bc hydro 2007 conservation potential review the …

BC Hydro

2007 CONSERVATION POTENTIAL REVIEW

The Potential for Electricity Savings through Lifestyle Changes: F2006 – F2026

Submitted to:

BC Hydro

Prepared by:

Envision Sustainability Tools Inc.

In association with:

Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Ghoulem Research

November 20, 2007

BC Hydro Conservation Potential Review 2007 – Lifestyle Based Potential –

Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completion of the Conservation Potential Review 2007 on an accelerated timetable is due in no small part to the consistent input from many BC Hydro staff members, External Review Panel members, as well as the hard work of the Consultant Team engaged by BC Hydro. The heaviest work load fell on the Conservation Potential Review Core Group and the External Review Panel, which oversaw the management of the study. BC HYDRO PROJECT TEAM Murray Bond – Manager of Evaluation, Measurement and Verification, Power Smart Christine Gustafson – Manager of Market Analysis and Information, Power Smart Zechy Khoo – Quality Assurance, Power Smart Derek Henriques – Manager of Evaluation, Measurement and Verification, Power Smart Steve Hobson – Manager of Strategic Planning, Power Smart Randy Reimann – Manager of Resource Planning, Energy Planning Kristin Hanlon – Manager of Business, Regulatory and Policy, Energy Planning Graham Henderson – Engineering, Power Smart Altaf Hussain – Manager of Strategic Resource Planning, Field Operations David Ince – Manager of Portfolio Risk, Market Forecast Dennis Nelson – Manager of Business Systems, Power Smart Jim Nelson – Manager of Marketing, Power Smart Cynthia Lee – Manager of Strategic Resource Planning, Power Smart Ron Sanderson – British Columbia Transmission Corporation Ken Tiedemann – Manager of Evaluation, Power Smart Cindy Verschoor – Community Relations Manager, Stakeholder Engagement, Corporate Affairs


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page ii

EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL A number of organizations in B.C. agreed to serve on an External Review Panel. They provided input on project scope and methodology, participated in workshops and reviewed and commented on draft reports. However, their participation on the Panel should not be construed as indicating full agreement with, or endorsement of, any of the CPR 2007 reports. The External Review Panel was facilitated by Nancy Cooley of Nancy J. Cooley and Associates, Victoria. Members of the Panel include: B.C. Sustainable Energy Association – Kevin Pegg* Building Owners’ and Managers’ Association of B.C. – Len Horvath Canadian Home Builders’ Association of B. C. – Robert Barry Commercial Energy Consumers of B.C. – David Craig David Suzuki Foundation – Nicholas Heap FortisBC – Keith Veerman Independent Power Producers Association of BC – David Kiess* and Barbara Docherty* Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee – Dan Potts* and Ian May* Kwantlen University College – Tom Knox Malaspina University-College – Steven Earle Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources – Andrew Pape-Salmon* (Ex Officio) Nisga’a Lisms Government – Mansell Griffin Sierra Club of Canada, B.C. Chapter – Tom Hackney Terasen Gas – Sarah Smith University of British Columbia – Colleen Brown* West Fraser Mills – Dave Humber David Isaac – Student Casey Jarvis – Residential Customer Don Scarlett – Residential Customer BC Hydro – Steve Hobson (Ex Officio) and Murray Bond (Ex Officio) * These individuals were involved for part of the CPR 2007 study period. Guests of the Panel in attendance at one or more meeting include: Catalyst – Paul Einarson and Frank Slater Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee – Pierre Lamarche Mayor of Hudson’s Hope – Lenore Harwood Mayor of Dawson Creek – Calvin Kruk Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources – Michael D’Antoni and Liz Kelly Poyry Vancouver Inc. – Michael Jackson


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page iii

OTHER BC HYDRO STAFF In addition, there were many other BC Hydro staff who reviewed draft reports, participated in meetings, and/or provided support for the project. In particular we would like to thank the Stakeholder Engagement, Power Smart Evaluation, Market Forecast, Power Smart Marketing, Power Smart Engineering, Transmission Services, Resource Planning, Engineering, Aboriginal Relations, Generation Strategy and Investment, Power Smart Strategic Planning, and Digital Communications groups.


