. The Cancer Research Centre is included within the acute category due to the building’s high ventilation rates associated with to the lab spaces. The floor area, annual energy consumption, and annual energy cost values for the core sites are summarized in Table PHSA-13 and are rounded to the nearest hundred for ease of reading. Each site is compared to a benchmark intended to represent typical energy consumption for the category. The sites are ranked (1 being worst performance) within each category based on their EUI. Figure PHSA-6 shows the BEPI results visually.

Page 28


Table PHSA-13: Core Site Energy Profile (2014)

Core Site

Size¹

Annual Energy

Consumption (ekWh)

Annual Energy Cost

Energy Utilization Intensity

(ekWh/m²) Rank (m²) ($) Acute Facilities

Children's and Women's Hospital 150,396 86,188,354 $3,798,845 573 3

Vancouver Cancer Centre 29,335 14,683,844 $1,018,162 501 4

Vancouver Island Cancer Centre 11,864 5,391,850 $386,015 454 6

Fraser Valley Cancer Centre 6,700 3,290,089 $216,118 491 5

BC Cancer Research Centre 21,368 19,924,803 $1,370,724 932 1

BC Cancer Centre for the North 4,645 2,706,629 $207,986 583 2

Benchmark for BC Hospitals3 519

Nursing and Residential Care Sunny Hill Health Care Centre 8,318 2,788,050 $140,715 335 n/a

Benchmark for BC Nursing and Residential Care Facilities3 300

Page 29


Notes: 1. Size (floor area) is intended to be based on interior gross areas excluding parkades, interstitial

and mechanical rooms; however, in some cases data has not been validated and is “interior gross” or “usable” area from PHSA buildings database.

2. The facility energy intensities are shown in green or red to indicate if they are below or above this benchmark respectively.

3. The comparison benchmarks were published in the NRCan 2008 Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey Summary Report.

The EUI data summarized in Table PHSA-13 is a useful way to identify the worst performing facilities as a means of prioritizing efforts. The means of benchmarking and comparing our facilities is discussed further in Section 3.5.

Figure PHSA-6: Site Energy Intensity, 2014 Actual Consumption

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

NRCan 2008 Commercial and Institutional Consumption of Energy Survey Summary Report 2. The energy intensity is not corrected for weather.

Page 30


It is useful to separate the intensity into electricity and fuel consumption and rank based on electricity and fuel separately. Table PHSA-15 shows the energy intensity by for electricity and fuel and a ranking (1 being worst performance) between the other sites within the same category.

Table PHSA-14: Core Site Energy Intensity and Ranking, 2014 Actual Consumption

Core Sites Electricity Intensity History Variance

Base Year* 2014 Actual 2014 Adjusted & Base kWh/yr/m² Rank kWh/yr/m² Rank kWh/yr/m² Rank Adj. (%)

Children's and Women's Hospital 205 5 217 6 214 6 4.0%

Vancouver Cancer Centre 274 3 295 4 290 4 6.0%

Sunny Hill Health Care Centre 138 6 110 7 109 7 -21.2%

Vancouver Island Cancer Centre 254 4 243 5 236 5 -7.1%

Fraser Valley Cancer Centre 275 2 308 3 302 3 9.6%

BC Cancer Research Centre 573 1 638 1 636 1 11.0%

BC Cancer Centre for the North 392 - 379 2 379 2 -3.2% Table PHSA-14 shows that while the BCCRC is the most energy intensive by far in terms of electricity and overall intensity and is the second most intensive with respect to fuel consumption. BCCRC is expected to be the most intense because of the high air exchange rates and intensity of plug load associated with a research lab facility of this type. While the CWHC campus is the most intensive for fuel consumption, it is the best performing of the acute facilities with respect to electricity. The high fuel intensity is due in part to the inefficiencies of the steam district heating system (including steam line losses), while the relatively low electrical consumption is likely due to the fact that the campus includes non-acute sites, whose electricity consumption should be compared to a non-acute benchmark.

iii.iv.i Worst Performing Facilities

Table PHSA-15 identifies the worst performing facilities (based on being more energy intensive than the comparison benchmark) and provides some explanation as to why each facility performs poorly and what is or will be done to improve performance.

Page 31


Table PHSA-15: Worst Performing Facilities, Explanation and Actions

Facility

Floor Area (m²) Explanation of EUI Remedial Actions

BC Cancer Research Centre (BCCRC)

21,400 - Despite being a LEED Gold facility, the very high exhaust rates and intensity of fridges and freezers associated with a research lab facility of this sort drive the energy intensity up.

- The facility completed the implementation stage of a Continuous Optimization Project, which included measures to optimize ventilation rates. The projected savings are about 15% and are starting to be realized. - In addition, CNCP funding was secured for a capital project to improve waste heat recovery from the chillers and this project will be complete by March 2015

BC Cancer Centre for the North (BCCN)

4,600 - Despite being built in 2012 and targeting LEED Gold, this facility is second most intense in terms of overall energy consumption. This is due primarily to being located in a colder climate

- PHSA is in discussions with the P3 operator about participating in BC Hydro’s Continuous Optimization program.

Children's and Women's Health Centre (CWHC)

147,800 - This site consists of 20 distinct buildings ranging in year of construction from 1940 to present. There is a lot of old equipment and a fairly inefficient campus steam plant and piping network that serves the heating and hot water needs.

- Clean energy options are being explored to replace the gas fired steam plant as the primary source of heat. This would not significantly reduce the energy intensity of the site, but would dramatically reduce the associated carbon emissions. - Phase 1 of the Chilled Water Plant upgrades were completed in 2013/14 - Phase II is now near completion as well - An energy study was completed at the Children and Family Research Institute (CFRI) buildings and a 3-Phase Implementation is underway - Two buildings are nearing completion of the Investigation Phase of C.Op. this year: the Mental Health Building (MHB) and the Translational Research Building (TRB)

Vancouver Cancer Centre

26,500 - Built in 1962, this site is about 50 years old and in need of upgrades. - Lab safety equipment necessitates very high ventilation rates.

- The facility is in the Investigation Phase of C.Op. (~50% complete), which will identify opportunities to optimize the site.

Page 32


iii.iv.ii Adjusted Energy Intensity

PHSA has been engaged with the BC Hydro Managers program since 2008 and several sites have had various energy projects undertaken during this time. To determine if the PHSA sites are becoming more energy efficient, the energy intensity data is normalized for weather variances. Table PHSA-16 and Table PHSA-17 display the weather adjusted electrical & natural gas intensity respectively using regression analysis for cooling and heating degree days against the 2007 base year (except for Cancer Centre for the North, which is compared to a 2013 base year and therefor shows no variance).

Table PHSA-16: Core Site Electricity Intensity & Ranking Comparison

Core Sites Electricity Intensity History Variance

Base Year* 2014 Actual 2014 Adjusted Base & Adj kWh/yr/m² Rank kWh/yr/m² Rank kWh/yr/m² Rank %

Children's and Women's Hospital 205 5 217 6 214 6 4.0%

Vancouver Cancer Centre 274 3 295 4 290 4 6.0%



Fraser Valley Cancer Centre 275 2 308 3 302 3 9.6%

BC Cancer Research Centre 573 1 638 1 636 1 11.0%

BC Cancer Centre for the North 392 - 379 2 379 2 -3.2% Table PHSA-17 shows that after weather adjustment BCCRC is still by far the most intensive for electricity, followed by and FVCC.

Page 33


Table PHSA-17: Core Site Fuel Intensity & Ranking Comparison

Core Sites Fuel Intensity History Variance

Base Year* 2014 Actual 2014 Adjusted Base & Adj ekWh/yr/m² Rank ekWh/yr/m² Rank ekWh/yr/m² Rank %

Children's and Women's Hospital 403 1 356 1 377 1 -6.5%

Vancouver Cancer Centre 223 6 206 5 213 4 -4.4%



Fraser Valley Cancer Centre 268 4 183 7 199 7 -25.6%

BC Cancer Research Centre 311 2 295 2 308 2 -1.1%

BC Cancer Centre for the North 252 - 204 6 202 6 -19.6% Table PHSA-18 shows that after weather adjustment CWHC campus is still the most energy intensive for fuel, followed by BCCRC and the Centre for the North.

iii.v END USE BREAKDOWN

The previous section clearly shows if a particular site is using more or less energy relative to the previous year; however, this does not tell us which buildings have the most potential to reduce their energy consumption. Understanding the breakdown of energy use within a facility is helpful in terms of prioritizing efforts to reduce energy, as well as estimating the impact of proposed changes. Energy consumption within a given facility can be broken down into a variety of different end use categories and sub-categories. The appropriate categorization will depend on the specifics of the facility; the following is a typical list of end use categories:

• Heating • Cooling • Service water heating • Lighting • Fans • Pumps • Plug loads (such as computers, cell phone chargers, etc.) • Process loads (such as medical equipment)

Accurately determining the actual end use breakdown of energy consumption within a given facility requires extensive metering, sub-metering, and monitoring equipment. This level of metering is being built into new facilities from the start, to enable effective energy management; however, most existing facilities only have a basic level of metering (such as one electrical meter and one gas meter). For facilities with only a basic level of metering, an end use breakdown can only be estimated.

