The Kamloops community energy plan is one of the most comprehensive, informative -- and misunderstood -- in British Columbia.
Introduction
| Scale: | Comprehensive City Community Energy Plan |
| Community Size: | Mid Sized (296 square km, much of which is land reserve) |
| Population: | 80,000 |
| Climate: | Semi-arid |
| Annual Average Temperature Ranges: | Ave. High Temp. Range: -2ºC (Jan), 28ºC (July) Ave. Low Temp. Range -8ºC (Jan), 13ºC (July) |
| Location: | South-central interior of British Columbia |
| Focus Areas: | Land area/transportation, site & building design, infrastructure, energy supply, Canada |
| Benefits: | Cost savings, environmental, liveability |
| Implementation: | Action plan adopted by Council April 22, 1997.Reviewed March 2000. |
In 1996, the City of Kamloops became one of BC's first larger communities to develop a systematic, energy-focused view of its operations.
The result of an extensive process with wide stakeholder input, the Kamloops CEP was an ambitious attempt to maximize energy savings by developing a comprehensive portfolio of policies and actions covering everything from alternative fuel use to energy management protocols, from energy modeling to subdivision planning.
Although successful in many ways, there remains a wide perception that the comprehensive Kamloops CEP has "failed" to be implemented. The reasons behind this view raise valuable questions about what might realistically be expected of a CEP, particularly in communities that are concurrently pursuing multiple environmental, health and social programs.
This case study briefly traces the history of the Kamloops community energy plan, from its origins as an externally-funded test case, through its development phase, its partial implementation, through to its current status. Throughout, the case study examines frankly those elements that worked and those that didn't, and concludes with a discussion of the broader lessons that can be learned.
In summary, these lessons 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.
- 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 Over-Rely on Individual Champions
CEP developers 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.
- 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.