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page iv

CONSULTANTS The Conservation Potential Review 2007 was completed by a team of consultants lead by Paul Robillard of Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. (Ottawa, Ontario). Consultants and sub-consultants were: Residential sector: Dave Shipley and Katie Gent of Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Joe Lopes of Applied Energy Group Inc. (New York, N.Y.), conducted the research, modelling and analysis of the Residential sector, with the assistance of Fred Schwartz of Intellergy Corporation (San Francisco, Cal.), Ken Cooper of SAR Engineering (Victoria, B.C.), and Doug Overholt of DL Overholt Management. Commercial sector: Richard Patterson and Chris Pulfer of Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Joe Lopes of Applied Energy Group Inc. conducted the research, modelling and analysis of the Commercial sector, with the assistance of Fred Schwartz of Intellergy Corporation, and Curt Hepting of Enersys Analytics Inc. (Coquitlam B.C.). Industrial sector: Paul Willis and Anthea Jubb of Willis Energy Services Ltd. (Vancouver, B.C.), and Joe Lopes of Applied Energy Group Inc. conducted the research, modelling and analysis of the Industrial sector, with assistance of Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. Behaviour: Jay Kassirer of Cullbridge Marketing and Communications (Ottawa, Ont.), Jack Habart of Habart and Associates Consulting Inc. (North Vancouver, B.C.) conducted the research, modelling and analysis, with the assistance of Loren Lutzenhiser of Lutzenhiser Associates (Portland, Ore.), Mithra Moezzi of Ghoulem Research (San Rafael, Cal.), and Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. Fuel Switching: Dave Shipley and Richard Patterson of Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. and Paul Willis and Anthea Jubb of Willis Energy Services Ltd. conducted the research, modelling and analysis, with the assistance of Curt Hepting of Enersys Analytics Inc., Joe Lopes of Applied Energy Group Inc., and Ken Cooper of SAR Engineering. Customer-supplied Renewable Energies: Innes Hood of the Sheltair Group (Vancouver, B.C.) conducted the research, modelling and analysis, with the assistance of Fred Schwartz of Intellergy Corporation and Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd. Lifestyle: Dave Biggs of Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. (Vancouver, B.C.) conducted the research, modelling and analysis, with the assistance of Mithra Moezzi of Ghoulem Research and Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and Objectives In 1991 and again in 2002, BC Hydro conducted an in-depth analysis of where, how and at what cost electricity demand in British Columbia could be reduced. These analyses are contained in two separate documents, known as Conservation Potential Reviews (CPR). Since completing the CPR 2002, new pressures in the electricity industry and on the environment have led to a renewed interest in conservation, load management and demand-side management (DSM). In addition, the performance efficiency of major energy-using technologies has continued to improve, technology prices have changed, new products have become available, and additional technologies, based largely on advances in information technology (IT) and materials science, are under development. Given these conditions, BC Hydro initiated the current study – CPR 2007 – to assist its DSM planners in designing and implementing a new set of initiatives. Stemming from CPR 2002, CPR 2007 provides an updated and expanded assessment of the electrical energy and capacity savings potential from: Changes in existing and emerging technologies and operations and maintenance Behavioural activities and lifestyle Adopting renewable energy sources on the customer side of the meter Changes in fuel choice

Scope and Organization The scope of the CPR 2007 is significantly expanded from CPR 2002. It covers a 20-year study period, rather than the 15-year time frame used in the previous CPR. It expanded its sector coverage to include street lighting in addition to the three core sectors (Residential, Commercial and Industrial). The CPR 2007 reviews all electrical efficiency technologies or measures that are expected to be commercially viable by the year 2011 but, in addition, also reviews emerging technologies, behavioural and lifestyle changes, customer-supplied renewable energies and fuel switching to natural gas. The CPR 2007 has been organized into five Analysis Areas. The results are presented in a Summary Report and 11 individual reports. Exhibit E1 below provides an overview of each Analysis Area.


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page vi

Exhibit E1: Overview of CPR 2007 Organization – Analysis Areas and Reports

This Report This report presents the results of Analysis Area 4 presenting the potential for residential electricity savings through changes to the lifestyles of B.C. residents. Approach The major steps involved in the analysis are shown below and discussed in greater detail in Chapter 1 of the Lifestyle report, Overview of Approach to Analysis Area 4. Stage 1: Prepare lifestyle scenarios for two components:

Component 1: Neighbourhood Design and Housing Choices Step 1: Create MetroQuest model for B.C. Communities Step 2: Calibrate MetroQuest Model with Reference Case scenario

assumptions Step 3: Develop 2026 Vision for More Sustainable B.C. Communities Step 4: Determine the sustainability implications of 2026 Vision