Page 34


iii.v.i Typical End Use Breakdown

None of the PHSA core facilities have the necessary metering and sub-metering in place to establish an accurate end use breakdown. In lieu of site specific data, the following is a typical breakdown based on statistical data from NRCan3.

Figure PHSA-7: Acute Care Facility Typical End Use Breakdown

As noted in the preface, the typical end use breakdown highlights the importance of efforts to reduce heating energy consumption, with the next largest end uses being lighting, fans, and hot water. Based on this end use breakdown, our efforts should be focused primarily on strategies to reduce energy associated with heating, lights, fans, and service water heating.

3 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/commercial/946#c

Acute Care Facility End Use Breakdown

Heating 56%

Lighting 11%

Cooling 4%

Plug loads 5%

Fans 11%

Pumps 3%

Hot Water 10%

Page 35

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/commercial/946%23c


PHSA developed a tool to better understand energy consumption by end use

iii.v.ii Estimating End Use Breakdown

Energy studies will be commissioned in order to estimate an end use breakdown and identify opportunities to improve a facility. In the absence of such studies, a high level analysis of annual energy consumption based on basic information about a particular building can be performed as a preliminary estimate. While there are hundreds of parameters influencing energy consumption, a smaller subset of variables or factors heavily impact consumption, and these variables are strongly linked to the building type (i.e. acute care versus residential care) and space types (i.e. laboratory, offices, in-patient rooms, surgery suites, etc.) within the building. Building type provides an indication of space type (i.e. laboratory, offices, in-patient rooms, surgery suites, etc.). Each space type has different code requirements and user needs for various characteristics that strongly influence energy intensity, including the following:

• lighting power density • thermostat set-point • equipment density • outdoor air rate • operating schedules

A spreadsheet-based tool (in combination with an online tool developed by NRCan) was used to estimate the annual energy consumption (and end use breakdown) for several core sites based on a small number of inputs and comparison to actual consumption data. This was done first with a low level of accuracy (i.e. making an educated guess for inputs where information was not available) and can be refined over time to better understand how energy is being consumed within our buildings.

iii.v.iii Results of End Use Analysis

In general this analysis showed that most sites predicted electricity consumption very close to actual (-12% to plus 3%) while predicted fuel (mostly natural gas) consumption was much less predictable (20% to 50% lower than actual). While this does not provide conclusive evidence, some theories about end use at each facility were deduced from the analysis. In general the conclusions can be summarized as follows:

• The proposed electricity end use breakdown matches closely with actual total consumption o Therefore, electricity end use breakdown is assumed to be fairly well understood based

on this model • The proposed fuel end use breakdown was significantly lower than the actual total consumption

o Therefore, one or more of the fuel end uses has likely been significantly under-estimated; the following are suggested reasons for this: Actual building envelope performing worse than anticipated Actual ventilation rates higher than anticipated Actual heating system efficiency worse than anticipated

Page 36


Actual magnitude of re-heat energy underestimated in model Process loads being underestimated

• Such as kitchen, laundry, and sterilization Service hot water consumption higher than anticipated

• Likely due to underestimated usage patterns and process loads More information is required in order to determine the actual causes of the higher than anticipated fuel consumption. Once the causes are more accurately determined, the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of reducing fuel consumption can be better assessed. The FortisBC Custom Program (which commenced in 2013) is being used to support energy studies to understand the higher than anticipated fuel consumption and potential measures to reduce it at several sites. In addition CNCP funding is being used to support implementation of energy projects, with a focus on natural gas saving projects (due to higher carbon emission intensity of gas relative to electricity).

iii.vi GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

In accordance with the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Act, passed in 2007, PHSA is committed to reducing its carbon emissions. The Act legally required all public sector organisations to be carbon neutral beginning 2010. PHSA achieved this by reporting, reducing and offsetting the in-scope carbon emissions. In scope emissions are primarily those from buildings, as well as fleet travel and paper use. The total GHG emissions reported in the 2014 calendar year was 18,902 tC02e. The carbon offset cost that PHSA paid to the Pacific Carbon Trust to become Carbon Neutral was $496,253 (this includes tax some adjustments to 2012 data). PHSA’s largest source of GHG emissions is related to our building portfolio, which makes up over 95% of our overall reported in-scope emissions. As shown in Figure PHSA-8, of the emissions related to buildings in 2014, approximately 94% was due to equipment providing heating from fossil fuels (including heating from purchased steam), and the remaining 6% associated with electricity.

Figure PHSA-8: 2014 Breakdown of Building Emissions (tCO2e)

Page 37


The reported GHG emissions for PHSA decreased in 2013 compared to 2012 by about 5,000 tCO2e or almost 19%. The majority of this decrease is due to the decanting of the Riverview property (~4,000 tCO2e reduction), the decrease in the GHG emission factor for electricity (~800 tCO2e impact) and the reduction in steam usage at BC Cancer Research Centre (~150 tCO2e impact) also contributed. Table PHSA-19 shows the GHG emissions associated with the owned buildings non-adjusted energy consumption by year. Table PHSA-20 shows the GHG emissions associated with the owned buildings energy consumption by year, adjusted for weather.

Page 38


Table PHSA-18: Actual Non-Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from Owned Building Portfolio

Calendar Year1

Electricity Fuel Total Emissions2 Variances Emissions2 Variances Emissions Variances

tC02e Yr-Yr Cum. tC02e Yr-Yr Cum. tC02e Yr-Yr Cum. 2007 1,332 N/A N/A 13,419 N/A N/A 14,751 N/A N/A 2008 1,400 5.1% 5.1% 14,018 4.5% 4.5% 15,417 4.5% 4.5% 2009 1,414 1.0% 6.2% 14,194 1.3% 5.8% 15,608 1.2% 5.8% 2010 1,458 3.1% 9.5% 13,742 -3.2% 2.4% 15,200 -2.6% 3.0% 2011 1,484 1.8% 11.5% 15,036 9.4% 12.1% 16,521 8.7% 12.0% 2012 1,518 2.3% 14.0% 14,866 -1.1% 10.8% 16,385 -0.8% 11.1% 2013 873 -42.5% -34.4% 13,981 -6.0% 4.2% 14,854 -9.3% 0.7% 2014 625 -28.4% -53.1% 12,983 -7.1% -3.2% 13,608 -8.4% -7.7%

Notes: 1. The emission totals are shown for the owned buildings only, hence the difference in totals

compared to the Figure PHSA-8. 2. The Emission factors were provided by the BC Ministry of Environment as part of their

methodology for reporting Public Sector GHG Emissions. Table PHSA-18 shows that since the 2007 base year the emissions from our owned buildings have increased by almost 1%. However, the PHSA owned building portfolio floor areas has increased over 10% during this time.

Table PHSA-19: Adjusted GHG Carbon Emissions from Owned Building Portfolio

Calendar Year1

Electricity Fuel Total Emissions2 Variances Emissions2 Variances Emissions Variances

tC02e Yr-Yr Cum. tC02e Yr-Yr Cum. tC02e Yr-Yr Cum. 2007 1,332 N/A N/A 13,419 N/A N/A 14,751 N/A N/A 2008 1,395 4.8% 4.8% 13,425 0.0% 0.0% 14,820 0.5% 0.5% 2009 1,397 0.1% 4.9% 13,534 0.8% 0.9% 14,930 0.7% 1.2% 2010 1,454 4.1% 9.2% 14,710 8.7% 9.6% 16,165 8.3% 9.6% 2011 1,482 1.9% 11.3% 14,458 -1.7% 7.7% 15,940 -1.4% 8.1% 2012 1,487 0.3% 11.6% 14,793 2.3% 10.2% 16,280 2.1% 10.4% 2013 863 -41.9% -35.2% 13,877 -6.2% 3.4% 14,741 -9.5% -0.1% 2014 617 -28.5% -53.7% 13,641 -1.7% 1.7% 14,258 -3.3% -3.3%

Notes: 1. The emission totals are adjusted for weather and are for the owned buildings only, hence the

difference in totals compared to the Figure PHSA-8. 2. The Emission factors were provided by the BC Ministry of Environment as part of their methodology

for reporting Public Sector GHG Emissions. Table PHSA-19 shows that after adjusting for weather variation there is a small 3.3% decrease in emissions; however, offsets are paid based on actual (non-adjusted) consumption. It should be noted that the emission factor for electricity in BC decreased from 14 tCO2e/GWh to 10 tCO2e/GWh in 2014.

