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)?