Component 2: Energy Choices in the Home Step 1: Create a 2026 lifestyle vision Step 2: Specify savings assumptions

Stage 2: Analyze three scenarios (Housing Choices Only, Lifestyle Choices Only and Both Housing and Lifestyle Choices Combined):

Step 1: Run three scenario through Marbek’s RSEEM model Step 2: Analyze the scenarios relative to the Reference Case


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page vii

This study presents and evaluates three alternative lifestyle scenarios and contrasts each of these with the Reference Case described in Chapter 2. The three alternative lifestyle scenarios are: Scenario 1: The Housing Scenario. This alternative presents a vision for the next 20

years in which B.C. makes changes towards smart growth and sustainable community design. In terms of electricity use, the scenario focuses on wide-scale changes to the types of housing that are developed to meet the demand of a growing and changing population. A sampling of community sustainability plans from B.C. communities throughout the province was used as guidance to estimate the magnitude of changes that might be possible to 2026.

Scenario 2: The Lifestyle Scenario. This alternative focuses on changes that B.C.

residents could make to their lifestyles in the home. The scenario focuses on end uses and measures that were evaluated to have the greatest potential for changes in lifestyle that could reduce electricity use most significantly. This scenario considers 21 lifestyle measures in the following six categories: space heating and cooling, domestic hot water (DHW), major appliances, household electronics, lighting and hot tubs. This alternative assumes no changes in the housing stock relative to the Reference Case to allow for the independent evaluation of the impacts of these lifestyle changes. Where available, data from B.C. and other jurisdictions was used to estimate the magnitude of lifestyle changes that might be realizable to 2026. Where reliable information was not available, conservative estimates were used.

Scenario 3: The Housing and Lifestyles Scenario. This alternative combines the

changes proposed to the housing stock associated with the Housing Scenario with the changes in end-use activity in homes associated with the Lifestyles Scenario. This scenario is presented to summarize the total savings that could be achieved if these lifestyle changes were to happen.

Note: Certain terms used in this summary are defined in the body of the text. A complete list of terms can be found in the Glossary of the Lifestyle Based Potential report. Overall Study Findings As in any study of this type, the results presented in this report are based on a number of important assumptions. Wherever possible the assumptions used in this study are consistent with those used by BC Hydro and are based on “best available” information, which in some cases includes the professional judgment of the consultant team, BC Hydro personnel and/or External Review Panel members. The reader should use the results presented in this report as “best available” estimates; major assumptions and information sources are noted throughout the report. In order to provide context to the establishment of scenarios of lifestyle change, this study provides evidence of a 20-year movement towards sustainability in terms of policy direction, private sector support and public attitudes. This evidence is presented in Chapter 3. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that this support continues to increase over the next 20 years.


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page viii

Given these assumptions, the CPR 2007 findings confirm the existence of significant potential electrical energy savings from lifestyle changes in the Residential sector. The combined scenario (Scenario 3: Housing and Lifestyles Scenario) would provide 2,545 GWh/yr of electricity savings by F2026. Lifestyle changes related to housing choices, space heating and cooling and hot tubs showed the greatest potential for electricity savings. Summary of Electric Energy Savings Exhibit E.2 presents the total projected electricity use for the Reference Case and the three scenarios evaluated in the lifestyles analysis of the CPR 2007.

Exhibit E.2: Projected Electricity Consumption for the Reference Case and the Three Scenarios, by Milestone Year

The three scenarios each result in total electricity use savings in each milestone year relative to the Reference Case. The Housing Scenario resulted in the most modest savings, totalling 786 GWh/yr by 2026. The Lifestyle Scenario resulted in significantly more savings totalling 2,017 GWh/yr. The combined Housing and Lifestyle Scenario resulted in the most savings totalling 2,545 GWh/yr by 2026.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Ann

ual E

lect

ricity

Con

sum

ptio

n (G

Wh/

year

)

Reference Case Housing Scenario Lifestyle Scenario Housing & Lifestyle

Reference Scenario

Housing Scenario

Lifestyle Scenario

Housing and Lifestyle


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page ix

Exhibit E.3 presents electricity savings by major end-use category for the three scenarios relative to the Reference Case. This graph illustrates the end-use categories that this study has determined to have a potential for significant savings from lifestyle changes. The study presents the following findings: Appliances showed significant potential across all three scenarios. The ‘other’ category captures savings related to changes to the use of hot tubs. The study

finds significant savings across each of the three scenarios, indicating significant potential for lifestyle-related electricity savings in this area. It is noteworthy that, since hot tubs in apartments are shared by residents, the electricity use per capita is far lower than in single-family houses with hot tubs. For this reason, the Housing Scenario, with its shift towards more apartment units, showed significant savings in electricity use for hot tubs.