Page 39


IV. PHSA GOALS & OBJECTIVES

iv.i OVERALL

As noted in the LMFM Preface, the LMHA’s have revised the milestone GHG and energy reduction targets, and these are summarized in Table PHSA-20. The achievement of these longer term targets is subject to available funding for energy efficiency upgrades. As such, low, mid and high targets are set beyond 2015 to show a range of what might be achievable depending on the degree of funding.

Table PHSA-20: Overall Energy and Climate Neutral Goals and Targets

Energy and Climate Neutral Goals Milestone Targets by Year (Relative to 2007) 2012 2015 2016 2020 2050

Energy Conservation (Electricity) - - - 10% to 15% - Energy Conservation (Natural Gas and other fuels)

- - - 15% to 20% -

GHG Emission Reduction 6% - 18% 33% 80% Energy Efficient New Construction Support facilities: 150 kWh/m2/year

Inpatient facilities: 250 kWh/m2/year Acute care and research facilities: 375 kWh/m2/year

The long term overall target objective for PHSA is to reduce the Energy Use Intensity (EUI) of the core sites by 15% by 2020 (relative to a 2007 baseline). To help achieve this target, the focus will be to evaluate individual sites taking into account their size, project potential and new construction planning. To track and monitor the performance, annual EUI initial targets have been set for both electricity and natural gas as a “top-down” approach. These initial targets will be used as a guideline and will be refined as we start to establish individual site goals based upon project plans and studies.

iv.ii ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The annual goals for both electricity and fuel are detailed Table PHSA-22 and Table PHSA-23 respectively and summarized visually in Figure PHSA-9 and Figure PHSA-10. These targets have been proposed using a “top-down” approach based on the combined core sites. A “bottom-up” approach will be used in future to refine the electrical and fuel intensity targets, based upon individual site targets. The estimated energy savings from the current project plan will help determine the short term potential and drive the overall regional annual targets for the next 3 years. It is important to note that these annual goals are subject to minor changes as we move forward with this strategic plan. Without the required on-going capital investment for energy reduction projects and initiatives, the goals will be extremely difficult to achieve.

Page 40


Table PHSA-21: Annual Electricity EUI Performance and Goals

Year Adjusted

EUI (kWh/yr/m²)

Yr to Yr

(%)

Cumulative Change

(%)

Low Target Mid Target High Target EUI

(kWh/yr/m²) % EUI (kWh/yr/m²) % EUI

(kWh/yr/m²) %

2007 254 N/A N/A 253.8 N/A 253.8 N/A 253.8 N/A 2008 264 4.1% 4.1% 253.8 0.0% 253.8 0.0% 253.8 0.0% 2009 251 -5.0% -1.0% 251.2 -1% 251.2 -1.0% 251.2 -1% 2010 260 3.4% 2.3% 248.7 -2% 248.7 -2.0% 248.7 -2% 2011 264 1.7% 4.0% 246.2 -3% 246.2 -3.0% 246.2 -3% 2012 261 -1.2% 2.8% 246.2 -3% 246.2 -3.0% 246.2 -3% 2013 265 1.6% 4.4% 243.6 -4% 243.6 -4.0% 243.6 -4% 2014 265 0.1% 4.5% 241.1 -5% 241.1 -5.0% 241.1 -5% 2015 238.6 -6% 238.6 -6.0% 238.6 -6% 2016 236.0 -7% 234.7 -7.5% 233.5 -8% 2017 233.5 -8% 230.9 -9.0% 228.4 -10% 2018 230.9 -9% 227.1 -10.5% 223.3 -12% 2019 229.7 -10% 224.6 -11.5% 218.3 -14% 2020 228.4 -10% 222.1 -12.5% 215.7 -15%

Figure PHSA-9: Annual Electricity EUI Performance and Goals

The above show that the cumulative electrical EUI has increased 4.4% while the target is a 4% reduction.

Page 41


Table PHSA-22: Annual Fuel EUI Performance and Goals

Year Adjusted

EUI (kWh/yr/m²)

Yr to Yr

(%)

Cumulative Change

(%)

Low Target Mid Target High Target EUI

(kWh/yr/m²) % EUI (kWh/yr/m²) % EUI

(kWh/yr/m²) %

2007 355 N/A N/A 355.2 N/A 355.2 N/A 355.2 N/A 2008 353 -0.6% -0.6% 355.2 0.0% 355.2 0.0% 355.2 0.0% 2009 338 -4.3% -4.8% 344.5 -3% 344.5 -3.0% 344.5 -3% 2010 365 7.9% 2.7% 337.4 -5% 337.4 -5.0% 337.4 -5% 2011 358 -2.0% 0.7% 333.9 -6% 333.9 -6.0% 333.9 -6% 2012 360 0.8% 1.5% 330.3 -7% 330.3 -7.0% 330.3 -7% 2013 331 -8.0% -6.7% 326.8 -8% 326.8 -8.0% 326.8 -8% 2014 327 -1.2% -7.8% 323.2 -9% 323.2 -9.0% 323.2 -9% 2015 319.7 -10% 319.7 -10.0% 319.7 -10% 2016 316.1 -11% 314.3 -11.5% 312.6 -12% 2017 312.6 -12% 309.0 -13.0% 305.5 -14% 2018 309.0 -13% 303.7 -14.5% 298.4 -16% 2019 305.5 -14% 298.4 -16.0% 291.3 -18% 2020 301.9 -15% 293.0 -17.5% 284.2 -20%

Figure PHSA-10: Annual Fuel EUI Performance and Goals

The above show that the cumulative fuel EUI has decreased 6.7%, which does not meet the target of 8% reduction.

Page 42


The reasons that the electrical intensity continues to rise despite energy conservation efforts include the following:

• New construction projects are increasingly relying on electrically based heat pumps to deliver much of the heating requirements typically delivered by fuels in the past

• Increased intensity of use within spaces (as measured by increased FTE’s, and increases in various clinical metrics)

• Increased plug loads (for example, medical freezers)

Page 43


iv.iii ENERGY COST & AVOIDANCE

Table PHSA-23 and Figure PHSA-11 summarize the actual energy costs over the past 5 years.

Table PHSA-23: Actual Energy Costs since 2009

Year


Cost Variance %

Cost Variance %

Cost Variance %

Yr to Yr Cumulative

Yr to Yr Cumulative

Yr to Yr Cumulative

2009 3,200,124 N/A 2,380,698 N/A 5,580,822 N/A 2010 3,574,858 12% 12% 2,015,772 -15% -15% 5,590,630 0% 0% 2011 3,886,709 9% 21% 2,152,399 7% -10% 6,039,108 8% 8% 2012 4,365,490 12% 36% 2,018,482 -6% -15% 6,383,972 6% 14% 2013 4,642,861 6% 45% 2,173,362 8% -9% 6,816,223 7% 22% 2014 4,849,251 4% 36% 2,289,314 5% 14% 7,138,565 5% 28%

Table PHSA-24 shows that even though a number of energy conservation projects have been implemented over the past 5 years, the annual energy costs have increased by 28%. Data further back than 2009 was not available, so comparison to the 2007 base year is not possible. Electricity costs have increased by 36% in this time due to the changes in the PHSA portfolio and increased utility rates. The natural gas cost has increased by 14% and this is due to the significant changes on the commodity rate, where we experienced a record high in 2008 and 2009. Figure PHSA-11 shows these results visually.

Figure PHSA-11: Actual Energy Costs since 2009

Page 44


Annual energy expenditure will continue to increase as utility rates rise and the PHSA building portfolio grows to meet regional healthcare demands. The electricity rate will be increasing by 15% in the next 2 years and 25% by 2020. The natural gas is also predicted to increase after being at record lows from 2010 to 2012. To establish how effective our energy management program is we need to verify the cost avoidance and determine what the “Business As Usual” (BAU) costs would have been; in other words, without the implementation of energy conservation projects and initiatives. Avoided costs are based on the “booked” energy savings (i.e. energy savings estimated for projects that were approved by BC Hydro or another independent third party such as Fortis BC). This third party review process is typically only pursued for projects that will achieve an incentive. Table PHSA-24 shows the estimated cumulative avoided costs based on this methodology, and Figure PHSA-12 and Figure PHSA-13 show these results visually.

Table PHSA-24: Avoided Energy Costs since 2009

Year


Actual Cost

Cumulative Cost

Avoidance1 BAU Cost Actual

Cost

Cumulative Cost

Avoidance1 BAU Cost Actual

Cost

Cumulative Cost

Avoidance1 BAU Cost

2009 3,200,124 116,611 3,316,735 2,380,698 - 2,380,698 5,580,822 116,611 5,697,433 2010 3,574,858 190,564 3,765,422 2,015,772 - 2,015,772 5,590,630 190,564 5,781,194 2011 3,886,709 198,619 4,085,328 2,152,399 - 2,152,399 6,039,108 198,619 6,237,727 2012 4,365,490 210,570 4,576,060 2,018,482 2,752 2,021,234 6,383,972 213,323 6,597,295 2013 4,642,861 300,816 4,943,677 2,173,362 2,752 2,176,114 6,816,223 303,569 7,119,791 2014 4,849,251 382,629 5,231,880 2,289,314 17,685 2,306,999 7,138,565 400,314 7,538,879

Notes: 1. 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.

