Origins and Development

With hot summers and cold winters requiring considerable energy for cooling and heating, water and wastewater pumping power needs aggravated by steep topography, and heavy reliance on the personal automobile resulting from dispersed development patterns, Kamloops has always had much to gain from proactive energy planning.

Throughout most of the 1990s, the City enjoyed significant economic and population growth, and liveability issues became a concern. As the time came to develop a new Official Community Plan (OCP), these factors were projected to continue well into the future.

In 1996, the City of Kamloops won a bid for considerable funding from the Community Energy Association to develop a community energy plan (CEP). The City's bid was successful for several reasons including:

• the City's energy consumption patterns pointed to a substantial potential for energy savings;
• the City's recent record for implementing innovative environmental programs;
• the City's OCP was due to be renewed and could be co-developed and integrated with the CEP.

The CEP development process included:

• developing energy-related objectives for the City that would help to meet the community objectives of the existing and developing OCPs;
• identifying strategies for achieving these energy objectives and supporting broader community goals;
• establishing the City's approximate baseline energy use;
• using a computer model, evaluating the energy implications of alternative development scenarios for the OCP process; and
• developing an action plan to meet the energy objectives, and establishing monitoring and management protocols to evaluate the actions and to ensure the continued relevance of the plan.

The OCP, "Kamplan 1997", was developed alongside the CEP and published shortly after. The energy policies identified by the CEP are reproduced as a separate chapter in the OCP. In addition, the OCP includes the following key planning goals, all of which are consistent with sound energy management:

• encouraging infill and intensification;
• discouraging urban sprawl;
• guiding new development to cost-effective and pre-serviced growth areas;
• bringing shopping, work and home closer together;
• encouraging a mix of housing types and density in old and new neighbourhoods; and
• encouraging alternate transportation systems, including walkways, transit, bike paths and ride sharing

(Source: City of Kamloops)

From the start of the CEP project, a community energy planning stakeholder group helped to guide its development. Stakeholders included a broad cross-section of energy utilities, provincial ministries, City staff and school board, business and industrial representatives.

The starting point for the energy plan was a review of the community's objectives as stated in the existing and developing OCPs. The stakeholder group established energy-related objectives to support these broader community goals.

GIS (geographic information system) modeling established the baseline energy use of both the City as a whole and of a typical subdivision zoned for future development. The City modeled various development scenarios to judge the effects of major planning decisions on the area in terms of cost and environmental and social impacts. It also compared various "neighbourhood" subdivision development scenarios.

After detailed modeling and evaluation by the project consultants and City staff, stakeholders participated in a workshop to select a preferred development scenario from an energy perspective, and to screen and prioritize CEP action items.

The next page details the major features of the CEP.

Major Features

At the time of its development, one of the most exciting features of the plan was a framework for establishing development standards for new subdivisions. The Upper Sahali neighbourhood redesign study resulted in the creation of the "Sub-hub" concept. The sub-hub concentrated activity in a moderate density, mixed-use nodal area. It was a compromise strategy intended to gain some of the energy-efficiency and liveability advantages of an "urban village," while preserving the integrity of the surrounding residential neighbourhoods (including auto access). From an energy standpoint, the sub-hub focused on three top energy issues for Kamloops:

• increasing travel mode choices;
• creating anchor loads for small district energy systems, and
• creating opportunities for on-site electricity generation.

Design criteria included increased density and diversity, street connectivity, parking supply, transit orientation, district heating, solar orientation, and others.

Comparison of the As-built and the CEP Re-design scenarios suggested that:

• total costs could be reduced by 5-10%;
• air emissions could be reduced by over 10%;
• total per capita energy use could be reduced by 5-10%;

These results were thought to be significant given that the sub-hub incorporated very conservative changes to the original design and targeted a suburban neighbourhood. Much more significant savings were estimated for more urban-oriented sub-hubs.

The City also used a GIS-based modeling tool (INDEX) to evaluate the energy implications of three alternative development scenarios that were under consideration in the OCP process.

Twenty-four initiatives in six focus areas were adopted as "high priority, short term" action items. Ten others are listed as lower priority, longer term items. Because they contain many interesting ideas, they are described in full in linked pages at the foot of this page. Some of the key initiatives include:

• a performance points system (to provide incentives to encourage energy-efficient development);
• density guidelines (to encourage sufficient residential densities to make commercial services and transit viable in designated areas);
• alternative fuel in fleet vehicles (applicable to City and other public/private vehicle fleets);
• joint water/energy retrofits (installing water and energy conserving devices in homes and businesses);
• street orientation design guides (considering solar angle as a criterion for design in new development);
• district energy zoning (establishing a special zone in the downtown area to support the development of a district energy system, and identifying other candidate neighbourhoods for similar systems); and
• energy audits (for existing and planned City facilities).

However, as worthy as these initiatives invariably are, only a fraction of them have been implemented in a way foreseen by the CEP. A review process four years after the development of the plan gave a valuable insight into the successes and failures of the plan's implementation.