The savings in space heating were significant as a result of the measures taken in the lifestyle scenario. These changes also applied to the combined scenario. It was anticipated that the movement toward more compact housing associated with the Housing Scenario would result in significant reductions in space heating. While there were significant savings as a result of less floor areas required to be heated and more housing with shared walls (apartments, duplexes, row housing), these were offset by shifts towards more housing using electricity as a primary source for heating. These shifts occurred due to the large share of apartments that use electricity as a primary source for heating compared to single-family houses, which more heavily favour gas as a source.

The domestic hot water (DHW) and lighting end uses both showed increased electricity use in the Housing Scenario relative to the Reference Case. DHW was found to increase as a result of an increase in the share of homes using electricity as a source for DHW. This shift follows from the changes to space heating described above since dwellings using electricity as a primary source for heating are more likely to use electricity for heating water. The shift towards compact housing, therefore, resulted in more water being heated using electricity and negative savings in this area. The negative savings in lighting for the Housing Scenario were due to a shift towards more apartment housing and the high use of lighting in apartment common areas. Apartments typically use lighting 24 hours per day in hallways, stairwells, lobbies and parking areas. The result is, on average, more electricity use for lighting for apartment units compared to single-family houses on a per unit basis. The shift towards more compact housing, therefore, led to modest increases in total lighting electricity use.


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page x

Exhibit E.3: Estimated Electricity Savings in F2026 for the Three Scenarios Relative to Reference Case

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

AC

Applia

nces

DHW

Electro

nics

Heat

Lightin

gOthe

r

Ventila

tion

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

yr

Housing ScenarioLifestyle ScenarioHousing & Lifestyle

Summary of Peak Load Reduction Results The CPR 2007 defined four peak periods (detailed in Chapter 2 of the Lifestyle Based Potential report): Peak Period 1: Annual System Peak Hour – For BC Hydro, this has traditionally been

the hour ending at 6 pm on a day in December or January; highly correlated with the coldest day of the year.

Peak Period 2: System Critical Peak Days – The 4 to 9 pm period on the four highest

System Peak Days; totals 20 hours. Peak Period 3: Typical Winter Peak Day – This adds the morning peak 8 am to 1 pm to

the System Critical Peak Days definition; totals 40 hours per year. Peak Period 4: Winter Peak Energy – This uses the Typical Winter Peak Day hour

definition (8 am to 1 pm and 4 to 9 pm) for all winter weekdays when minimum daily temperature is below 0ºC. Typically, this consists of 45 days or 450 hours per year.


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page xi

This study estimated the peak load reduction impacts that would result from the electric energy savings provided by each of the three scenarios described above. The peak load reductions for the total BC Hydro service area by milestone year for Peak Period 1 are presented in Exhibit E.4. In each case, the reductions are an average value over the peak period and are defined relative to the Reference Case. The peak load reductions for all four peak periods are presented in Chapter 4.

Exhibit E.4: Electric Peak Load Reductions (MW) for Peak Period 1 Housing Scenario, Lifestyle Scenario and Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

Scenario Service

Region Milestone

Year Housing Scenario Lifestyle Scenario

Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

F2011 63 117 174 F2016 134 294 404 F2021 188 489 629

Total BC Hydro

F2026 195 587 717

The most significant reductions to the peak load result from the measures included in the Lifestyle Scenario. Alone this scenario accounts for 587 MW of peak load reductions for Peak Period 1 by 2026, while the combined Lifestyle and Housing Scenario results in reduction of 717 MW. Additional Study Findings The study also evaluated the Housing Scenario using the MetroQuest simulation model. The results are presented in Appendix E. The study found that shifts towards sustainable communities and smart growth lead to electricity savings, as well as a wide variety of other community and sustainability benefits including: Reduced urban sprawl, leading to lower infrastructure costs and a reduction in costs to

the taxpayer More efficient transportation systems in general, leading to reduced traffic congestion,

greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution Conservation of open space and agricultural land Reduced ecological footprint

Finally, this study concludes with an evaluation of the most appropriate roles for BC Hydro in influencing lifestyle changes to conserve electricity. The study concludes that while the conservation potential from lifestyle change is significant, many of the decision-making and influencing factors in the most promising areas are outside the control and mandate BC Hydro. Partnerships or synergies with other organizations may be the most effective strategy for realizing the potential for electricity conservation through lifestyle changes. The study outlines some initial thoughts on what form this may take; however, additional investigation into this area is warranted.