2. Cumulative cost avoidance is based on the previous year avoided costs plus the current year avoided costs 3. BAU is the Business As Usual cost (i.e. if energy efficiency initiatives where not implemented) and is

calculated by adding the avoided costs to the actual costs. The cumulative cost avoidance for both electricity and fuel since 2009 is over $300,000. This is a conservative estimate of avoided costs since there is an incomplete record of all projects completed since 2009 due to turnover of energy managers. In addition, until recently there were few incentive programs available from Fortis BC and therefore natural gas savings associated with projects were less likely to have been formally booked through an inventive program prior to 2014.

Page 45


Figure PHSA-12: Electricity Cost and Avoidance since 2009

Figure PHSA-13: Fuel Cost and Avoidance since 2009

Page 46


iv.iv SUMMARY

Table PHSA-25 provides a summary of 2014 performance relative to the KPI’s with comparison to 2013 results to show relative progress. The far right column indicates if the 2014 target was achieved, only for those targets which have been formalized at present.

Table PHSA-25: Summary of Performance, 2014 and 2013

Summary of Performance1

Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Units 2013 Results

2014 Results

2014 Target

Improved (Y/N)

Met (Y/N)

Percent GHG emission below 2007 % 0.1% 3.3% 14% Y N Total GHG emissions below 2007 2 Tonnes CO2e 11 493 - Y - Avoided costs per year $/year 90,246 99,497 - Y - Avoided costs (cumulative) $ 303,569 400,314 - Y - Electrical energy savings3 GWh/yr 1.5 1.0 1.0 Y Y Incentive dollars achieved 3 $ 88,500 229,700 - Y - Natural gas savings or avoidance 3 GJ/yr 0 2358 4000 N - Electrical EUI Reduction (Adjusted) 4 % -4.4% -4.5% 5% N N Fuel EUI Reduction (Adjusted) 4 % 6.7% 7.8% 9% N N Electrical EUI (Adjusted) ekWh/m2/yr 265 265 241 N N Fuel EUI (Adjusted) ekWh/m2/yr 331 327 323 Y N Adjusted EUI per FTE eMWh/FTE 13.0 12.7 - Y - 1 A dash (-) indicates not-applicable. Blank cells indicate a zero value 2 Carbon reduction for owned and operated buildings only, relative to 2007 baseline. 3 Based on "Booked" savings approved by BC Hydro or Fortis BC 4 Percentage adjusted EUI reduction for core sites only, relative to 2007 baseline.

Eight (8) out of the twelve (12) KPI’s showed an improvement relative to the past year. Only one of the formalized goals for 2014 was achieved for a number of reasons, including turnover of energy managers over the past several years, the need for the new Energy Manager to build a foundation upon which to achieving increasing savings moving forward, and limited budget available for energy conservation projects.

Page 47


V. STRATEGIC ANALYSIS

Building upon the strategic analysis summarized within the LMFM Preface, this section is specific to PHSA.

v.i SWOT ANALYSIS

In order to determine the most efficient path toward our goals, it is important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the organization (and the Energy Management team in particular), and the opportunities and threats that this group faces.

v.i.i Strengths and Weaknesses

The PHSA Energy Manager is in the process of completing a more comprehensive SWOT analysis in order to guide the plan; however, the results of a preliminary SWOT analysis are summarized here. Table PHSA-26 presents a summary of strengths and weaknesses. The Energy Manager qualitatively assessed a number of capabilities and functional areas are in terms of their importance relative to achieving our goals. The perceived performance of the PHSA Energy Management team was rated relative to each capability. The types of capabilities assessed included a set of five (5) typical business capabilities from literature, as well as one derived from our approach to Energy Management (the Five Buckets or areas of focus, and the 4 keys execution steps).

Table PHSA-26: Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis

Capability / Functional Areas Importance Rating

Low Medium High Poor Fair Good Excellent Typical Business Capabilities 1. Research & Development 2. Operations 3. Marketing 4. Customer Service 5. Management & Leadership Five Buckets 1. Existing Buildings 2. NC & MR 3. Behaviour Change 4. Systemic Change 5. Innovation & Demonstration Execution Steps 1. Identification 2. Funding 3. Implementation 4. Verification

Table PHSA-26 highlights key areas for improvement in red and key strengths of the PHSA Energy Management team in green.

Page 48


The SWOT analysis highlights how to leverage strengths, capitalize on opportunities,

monitor threats, and improve upon weaknesses.

v.i.ii Conclusion: Priority Strategies

The SWOT analysis highlights how to leverage strengths, capitalize on opportunities, monitor threats, and improve upon weaknesses. The conclusions from the SWOT analysis are summarized as the following priority strategies with comments added in green to highlight actions taken this year:

1. Operations: Streamline processes – Leverage available tools to improve operational efficiency by streamlining processes (particularly for data management and report writing)

o We have begun a more formal evaluation of available tools for data management o Each year we take incremental steps to streamline our report writing

2. Management: Specify annual targets - Improve ability to manage competing priorities (see Table PHSA-8: Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)) by specifying an annual target for all KPI’s

o Our targets were reviewed and refined this year o We have begun to establish more detailed site specific targets to create more focus

3. Systemic Change: Map desired changes – Balance efforts between specific initiatives and more broad systemic change. Identify where to increase efforts related to systemic change by first developing a high level map of the desired changes and prioritizing based on impact and achievability

o Related to the notion of systemic change, we mapped and evaluated our stakeholders to determine which are most critical and then identified actions to improve the relationship with those stakeholders

4. Funding: Identify no-cost measures – Leverage existing tools and resources (including Pulse energy, BMS data, etc.) as well as engaged FMO staff to identify and implement low and no-cost measures to save energy (for example, anomalies identified through real time meter data analysis can lead to correction of unnecessary energy waste associated with operational glitches)

o At C&W we have begun a process of monthly meetings with FMO staff to review the performance of their building (anomalies, etc.) as part of ongoing low-cost optimization efforts

5. Funding: Develop Business Case – Take advantage of potential future funding sources by having the business case ready in anticipation.

o We developed applications for the new Carbon Neutral Capital Program (CNCP) and successfully secured the maximum amount available to the LMHAs.

6. Implementation: Prioritize fewer projects – Narrow focus to fewer projects and initiatives in order to allocate sufficient time to complete projects more rapidly.

o The CNCP funding has forced a higher degree of focus by providing a specific amount of funding and a very tight timeline for completion.

Page 49


VI. PLANNED ACTIONS

In light of the strategic analysis, this section summarizes the specific actions and projects that are planned to enable PHSA to progress toward achieving our annual targets and our long term goals.

vi.i EXISTING BUILDINGS

This section summarizes our actions related to making our existing building more energy efficient.

vi.i.i Energy Studies

There have only been a handful of energy studies completed within the past 5 years. Table PHSA-28 summarizes the completed and planned future studies by core site.

Table PHSA-27: Status of Energy Studies by Core Facility

Facility

Floor Area (m²) Recent Studies Planned and Ongoing Studies

CWHC 150,400 - Chilled Water Study, MMM (2009) - Thermal Energy Audit, Stantec (2009) - BC Hydro Study by MMM (2008) - Boiler Plant Class Reduction, Stantec (2008) - Hazardous Materials Assessment, ACM Env. (2008) - Ground Heat Recovery Feasibility Study, Stantec (2007)

- An energy project is in the final stages of completion for two of the Children and Family Research Institute (CFRI) buildings - C.Op. Implementation Phase for CFRI Building and Mental Health Building underway

VCC 29,300 - None completed within 5 years - C.Op. Investigation Phase complete - C.Op. Implementation Phase for the VCC Building is underway

VICC 11,900 - Comprehensive Energy Audit, Avalon Mechanical (2012) focused on the broader Victoria Royal Jubilee Hospital (RJH) campus with limited detail for VICC - A high level Energy Assessment funded by FortisBC (2012)

- CNCP Domestic hot water boiler retrofit including various DDC and kitchen hood upgrades (including CCDP) is completed

FVCC 6,700 - None completed within 5 years - A high level Energy Assessment funded by FortisBC (2012)

- C.Op. Investigation Phase study is complete - C.Op. Implementation Phase for the FVCC Building is underway

BCCRC 21,400 - C.Op. Implementation phase - C.Op. Investigation Phase, CES, 2011

- CNCP Heat Recovery Chiller retrofit (including CCDP Fortis funding) project is underway

SHHC 8,300 - A high level Energy Assessment funded by FortisBC (2012)

