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?
- Rather than relying solely on specific individual CEP champions, the changes required by the implementation of the CEP could be formally recognized through job description changes.
- Greater integration of energy priorities throughout the OCP. In Kamloops, the polices of the CEP are reproduced as a separate section in the OCP. However, energy objectives are integral to almost all the City's goals. Were energy objectives to appear as a recurring theme throughout the body of the Plan, the document would reflect more accurately the enthusiasm for energy-saving that exists in the City.
- Assigning specific and unambiguous organizational lead responsibilities for given Action Items. This also helps instill 'ownership', since partners know clearly what they are directly responsible for.
- 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.