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION TO CPR 2007...................................................................................19

1.1 Background and Objectives ...................................................................................19 1.2 Scope and Organization .........................................................................................20 1.3 This Report.............................................................................................................21

2. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR ..............................................................................................28

2.1 Introduction............................................................................................................28 2.2 Description of B.C. Residential Housing Stock (F2006 and F2026).....................28 2.3 Residential Electricity Use Patterns.......................................................................30 2.4 Total Residential Electricity Consumption (F2006 and F2026) ............................33 2.5 Annual Appliance Electricity Use .........................................................................35 2.6 Appliance Saturation..............................................................................................37 2.7 Estimation of Fuel Share by End Use ....................................................................39 2.8 Average Electricity Use Per Unit...........................................................................41 2.9 Base Year Peak Loads ...........................................................................................43

3 MOVING TOWARDS MORE SUSTAINABLE B.C. COMMUNITIES ..................45

3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................45 3.2 What is Sustainability? ..........................................................................................45 3.3 Smart Growth.........................................................................................................45 3.4 Motivation for Change ...........................................................................................46 3.5 Sustainability Planning Policies and Programs......................................................52 3.6 Shifting Public Values and Priorities .....................................................................59 3.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................62

4. SCENARIO COMPARISONS: 2026 VISIONS VS. REFERENCE CASE ...............63

4.1 Chapter Organization .............................................................................................63 4.2 Methodology ..........................................................................................................63 4.3 2026 Visioning Workshop Summary.....................................................................64 4.4 Component 1: Neighbourhood Design and Housing .............................................65 4.5 Component 2: Energy Choices in the Home..........................................................75 4.6 Scenario Results...................................................................................................106

5. MECHANISMS OF LIFESTYLE CHANGE.............................................................136

5.1 Influencing Factors for Lifestyle Choices............................................................136 5.2 Spheres of Influence on Lifestyle Choices ..........................................................137 5.3 Potential Roles for BC Hydro ..............................................................................141

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................143

6.1 Conclusions..........................................................................................................143 6.2 Recommendations for the Next CPR ...................................................................144 6.3 Immediate Opportunities for BC Hydro ..............................................................146

7. REFERENCES...............................................................................................................147


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page xiv

8. GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST .............................................................151

APPENDIX A: 2026 VISION WORKSHOP AGENDA...................................................162

APPENDIX B: 2026 VISION WORKSHOP SUMMARY NOTES ................................164

APPENDIX C: RESULTS FROM THE 2026 VISION FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES WORKSHOP .....................................................171

APPENDIX D: METROQUEST SCENARIO RESULTS................................................186

APPENDIX E: REFERENCE CASE END USE SATURATION LEVELS ..................206

APPENDIX F: ENERGY CHOICES IN THE HOME VISION – END USE SATURATION LEVELS ..............................................................................................210

APPENDIX G: ENERGY CHOICES IN THE HOME VISION – END USE CONSUMPTION REDUCTION..................................................................................214

APPENDIX H: ELECTRICITY FUEL SHARES IN F2006............................................218

APPENDIX I: ELECTRICITY USE BY END USE AND HOUSING TYPE...............222

APPENDIX J: ANNUAL APPLIANCE ELECTRICITY USE (UEC) IN F2006 (KWH/YR) 226

APPENDIX K: JULY 31ST WORKSHOP OUTPUTS......................................................230


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page xv

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1.1: Overview of CPR 2007 Organization – Analysis Areas and Reports......................20 Exhibit 2.1: B.C. Residential Sector Dwellings by Type (F2006 vs. F2026) ..............................29 Exhibit 2.2: B.C. Residential Sector – Dwellings by Service Region (F2006 vs. F2026)...........29 Exhibit 2.3: Description of Residential End Uses........................................................................31 Exhibit 2.4: Distribution of Residential Sector Electricity Consumption for the Total BC

Hydro Service Area, by End Use in the Base Year (F2006)....................................31 Exhibit 2.5: B.C. Residential Sector – Typical Electricity Use Per Dwelling (Electric vs.