- C.Op. Investigation Phase study is complete

CCSI 6,740 - A high level Energy Assessment funded by FortisBC (2012)

- A detailed energy study is complete

Page 50


Facility

Floor Area (m²) Recent Studies Planned and Ongoing Studies

Multi-site

222,600 - An air leakage assessment study - An assessment of coil cleaning potential - A study to explore side stream filtration

As noted in Table PHSA-27, in addition to the site-specific energy studies, two multi-site energy studies are proposed in order to explore two specific technologies; these are described in more detail in Section 6.1.2.

vi.i.i.i Side Stream Filtration

A particular technology (called Vortisand) has come to the attention of the EM. This technology can save energy by improving heat transfer within heating and cooling loops and equipment by removing the various particles and contaminants that build up within these water loops. This technology has been applied widely in healthcare facilities across Eastern Canada and the United States and has been successfully installed in one building in BC (Cariboo Memorial Hospital). Extensive documentation of the performance of installed systems has shown the technology to be highly effective at saving energy, improving heat transfer, and reducing chemical water treatment all within a 2-year or lower payback. A study is proposed in order to explore the potential to implement side stream filtration to the heating, cooling, and condenser water loops across the portfolio. The study will identify appropriate locations for installation and quantify costs and savings associated with implementation.

vi.i.i.ii Coil Cleaning

Cleaning of heating and cooling coils and filters within air handling units have been performed by Nalco with clear success at FHA. Their system effectively removes dirt and other particles that typical cleaning processes cannot, resulting in improved air quality, improved heat transfer, and reduced fan energy. The coil cleaning has been implemented consistently within a 2-year payback. The process needs to be repeated approximately every 5 years. BC Hydro will cease to fund coil cleaning for projects who do not submit an application before August 28th 2013, so efforts will be made to complete coil cleaning at eligible sites

vi.i.i.iii Advanced passive heat exchange systems

One can achieve much higher systemic efficiencies with a precisely controlled passive heat exchange system (i.e. glycol run-around loop type heat exchange). A European company called Konvekta has developed a product that allows a significant increase in the overall efficiency of the system in a variety of ways. The more advanced control system can intelligently modulate the flow rate and direction of flow to optimize heat exchange. It uses counter flow heat exchange to improve the approach temperatures. Another advantage of this system is the added control permits heat exchange via only one heat exchanger in each airflow stream (one in the heat “source”, and one in the heat “sink”), rather than requiring a heat-exchanger for preheat, heating, and cooling in each airstream. The system is able to control the flow intelligently in real time, optimizing overall heat-exchange performance as well as maximizing use of the heat exchange surface, thereby reducing the static pressure drop in the air ducts.

Page 51


vi.i.ii Energy Conservation Projects

This section summarizes the in-progress, pending & potential projects and initiatives for the 2015-16 fiscal year and beyond. In addition, some of the LMFM-wide initiatives discussed in the Preface are elaborated upon. Table PHSA-29 provides an overview of the energy conservation projects in-progress. Table PHSA-29 provides a summary of the pending, planned, and potential energy conservation projects. While the energy studies do not achieve energy savings, they are included because they help to increase the “funnel” or “pipe-line” of projects on the potential list. The potential projects require some further confirmation or have not been formally commenced. Additional detail for some of these projects is found in subsequent sections.

Page 52


Table PHSA-28: Summary of Projects, In-Progress

Project Name Estimated Electrical Savings

Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost

(kWh/year) (GJ/year) (ekWh/yr) ($/year) ($)

BCCRC C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 14,000

CFRI N&S Upgrades, Phase 2 362,146 2,032 926,590 38,585 48,000

CFRI TRB, C.Op. (Implementation) 278,079 110 308,635 18,463 30,000

FVCC, C.Op. (Implementation) 99,720 310 185,831 8,704 18,000

MHB, C.Op. (Implementation) 37,852 280 115,630 4,554 17,000

PHSA CANAM Air Leakage Assessments - - - - 14,000

VCC Coil Cleaning 50,167 - 50,167 3,178 4,950

VCC, C.Op. (Implementation) 429,030 1,900 956,808 41,806 70,400

BCCRC Heat Recovery Chiller (CNCP) (170,000) 8,300 2,135,556 53,128 230,545

CWHC TACC P3 NCP 103,950 12,323 3,527,006 101,453 594,000

CWHC, Steam Metering Renewal, Phase 2 - - - - 26,281

C&W CW Plant Upgrades - Phase 3 306,685 - 306,685 19,428 170,000

Subtotal 1,497,629 25,255 8,512,908 289,299 1,223,176

Table PHSA-30 shows that the total electrical savings predicted for the projects in progress is about 1.5 GWh, excluding savings from the WCA program. It is noted that some of these projects may not be completed within the 2015-16 fiscal year and therefore would not be counted toward the BC Hydro booked savings target of 1.39 GWh.

Page 53


Table PHSA-29: Summary of Projects, Pending, Planned, and Potential


Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost


1795 Willingdon Energy Study, BC Hydro - - - - 16,830

1795 Willingdon Energy Study, Fortis - - - - 16,830

AHU scheduling at C&W 20,000 1,000 297,778 8,965 40,000

Air distribution at C&W 375,000 7,500 2,458,334 81,495 200,000

Air Leakage Upgrades (68,018) 1,648 389,739 8,378 30,000

BCCA CN C.Op. (Coaching) - - - - 900

BCCA CN C.Op. (Implementation) 85,049 180 135,049 6,774 12,500

BCCA CN C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - 8,100

BCCRC Coil Cleaning 92,617 - 92,617 5,867 9,550

C&W 1982 C.Op. (Coaching) - - - - 11,970

C&W 1982 C.Op. (Implementation) 675,437 5,110 2,094,882 82,128 166,200

C&W 1982 C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - 107,730

C&W Carma Metering - Electrical - - - - 50,000

C&W Eaton Metering - Pilot at CSB - - - - 30,000

C&W Hot Water Pipe insulation - 5,000 1,388,889 38,492 50,000

C&W SHY DEF C.Op. (Coaching) - - - - 3,380

C&W SHY DEF C.Op. (Implementation) 37,719 630 212,719 7,240 46,900

C&W SHY DEF C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - 30,420

C&W Stack Economizer - 1,398 388,267 10,761 63,000

C&W Steam Pipe Insulation - 10,000 2,777,778 76,985 100,000

C&W Steam to Hot Water Conversion - 32,000 8,888,890 246,351 14,550,000

CCSI Upgrades - Lighting 254,040 207 311,540 85,687 167,098

CCSI Upgrades - Mechanical 116,045 905 367,434 14,319 40,625

CFRI N&S Upgrades, Phase 3 6,397 5,106 1,424,730 39,714 285,000

CFRI TRB, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 3,176

Condensate Management C&W - 18,000 5,000,000 138,572 875,000

Fume Hood Study 20,000 450 145,000 4,731 12,000

FVCC, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 9,414

Heat recovery at C&W - 14,000 3,888,889 107,778 485,000

Page 54



Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost


MHB, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 1,052

Motors C&W 100,000 2,000 655,556 21,732 90,000

PHSA Vortisand Study and Pilot Project TBD TBD TBD TBD 30,000

Pool Boiler at SHC - 10,000 2,777,778 76,985 100,000

Replace AHU SF-8 at SHC 200,000 4,000 1,311,111 43,464 100,000

Replacement of Sunnyhill Boilers - 5,000 1,388,889 38,492 275,000

Retro-commissioning at C&W 700,000 14,000 4,588,889 152,123 377,000

SHHC Coil Cleaning 5,039 - 5,039 319 950

Siemens EMC Pilot - - - - 15,000

Steam losses at C&W - 40,000 11,111,112 307,938 400,000

Steam Distribution at C&W - 6,000 1,666,667 46,191 95,000

Steam traps at C&W - 25,000 6,944,445 192,462 40,000

VCC, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 4,000

VICC C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 2,270

VICC C.Op. (Implementation) 129,195 840 362,528 14,651 31,500

VICC C.Op. (Investigation) or Study - - - - 20,430

VICC Energy Study, BC Hydro - - - - 17,070

Willingdon C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 2,430

Willingdon C.Op. (Implementation) 429,030 1,900 956,808 41,806 33,700

Willingdon C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - 21,870

C&W 1982 Konvekta (143,000) 11,700 3,107,000 81,013 638,000

SHHC, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - 4,750

SHHC, C.Op. (Implementation) 50,850 550 203,628 7,456 20,400

Subtotal 3,085,400 224,124 65,341,985 1,988,869 19,742,045

Table PHSA-29 shows that the estimated electrical savings for potential projects exceeds 3 GWh, which exceeds the recommended three times the base annual target (3 x 0.8 GWh = 2.1 GWh). A more detailed version of the above tables is included in the Appendices. However, implementation of the potential projects is subject to many variables, such as available funding and suitability of site.