Implementation experience

Initially at least, the Kamloops CEP gained a reputation among some as a "failure" for reasons that were based on a misunderstanding of the plan's intentions and focus, an overemphasis on a few key initiatives that failed to get off the ground and a failure to advertise its successes. For example, comprehensive feasibility studies and analyses that ultimately led to the scrapping of three high profile initiatives (e.g., the "sub-hub" concept for Upper Sahali, a proposed district heating system for a municipal building complex, and the piping of waste heat to the downtown core from a nearby pulp mill) led to general disappointment and disillusionment with the CEP.

When the plan was initiated, it was understood that each of these initiatives was innovative, would require significant investigation, and might not be implemented as is. However, when all three of them failed to reach implementation stage, there is little doubt that the plan's image was dented.

The CEP review process in 2000 revealed, however, that many of the actions in the plan had indeed been fully implemented or comprehensively investigated, primarily by City staff. For example many of the transportation actions have been fully examined and/or implemented.

Still, several of the CEP's key proposals, particularly those relating to the development of performance points systems, development standards and the coordination of energy activities have not been implemented or investigated several years after its publication. Many other less onerous action items had similarly been apparently ignored.

Discussions revealed many reasons for stagnant action items. These included:

• A lack of ownership in the Plan.
  Because the CEP had been developed with the input of many different stakeholders, no party, including City staff, felt a sense of ownership over it. This was exacerbated by the many personnel changes in all organizations represented; few people remained of the original design team just four years after the CEP's creation. Also, because the CEP was a "City document", current City staff inherited responsibility for leadership commitments made by unknown internal and external participants who had since moved on. The plan was seen to be too comprehensive, to the point of being overbearing.

• No clear responsibility for individual action items
  All action items required the collaboration of many people, and the lead responsibility was not clearly assigned to an individual. Although responsibilities were understood at the time, they were lost through personnel changeovers and lack of communication in the meantime. Also, some of the action items were proposed by people with no stake or role in their implementation, and were sometimes not seen as relevant by those who were.

• Insufficient regard for existing successful programs
  A large number of energy saving programs and initiatives that were being developed and implemented by the City of Kamloops were being done independently of the specific Actions detailed in the CEP. Although these new initiatives contributed to many of the specific CEP goals, this was more often by coincidence than design.

• Change in drivers
  The local context of energy saving had also changed over the four years since the CEP's creation, external "drivers" to make energy planning a key focus of City activities having eased somewhat. For example, population growth and economic development had slowed, public concerns about quality of life issues had eased and support for certain development restrictions had waned in an "anti-red tape" political climate. Increased development competition from the neighbouring City of Kelowna also contributed to this shift in community priorities.

Other points of contention that acted as barriers to the implementation of the CEP include:

• the role of elected officials in backing established City policy or in acting as energy champions.
  Councillors made clear their interest, for example, in reducing the cost of municipal operations. The conflict between this position and political opposition to activities perceivable as bureaucratic was recognized by all. To date, the sub-hub concept, for example, has not been implemented primarily because of a lack of strong political support in face of some opposition to the CEP's goals

• the way in which various monitoring objectives (eg for energy, transport and sustainability indicators) could be integrated.

• the question of whether or not the City needs some form of formal, coordinated umbrella view of energy use.
  Some felt that the adoption of a specific energy management committee was unnecessary given the relatively small size of the City and the degree of informal communication already ongoing. Others pointed out the lack of internal awareness of some schemes and cooperative opportunities.

• the question of what constitutes a community energy plan.
  During the review process in 2000, Kamloops CEP stakeholders proposed that a CEP has several essential features:
• • a commitment to a coordinated view of energy in municipal and wider activities;
  • the establishment of baseline energy use and the adoption of a Plan of Action;
  • a commitment to a monitoring scheme that feeds back quantitative results of those activities and the willingness to continuously review and improve the Plan of Action.

These features, the group agreed, were fair descriptions of both a CEP and the activities of the City of Kamloops, albeit primarily through other initiatives.

Integrating CEP with other City Programs

The City of Kamloops undertook a number of initiatives in parallel with its CEP.

For example, it now uses an ISO 14,000-style environmental management system approach to its solid waste management activities. This includes a commitment to pollution prevention approaches and material and energy quantification, monitoring and tracking.

Also, the City's activities under the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Protection program are approached from a similar perspective.

The Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) commitments include the need to profile and forecast energy use and emissions for municipal operations and for the wider community, establish reduction targets and to develop local action plans to meet those targets - activities that lie at the heart of community energy planning.

The establishment of a detailed emissions baseline, required by Milestone 1 of the PCP program, is now almost complete. This baseline is more detailed than the energy baseline that was estimated for the CEP.

The City is therefore ready to implement Milestone 2, which requires the setting of emissions targets and the development of an Action Plan to help meet these targets. Clearly, there is opportunity here to integrate the working elements of the CEP, and the EMS successes with the PCP program. Indeed, this is the approach under consideration by the City.