Non-electric).............................................................................................................32 Exhibit 2.6: B.C. Residential Sector – Total Electricity Use (GWh/yr) by Dwelling Type

(F2006 vs. F2026) ....................................................................................................34 Exhibit 2.7: B.C. Residential Sector – Total Electricity Use (GWh/yr) by Service Region

(F2006 vs. F2026) ....................................................................................................34 Exhibit 2.8: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Lower Mainland in F2006

(KWh/yr) ..................................................................................................................36 Exhibit 2.9: Appliance Saturation Levels for the Lower Mainland, F2006 – F2026, (%)...........38 Exhibit 2.10: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Lower Mainland in F2006 (%)................................40 Exhibit 2.11: Average Electricity Use per Dwelling Unit for the Lower Mainland in

F2006 (KWh/yr) .......................................................................................................42 Exhibit 2.12: Residential Sector Base Year (F2006) Aggregate Peak Demand by Service

Region and Peak Period (MW) ................................................................................44 Exhibit 2.13: Residential Sector Aggregate Peak Demand (MW) by Peak Period for the

Total BC Hydro Service Area (F2006 to F2026) .....................................................44 Exhibit 3.1: Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases from 0 to 2005..............................................47 Exhibit 3.2 Kelowna Fires, August 2003....................................................................................49 Exhibit 3.3: Stanley Park Storm Damage, December 2006 .........................................................49 Exhibit 3.4 Mountain Pine Beetle Devastates an Entire Landscape in BC.................................50 Exhibit 3.5: Mountain Pine Beetle Devastation Adjacent to BC Highway and River.................50 Exhibit 3.6: Dockside Green Smart Growth Community Development, Victoria ......................58 Exhibit 3.7: Dockside Promotes New Urban Lifestyle, Access to Green Space,

Transportation Alternatives......................................................................................58 Exhibit 3.8: A Segmentation of Canadians According to their Familiarity with and

Priority for Sustainability .........................................................................................60 Exhibit 3.9: Poll Results - Priority of Sustainability as a National Goal .....................................61 Exhibit 4.1: B.C. Population Growth Projected to 2035 Showing Aging Trend (%

change from 2005) ...................................................................................................66 Exhibit 4.2: Population by Age Group Projected to 2035 ...........................................................67 Exhibit 4.3: Housing Types by Age Group in 2001.....................................................................68 Exhibit 4.4: Projected Housing Demand by Seniors to 2035.......................................................69 Exhibit 4.5: Growth Rates of Housing by Type and Primary Heating Source ............................73 Exhibit 4.6: Projected Number of Residential Dwellings by Type, Housing Scenario vs.

Reference Case.........................................................................................................74 Exhibit 4.7: Rates of Adoption Options for Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions .............................82 Exhibit 4.8: Measures Considered for Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions......................................83 Exhibit 4.9: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Heating End Use, Single-

Family Detached and Duplex Homes.......................................................................84


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page xvi

Exhibit 4.10: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Cooling End Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes.......................................................................87

Exhibit 4.11: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Ventilation End Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes ...........................................................89

Exhibit 4.12: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Lighting End Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes ...........................................................90

Exhibit 4.13: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Domestic Hot Water End Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes...................................................92

Exhibit 4.14 Distribution of DHW Electricity Use by End Use in New Stock (KWh/yr)............93 Exhibit 4.15: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Refrigerator End Use,

Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes ...........................................................94 Exhibit 4.16: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Freezer End Use, Single-

Family Detached and Duplex Homes.......................................................................96 Exhibit 4.17: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Cooking End Use,

Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes ...........................................................98 Exhibit 4.18: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Dishwasher End Use,

Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes ...........................................................99 Exhibit 4.19: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Clothes Washer End Use,

Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes .........................................................100 Exhibit 4.20: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Clothes Dryer End Use,

Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes .........................................................101 Exhibit 4.21: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Computer and Computer

Peripherals Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes..............................103 Exhibit 4.22: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Televisions, Single-Family

Detached and Duplex Homes.................................................................................104 Exhibit 4.23: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Television Peripherals,

Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes .........................................................104 Exhibit 4.24: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Other Electronics, Single-

Family Detached and Duplex Homes.....................................................................105 Exhibit 4.25: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Hot Tubs, Single-Family

Detached and Duplex Homes.................................................................................105 Exhibit 4.26: Projected Electricity Consumption for the Reference Case and the Three