Page 55


vi.i.iii Continuous Optimization (C.Op.) program

BC Hydro’s Continuous Optimization (C.Op.) program is being implemented across a number of PHSA buildings in three phases. Experience so far with C.Op. across the LMHA’s is very positive. The intention is to move forward as planned with the buildings that have been identified, and to seek additional opportunities to implement C.Op. Table PHSA-30 provides a high level summary of the current and planned C.Op. projects.

Table PHSA-30: C.Op. Project Summary

Site COP # Application Submission Due Date

EMIS Vendor EMIS Installation

Investigat’n Stage Status

Estimated Savings (kWh)

Implement’n & Hand-off

Status

ACB 08-009 Complete Pulse Energy Mar 29/11 Complete 420,161 Complete BCCRC 10-318 Complete Pulse Energy Dec 8/10 Complete 487,000 In Progress VCC 10-319 Complete Pulse Energy Jan 31/11 Complete 429,030 Planned TRB 10-320 Complete Pulse Energy Apr 1/11 Complete 278,079 In Progress MHB 10-321 Complete Pulse Energy Apr 5/11 Complete 37,852 In Progress SHHC 10-405 Complete Pulse Energy Dec 21/10 Complete 50,850 Canceled FVCC 10-406 Complete Pulse Energy Jul 4/11 Complete 99,720 In Progress

In addition, Table PHSA-31 summarizes the sites that were added to the program before the September 13th 2013 deadline.

Table PHSA-31: New C.Op. Sites Approved

Building Name (C.Op. #) Floor Area (ft²)

Estimated Investigation Phase Cost

Maximum Implem'n Cost

Estimated Savings (kWh)

Estimated Savings

(GJ)

Estimated Energy

Cost Savings

($) Vancouver Island Cancer Centre (COP-13-690) 127,700 $ 23,000 $ 31,900 129,195 836 $ 13,992

Children's and Women's Hospital, 1982 Buildings (COP 13-694) 664,912 $ 119,700 $ 166,200 650,124 6,560 $ 86,879

Shaughnessy DEF Blocks (COP 13-693) 187,672 $ 33,800 $ 46,900 183,498 1,852 $ 24,522 BCCA Centre for the North (COP 13-691) 49,980 $ 9,000 Vancouver Consolidation, 1795 Willingdon Ave (COP 13-692) 160,654 $ 28,900 $ 40,200 111,980 836 $ 12,908

Page 56


The intention is to move forward with these the Investigation phase for these sites as soon as possible pending available funding and resource-allocation to manage the process.

vi.ii NEW CONSTRUCTION & MAJOR RENOVATIONS (NC&MR)

This section summarizes actions to ensure that when money is spent on NC&MR projects, it is spent wisely to achieve long term energy savings as well as other objectives. Some of the key activities to support new construction and major renovations include the following:

• All new buildings and major renovations are being designed to meet LEED standards and are required to obtain formal certification.

• All new construction and renovations projects, currently in various stages of development in 2011, have incorporated Integrated Design Process and LEAN principles where appropriate.

• PHSA is doing a final edit and approval of the Tenant Improvement Handbook by the Lower Mainland Facilities Management Steering Committee, which will promote inclusion of sustainability standards in every tenant improvement done within the Health Care Organizations lease sites.

• EM will assist in maintaining and improving the green leasing practices to reduce energy consumption, increase buildings efficiency, sustainability, and occupant satisfaction and comfort

• EM to ensure all new construction (NC) and major renovation (MR) projects that meet the requirements (> 50,000 kWh of electrical savings) go through the BC Hydro New Construction Program (NCP).

To ensure that the NCP program is fully utilised, the Lower Mainland consolidated Planning and Capital Implementation teams will be updated as to the benefits of the program and encouraged to involve the Energy Managers at the Planning stage of an applicable project. A key factor in making this process successful is to engage with the internal PHSA project manager and the external design team as early as possible. To this end a number of strategies are being pursued to ensure the Energy Manager’s involvement.

• The EES Green Playbook o This document summarizes the key opportunities for other departments to involve

members of the EES team. In particular, the value we can bring to NC & MR projects is highlighted

• Building relationships with strategic planning o Building closer relationships with individuals within strategic planning provides an

opportunity to know about NC and MR projects • ELIM Initiative

o As noted in the Preface we are developing a tool and process to improve collaboration with planners and project managers working on new construction projects

• Improved application of New Construction Energy Design Guidelines o As noted in the Preface we have improved how we apply our design guidelines to P3

and Design Build projects

Page 57


vi.ii.i New Construction Program

Table PHSA-32 summarizes the projects currently going through the NCP and anticipated projects that are intended to go through the project.

Table PHSA-32: Summary of Current and Anticipated NCP Projects

Site Project Name Project Description NCP Status

CWHC Clinical Support Building (CSB)

Clinical and office building Complete and incentive received

CWHC Teck Acute Care Centre (TACC)

P3 project that is going through NCP

In progress: First phase of modeling complete. A two-phase approach is being tested on this P3 project. The second phase of modeling has begun with the winning P3 team, Affinity.

vi.ii.i.i Teck Acute Care Centre (TACC), P3

The new Teck Acute Care Centre (TACC) will include Children's Inpatient Units, an Emergency Department, Medical Imaging, a Surgical Suite, Haematology/Oncology and Intensive Care. It will also include an Assessment Room, a High-Risk Labour and Delivery Suite, and a Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit for BC Women's Hospital. The Energy Manager initiated a new approach for the New Construction Program as it applies to P3 projects. Based on experience working on P3 teams during the bid phase, the Energy Manager is aware of the tight timelines and the lack of time for integrated energy modeling and analysis. The new approach would include a preliminary NCP report and modeling before the bid phase of the P3 in order to inform and jump-start the proponents design process. As such, before the RFP was issued for the bid phase, an interactive energy performance workshop was conducted in order to explore opportunities to improve energy performance. The resulting report was included in the bid phase package. The winning P3 proponent for the TACC (Affinity) has been chosen and they are in the construction stage and have begun the NCP. The Energy Management team are closely involved in order to ensure that all cost-effective energy conservation measures are explored and implemented if possible.

Page 58


PHSA has 71 G+L’s representing over 20 different sites

vi.iii ENGAGEMENT & BEHAVIOUR CHANGE

This section summarizes campaigns and initiatives to educate and engage staff in behavior to reduce energy consumption. Under the umbrella of the GreenCare brand, the EES team has a number of ongoing awareness and education initiatives, including the Green+Leaders staff champions, the GreenCare Community (GCC) (formerly the Cut the Carbon Community, or C3), and the BC Hydro funded Workplace Conservation Awareness (WCA) program. In addition, PHSA plans to start leveraging support through the FortisBC Conservation, Education, and Outreach (CEO) Program.

vi.iii.i Green+Leaders (G+L)

As of August 2014 PHSA has 71 G+L’s representing over 20 different sites. Some highlights of the G+L program include the following:

• The Green + Leaders staff engagement program for the Lower Mainland Health Authorities continues to run workshops and training meetings about energy conservation.

• More than 150 staff volunteers (Green+Leaders) have been trained to promote energy conservation within their departments including performing energy audits, affixing posters and stickers encouraging staff to turning off lights, monitors and other equipment. The number of lights that are left on outside regular business hours in G+L departments continues to decrease.

• Green+Leaders implemented close to 40 unique projects to minimize environmental impact. Examples included decommissioning and consolidating equipment to reduce energy use, facilitating the installation of motion sensors, reducing printer fleet and printing in general and setting up various types of waste diversion programs.

• External website (www.phsa.ca/green) completed and includes tips on saving paper, sustainable transportation, waste reduction and sustainable purchasing.

PHSA will continue to coordinate, collaborate and integrate energy and environmental initiatives within all operational clinical and non-clinical work. Within those efforts, the following is a list of tasks to be achieved in 2013 – 2015.

• Recruitment of Green+Leader volunteers will continue and will expand to over 200 departments.