By integrating these mechanisms, this approach provides an elegant and practical way of overcoming the barriers to the implementation of the outstanding and worthwhile aspects of the CEP, since it:

• levers the benefits of an existing, successful organizational structure (responsible for implementing the PCP program);
• ensures an umbrella view of energy activities;
• increases efficiency and productivity. Since greenhouse gas emissions correlate directly with energy consumption, modeling and monitoring requirements are readily combined;
• will have direct exposure to Council, increasing the potential to justify proactive measures to reduce energy use;
• will act as both an internal communications conduit and a feedback mechanism to the various City departments;
• is supported by all participants.

Among the issues that the City may wish to consider as they integrate these programs are:

• is there a need to institutionalize these changes by making formal, job description amendments?
• will there be adequate and timely communication of energy and greenhouse gas activities between City departments and external partners?
• of the identified CEP action items, which ones most effectively meet combined energy and PCP objectives?
• Will there be a real commitment to pursue them?
• can the modeling work required by the PCP program be used to shed more light on the efficacy of the priority CEP action items?
• should unwanted and unworkable CEP goals and actions be formally deleted?
• does there need there be more explicit recognition of CEP and PCP objectives in the next revision of the OCP (i.e. more than as a separate section)?
• which energy indicators should be monitored and where and how frequently should they be reported (e.g. monitoring annual energy consumption and report every five years in Kamloops State of the Environment report)?

Current status and lessons learned

As a municipality embarks on a range of programs that have many overlapping goals, activities and procedures, the lines between each will necessarily become blurred. This is to be celebrated rather than avoided as long as the existence of these overlaps does not lead to the duplication of effort and resources.

With this in mind, it is fair to ask to what degree the Kamloops CEP was a success.

In the sense that many action items are still providing inspiration, that there is an umbrella view of energy use, and that City energy use will be monitored against an established baseline, Kamloops can clearly be said to be undertaking "community energy planning".

However, it cannot be claimed that the actions that contribute to the goals of the CEP are necessarily undertaken in the name of the plan, or necessarily mindful of it.

For CEP designers and advocates, this raises the question of how to define a living, working CEP that exists as part of a proactive municipality's portfolio of programs aimed at energy, environmental and sustainable objectives.

The culture of the City of Kamloops is clearly one in which energy-efficiency and sound energy management assume a central position. Indeed, it was this very culture that in 1996 drove the development of one of Canada's first comprehensive community energy plans.

However, the changing needs of the city, both in terms of shifting community priorities and commitments to a range of social and environmental programs, underlines the fact that to be in any way relevant, CEPs must be flexible, realistic and held dear by those who are responsible for them. As Kamloops shows, a commitment to the environment does not necessarily lead to a commitment to a CEP.

As Special Projects Communicator Marni Gillis put it, "everyone you work with has a different methodological approach, be they MELP or First Nations or whoever. But when it comes down to it, we're all interested in the same objectives. It's all about health -- health of the environment, well-being of people, health of the economy. We just try to find ways to work with these objectives in mind".

Perhaps the key lessons learned by the Kamloops CEP Implementation are:

• Keep it Personal
  A community energy plan needs a sense of ownership from those who will implement it. Too much external involvement (including excessively influential developmental input from parties unwilling or unable to subsequently contribute to implementation) may be counterproductive.

• Avoid Duplication
  Where possible, integrate the plan with parallel programs (e.g. environmental management systems, sustainability indicator tracking programs etc) to improve efficiency, data consistency and relevance.

• Nurture Organizational Links
  A CEP thrives on partnerships between municipal, utility companies and other organizations, and depends on active engagement from all sides. All parties have much to gain from recognizing each others' needs, skills and resources and continuously working together towards common goals.

• Build on Established Ways of Doing Successful Things
  A CEP may need to be carefully integrated with existing successful organizational structures in ways that take advantage of ongoing successful activities and working relationships. Creative and workable mechanisms need to be found that effectively incorporate the basic needs of the CEP.

That being said, there are certain aspects of a CEP that may require real institutional adaptations. A CEP particularly needs some form of functional commitment to an overarching or "umbrella" view of local energy use to pick up the synergies and opportunities that arise from different departments' activities.

• Don't Reinvent the Wheel
  It may not be necessary to develop monitoring programs specifically for energy activities. Using existing or off-the-shelf tools, such as those offered by the FCM, saves time and resources.

• Don't Totally Rely on Individual Champions
  Although champions can be invaluable in making change happen, CEP designers should ensure that the knowledge and policies contained within CEPs are effectively institutionalized to ensure they will withstand changes to staff and local government officials.

How could this be achieved?

• Keep it Dynamic
  Kamloops' experience illustrates the importance of regularly reviewing the achievements, barriers and opportunities of the plan, and noting changing wider social and economic changes that influence its implementation.

One way of achieving this, as well as promoting turnover protection, could be to integrate the measures identified for tracking in the CEP into the City's regularly reported key performance measures.