• An additional 90 Green+Leaders will be trained between 2011 and 2014. • Work with the G+L’s Lab Focus Group to develop lab-specific energy campaigns

Page 59

http://www.phsa.ca/green


The GCC site is another means to build

engagement through education and

awareness.

vi.iii.ii GreenCare Community (GCC)

As noted within the Preface, in 2013 the EES Team led a major rebrand and relaunch of what was formerly called the Cut the Carbon Community (C3). The new site is the GreenCare Community (GCC). One of the priority tasks identified within the EMA process was to “ensure communication of the energy policy to the broader organizational stakeholders to produce better results in raising energy conservation across the whole organization in general”. The Energy Management team are active on the GCC site and plans to utilize the site as another means to build education, awareness, and engagement.

vi.iii.iii WCA

In November 2010, Provincial Health Services Authority joined BC Hydro’s Workplace Conservation Awareness (WCA) Program, an initiative to help BC organizations design and deliver energy conservation campaigns in the workplace. The WCA program focuses on encouraging staff to contribute to energy savings through everyday simple actions, from turning off the lights to turning off monitors over lunch time. These simple actions can have a significant impact on energy use when thousands of BC health care workers get involved. The goal is to save 2% of electricity over 2 years at participating hospitals and extended care facilities. In addition to delivering cost-effective energy savings, changing staff’s energy related habits also helps reduce the negative environmental impacts of operating large health care facilities. Activities Completed in 2014/15 Provincial Health Services Authority worked in partnership with Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal Health to accomplish the following activities between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015:

• Coordinated the Green + Leaders program, including managing and training volunteers and supporting the implementation of energy conservation toolkits and campaigns;

• Produced several new Green + Leaders toolkits on the following topics: Unplug It, Shut the Sash and Earth Day Celebrations. Additional materials include a new monitor off poster and an Earth Day jeopardy game;

• Launched a refreshed GreenCare Community website that includes a public facing section describing the GreenCare Strategic Framework in May 2014.

• Engaged security staff and housekeeping staff in discussion about energy management opportunities between January and May 2014.

• Wrote and published energy focused articles and news items in the Vancouver Coastal Health internal newsletter and on the GreenCare Community website.

Page 60


Summary of Year 4 (Nov 2014 to Oct 2015) Results to date:

Staff Engagement Communication and Information 200 30 2 678 126 3560

Green + Leaders Green + Leaders training and education sessions Green + Leaders recognition events Housekeeping staff engaged in conversation Security staff engaged in conversation GreenCare Community Members

200 1250 26 9 12

Stickers handed out Posters distributed Green + Leaders Toolkits Energy focused articles published Green + Leaders monthly newsletters

vi.iii.iv FortisBC CEO Program

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

vi.iv SYSTEMIC CHANGE

This section summarizes our efforts to embed energy management into our business practices and processes in order to reduce energy consumption, in addition to those initiatives mentioned in the LMFM Preface.

vi.iv.i Energy Efficiency Purchasing

The EES team is working toward creating a process whereby energy efficient purchasing is part of normal business. The EM is coordinating with HSSBC, BISS, IMIT and other internal departments on this. Part of the goal is to leverage BC Hydro’s PSPXpress program that provides incentives for buying energy efficient equipment ranging from refrigerators to pumps to printers. Progress was made in 2012 after meeting with key contacts within the Food Services department of HSSBC. The current process for identifying, selecting, and purchasing new kitchen equipment (such as ovens, dishwashers, etc.) was established and documented as summarized in Figure PHSA-14.

Page 61


Figure PHSA-14: Food Services Equipment Purchase Procedure

It was agreed that each year when the list of potential new equipment is developed, it will be reviewed by the EES Team prior to purchasing, in order to maximize the efficiency of equipment purchased and associated incentives, through the BC Hydro PSPXpress and FortisBC Efficiency A la Carte programs. In 2014 BC Hydro organized an event to engage with the various food services stakeholders and explore opportunities for conservation. Several individuals from within the LMHA’s attended.

vi.v INNOVATION & DEMONSTRATION

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

vi.v.i Renewable Energy Systems

Appropriate opportunities to implement site scale renewable energy systems are sought. There is an abundance of a wide variety of renewable energy sources available in BC and cost effectiveness of the systems designed to capture and use this energy are improving all the time. The simple payback of such systems is typically not within the range that is typically acceptable; however, incentives combined with benefits in terms of a tangible and visible demonstration of PHSA’s commitment to energy management can help to gain funding for such systems. During the 2011-12 fiscal year a Solar Hot Water System was installed at one of Fraser Health Authority’s facilities (Queens Park Care Centre) as a pilot project. Extensive sub-metering was installed to ensure accurate quantification of energy savings. PHSA will endeavour to build upon and learn from the successes of this pilot program.

Page 62


Clean Energy Plant at C&W campus could reduce PHSA GHG emissions by 20%

vi.v.ii District Energy Solutions

As noted in the Preface, supply side energy management is led by the Community Energy Manager within the EES team. Seeking opportunities to reduce our energy consumption and GHG emissions through supply side clean and renewable energy projects will be crucial to meeting the provincially mandated longer term (2020 and 2050) targets for GHG emissions reduction. A key advantage of District Energy Systems (DES) is that they create the economies of scale necessary to implement clean and/or renewable energy supply options, as an alternative to fossil fuel based systems. Hospitals are an ideal base load for a district energy system, due to the magnitude of energy hospitals require and their location within communities (as opposed to being remote). The business case for a district energy system including a clean energy plant (approximately 14 MW in capacity) for the Children’s and Women’s hospital campus site was approved and an MOU has been signed with Fortis BC to deliver the project. This plant will also provide energy to the VGH Campus Site. Estimated completion date is in 2018. Preliminary estimates of GHG reduction potential related to the C&W plant and buildings is in the order of 4,000 tonnes CO2e (almost 20% of PHSA’s current GHG buildings emissions).

Page 63


VII. APPENDICES

Page 64


vii.i EMA ASSESSMENT LETTER

Page 65


vii.ii PHSA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

The following is the first page of the PHSA Environmental Sustainability Policy, available at this link: http://www.phsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7C3E3543-DD50-4449-903A-68BA08FA12F4/0/PHSAEnvironmentalSustainability.pdf

Page 66

http://www.phsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7C3E3543-DD50-4449-903A-68BA08FA12F4/0/PHSAEnvironmentalSustainability.pdf

http://www.phsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7C3E3543-DD50-4449-903A-68BA08FA12F4/0/PHSAEnvironmentalSustainability.pdf


Page 67


vii.iii RESOURCES AND LINKS

The following are some documents that were referenced in preparation of the PHSA SEMP. PHSA Service Plans http://www.phsa.ca/AboutPHSA/PHSA_Budget_Financials/default.htm PHSA Strategic Plan 2010 - 2013 http://www.phsa.ca/AboutPHSA/PHSA_Strategic_Plan.htm BCCA Strategic Plan http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/ABCCA/strategicplan.htm http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/ABCCA/orgChart.htm http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/ABCCA/publications/default.htm C&W Redevelopment http://newcw.phsa.ca/default.htm http://newcw.phsa.ca/ProjectPlan/planningprocess/default.htm http://newcw.phsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/30A1D1D2-7F3F-498B-93D3-12283E7F334D/52864/20110822CWRPFactSheetno2May192012.pdf http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/4500oak-c/index.htm Lower Mainland Consolidation http://www.fraserhealth.ca/about_us/accountability/sustainable-healthcare/sustainable_healthcare NRCan Data The Canadian graphs are developed from information obtained from the Office of Energy Efficiency, Natural Resources Canada. The data pertain to 2008. They do not represent data from specific buildings, but rather are generated by dividing total energy consumption for each building activity and end-use by total floor space for that building activity. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/comprehensive_tables/index.cfm?attr=0 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/commercial/m144-7-2003e.cfm http://www.sustainabilityroadmap.org http://www.sustainabilitysolutions.ca/sites/default/files/Greening%20Canadian%20Hospitals.pdf EM Resources EPA http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=guidelines.guidelines_index Strategic Planning Resources http://mystrategicplan.com/resources/ http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/strategic-planning-kit-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html Page 68

http://www.phsa.ca/AboutPHSA/PHSA_Budget_Financials/default.htm

http://www.phsa.ca/AboutPHSA/PHSA_Strategic_Plan.htm

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/ABCCA/strategicplan.htm

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/ABCCA/orgChart.htm

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/ABCCA/publications/default.htm

http://newcw.phsa.ca/default.htm

http://newcw.phsa.ca/ProjectPlan/planningprocess/default.htm

http://newcw.phsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/30A1D1D2-7F3F-498B-93D3-12283E7F334D/52864/20110822CWRPFactSheetno2May192012.pdf

http://newcw.phsa.ca/NR/rdonlyres/30A1D1D2-7F3F-498B-93D3-12283E7F334D/52864/20110822CWRPFactSheetno2May192012.pdf

http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/4500oak-c/index.htm

http://www.fraserhealth.ca/about_us/accountability/sustainable-healthcare/sustainable_healthcare

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/comprehensive_tables/index.cfm?attr=0

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/commercial/m144-7-2003e.cfm

http://www.sustainabilityroadmap.org/

http://www.sustainabilitysolutions.ca/sites/default/files/Greening%20Canadian%20Hospitals.pdf

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=guidelines.guidelines_index

http://mystrategicplan.com/resources/

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/strategic-planning-kit-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html


vii.iv DETAILED PROJECT TABLES

The following tables summarize the in-progress and planned project in more detail.

Table PHSA-33: Detailed Summary of In-Progress Projects


Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated GHG

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost

Estimated Incentive

Simple Payback w/ Incentive

(kWh/year) (GJ/year) (ekWh/yr) (tC02e/yr) ($/year) ($) ($) (Yrs)

BCCRC C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - - 14,000 14,000 0

CFRI N&S Upgrades, Phase 2 362,146 2,032 926,590 110 38,585 48,000 42,049 1

CFRI TRB, C.Op. (Implementation) 278,079 110 308,635 12 18,463 30,000 - 2

FVCC, C.Op. (Implementation) 99,720 310 185,831 18 8,704 18,000 - 2

MHB, C.Op. (Implementation) 37,852 280 115,630 15 4,554 17,000 - 4

VCC, C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 32,000 32,000 0

VICC Energy Study, Fortis - - - - - 17,070 8,535 0

BCCRC Heat Recovery Chiller (CNCP) (170,000) 8,300 2,135,556 410 53,128 230,545 45,550 4

CWHC TACC P3 NCP 103,950 12,323 3,527,006 617 101,453 594,000 129,467 6

CFRI Energy Study, Fortis - - - - - 5,000 5,000 0

CWHC, Steam Metering Renewal, Phase 2 - - - 26,281 - 0

Subtotal 711,747 23,355 7,199,248 1,182 $224,887 $1,031,896 $276,601 4

Page 69


Table PHSA-34: Detailed Summary of Pending, Planned, and Potential Projects


Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated GHG

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost

Estimated Incentive

Simple Payback w/

Incentive


1795 Willingdon Energy Study, BC Hydro - - - - - 16,830 8,415 0

1795 Willingdon Energy Study, Fortis - - - - - 16,830 8,415 0

AHU scheduling at C&W 20,000 1,000 297,778 50 8,965 40,000 11,200 4

Air distribution at C&W 375,000 7,500 2,458,334 384 81,495 200,000 97,500 2

Air Leakage Upgrades (68,018) 1,648 389,739 81 8,378 30,000 12,398 4

BCCA CN C.Op. (Coaching) - - - - - 900 900 0

BCCA CN C.Op. (Implementation) 85,049 180 135,049 11 6,774 12,500 - 2

BCCA CN C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 8,100 8,100 0

BCCRC Coil Cleaning 92,617 - 92,617 2 5,867 9,550 9,550 2

C&W 1982 C.Op. (Coaching) - - - - - 11,970 11,970 0

C&W 1982 C.Op. (Implementation) 675,437 5,110 2,094,882 272 82,128 166,200 - 2

C&W 1982 C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 107,730 107,730 0

C&W Carma Metering - Electrical - - - - - 50,000 - 0

C&W Eaton Metering - Pilot at CSB - - - - - 30,000 - 0

C&W Hot Water Pipe insulation - 5,000 1,388,889 249 38,492 50,000 50,000 1

C&W SHY DEF C.Op. (Coaching) - - - - - 3,380 3,380 0

C&W SHY DEF C.Op. (Implementation) 37,719 630 212,719 32 7,240 46,900 - 6

C&W SHY DEF C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 30,420 30,420 0

C&W Stack Economizer - 1,398 388,267 70 10,761 63,000 - 6

C&W Steam Pipe Insulation - 10,000 2,777,778 499 76,985 100,000 100,000 1

C&W Steam to Hot Water Conversion - 32,000 8,888,890 1,596 246,351 14,550,000 192,000 59

Page 70



Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated GHG

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost

Estimated Incentive

Simple Payback w/

Incentive


CCSI Upgrades - Lighting 254,040 207 311,540 17 85,687 167,098 17,312 2

CCSI Upgrades - Mechanical 116,045 905 367,434 48 14,319 40,625 16,013 3

CFRI N&S Upgrades, Phase 3 6,397 5,106 1,424,730 255 39,714 285,000 51,444 7

CFRI TRB, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - - 3,176 3,176 0

Condensate Management C&W - 18,000 5,000,000 898 138,572 875,000 180,000 6

Fume Hood Study 20,000 450 145,000 23 4,731 12,000 5,700 3

FVCC, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - - 9,414 9,414 0

Heat recovery at C&W - 14,000 3,888,889 698 107,778 485,000 140,000 4

MHB, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - - 1,052 1,052 0

Motors C&W 100,000 2,000 655,556 102 21,732 90,000 26,000 4

PHSA Vortisand Study and Pilot Project - - - - - 30,000 30,000 0

Replace AHU SF-8 at SHC 200,000 4,000 1,311,111 205 43,464 100,000 52,000 2

Retro-commissioning at C&W 700,000 14,000 4,588,889 716 152,123 377,000 182,000 2

Siemens EMC Pilot - - - - - 15,000 - 0

Steam losses at C&W - 40,000 11,111,112 1,996 307,938 400,000 200,000 1

Steam Distribution at C&W - 6,000 1,666,667 299 46,191 95,000 47,500 2

Steam traps at C&W - 25,000 6,944,445 1,247 192,462 40,000 20,000 0

VCC, C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - - 4,000 4,000 0

VCC, C.Op. (Implementation) 429,030 1,900 956,808 106 41,806 70,400 - 2

VICC C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - - 2,270 2,270 0

VICC C.Op. (Implementation) 129,195 840 362,528 45 14,651 31,500 - 2

VICC C.Op. (Investigation) or Study - - - - - 20,430 20,430 0

Page 71



Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated GHG

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost

Estimated Incentive

Simple Payback w/

Incentive


VICC Energy Study, BC Hydro - - - - - 17,070 8,535 0

Willingdon C.Op. (Handoff & Coaching) - - - - - 2,430 2,430 0

Willingdon C.Op. (Implementation) 429,030 1,900 956,808 106 41,806 33,700 - 1

Willingdon C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 21,870 21,870 0

C&W 1982 Konvekta (143,000) 11,700 3,107,000 580 81,013 638,000 70,200 8

Subtotal 3,458,541 210,474 61,923,459 10,587 $1,907,423 $19,411,345 $1,763,324 9

Page 72


Table PHSA-35: Detailed Summary of Complete Projects


Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated GHG

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost

Estimated Incentive



ACB, C.Op. (Coaching) - - - - - 6,000 6,000 0

ACB, C.Op. (Implementation) 238,633 830 469,188 47 21,507 60,000 - 3

ACB, C.Op. (Investigation + HO) - - - - - 18,000 18,000 n/a

BCCRC C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 20,000 20,000 n/a

C&W CW Plant Upgrades - Phase 1 239,000 - 239,000 6 15,141 65,321 39,932 4

C&W Lighting Upgrade 444,000 444,000 11 28,127 11,100 n/a

C&W Pipe Insulation 8,000 2,222,222 399 61,588 48,000 n/a

C&W SUCH, Coil Cleaning 190,500 - 190,500 5 12,068 64,674 18,922 5

CCSI Energy Study - - - - - 17,550 5,000 n/a

CSB, NCP 163,877 163,877 4 10,382 120,000 71,574 12

CWHC, Controls Renewal - - - 300,000 - n/a

CWHC, Steam Metering Renewal, Phase 1 - - - - - 61,629 - n/a

FVCC Lighting Upgrade 28,255 28,255 1 1,790 706 n/a

SHHC Lighting Upgrade 35,081 35,081 1 2,222 877 n/a

Smart Water Irrigation Upgrades - - - - 6,310 10,200 - 2

VCC Lighting Upgrade 20,000 20,000 1 1,267 500 n/a

Willingdon TI - Program Enabled 50,000 - 50,000 1 3,168 4,326 - 1

C&W SUCH, CW Plant Study - - - - - 39,000 39,000 n/a

CFRI Energy Study, Hydro - - - - - 17,000 8,500 n/a

SHHC, C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 10,296 10,296 n/a

Page 73



Estimated Fuel

Savings

Total Estimated

Savings

Estimated GHG

Savings

Estimated Avoided

Cost

Estimated Energy

Project Cost

Estimated Incentive



CDC Coil Cleaning 88,780 - 88,780 2 5,624 7,789 2,220 1

BCCRC C.Op. (Implementation) 487,000 6,720 2,353,667 347 82,585 60,000 - 1

CFRI N&S Upgrades, Phase 1 187,775 1,559 620,831 82 23,897 48,000 - 2

CFRI TRB, C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 11,951 11,951 0

FVCC, C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 7,212 7,212 0

MHB, C.Op. (Investigation) - - - - - 5,962 5,962 0

PHSA CANAM Air Leakage Assessments - - - - - 14,000 - 0

VCC Coil Cleaning 50,167 - 50,167 1 3,178 4,950 3,010 2

VICC DDC, DHW & HRV Upgrades (CNCP) 152,000 1,329 521,167 70 19,860 409,500 11,774 21

C&W CW Plant Upgrades - Phase 3 306,685 - 306,685 8 19,428 170,000 18,401 9

Subtotal 2,681,753 18,438 7,803,420 986 $318,142 $1,553,360 $358,937 5

Page 74

phsa management plan 2015 (semp) · currently led by acting ceo carl roy. the executive team...

Documents