Scenarios by Milestone Year..................................................................................107 Exhibit 4.27: Projected Electricity Savings for the Housing Scenario (GWh/yr)........................108 Exhibit 4.28: Comparison of Projected Growth in Housing Types for Reference Case and

2026 Vision to F2026.............................................................................................110 Exhibit 4.29: Estimated Electricity Savings in F2026 for the Three Scenarios Relative to

Reference Case.......................................................................................................111 Exhibit 4.30: Savings by End Use and Service Region for the Housing Scenario ......................112 Exhibit 4.31: Savings by Service Region by Housing Type for the Housing Scenario...............113 Exhibit 4.32: Average Suites per Building Type by Service Region...........................................117 Exhibit 4.33: Summary of Modeled Electricity Savings in F2026 by End Use for Lifestyle

Choices compared to Reference Case ....................................................................118 Exhibit 4.34: Savings by End Use and Service Region for the Lifestyle Scenario......................119 Exhibit 4.35: Savings by Service Region by Housing Type for the Lifestyle Scenario..............120 Exhibit 4.36: Modeled Electricity Savings by Dwelling Type and Detailed End Use for

Lifestyle Scenario compared to Reference Case, all Milestone Years...................121


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page xvii

Exhibit 4.37: Summary of Modeled Electricity Savings in F2026 by Service Area for Lifestyle Scenario compared to Reference Case....................................................122

Exhibit 4.38: Reduction in Peak Loads, by Milestone Year, Peak Period and Service Region (MW) .........................................................................................................123

Exhibit 4.39: Reduction in Peak Loads, by Milestone Year and Peak Period for Total BC Hydro Service Area (% Reduction from Reference Case).....................................124

Exhibit 4.40: Savings by End Use and Service Region for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario..................................................................................................................125

Exhibit 4.41: Savings by Service Region by Housing Type for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario..................................................................................................................126

Exhibit 4.42: Total Electricity Use by Service Region by Scenario Compared to the Reference Case and Base Year (GWh/yr)..............................................................127

Exhibit 4.43: Projected Electricity Savings for the Housing Scenario (GWh/yr)........................128 Exhibit 4.44: Projected Electricity Savings for the Lifestyle Scenario (GWh/yr) .......................129 Exhibit 4.45: Projected Electricity Savings for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

(GWh/yr) ................................................................................................................130 Exhibit 4.46: Comparison of Projected Electricity Peak Load Reductions to F2026 from

the Reference Case and the Three Scenarios .........................................................131 Exhibit 4.47: Projected Capacity Summary for the Reference Scenario .....................................132 Exhibit 4.48: Projected Capacity Summary and Reductions for the Housing Scenario ..............133 Exhibit 4.49: Projected Capacity Summary and Reductions for the Lifestyle Scenario .............134 Exhibit 4.50: Projected Capacity Summary and Reductions for the Housing and Lifestyle

Scenario..................................................................................................................135 Exhibit D.1: Projected Residential Development in the GVRD in 2031 in Vision

Scenario (top) and Current Trend (bottom)............................................................187 Exhibit D.2: Projected Residential Development in the South Okanagan in 2031 in

Vision Scenario (left) and Current Trend (right) ...................................................188 Exhibit D.3: Land Lost to Development by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend

Scenarios ................................................................................................................190 Exhibit D.4: Land Lost to Development by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend

Scenarios (Graph)...................................................................................................191 Exhibit D.5: Person Distance Traveled by Mode by Service Region for Vision vs.

Current Trend Scenarios.........................................................................................193 Exhibit D.6: Person Distance Traveled by Mode by Service Region for Vision vs. Current

Trend Scenarios (Graph) ........................................................................................194 Exhibit D.7: Energy Use for Transportation by Service Region for Vision vs. Current

Trend Scenarios......................................................................................................196 Exhibit D.8: Energy Use for Transportation by Service Region for Vision vs. Current

Trend Scenarios (Graph) ........................................................................................197 Exhibit D.9: Individual Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision

vs. Current Trend Scenarios ...................................................................................199 Exhibit D.10: Individual Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision

vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph) .....................................................................200 Exhibit D.11: Total Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision vs.

Current Trend Scenarios.........................................................................................201 Exhibit D.12: Total Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision vs.

Current Trend Scenarios (Graph) ...........................................................................202


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page xviii

Exhibit D.13: Fiscal Health by Spending Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios.........................................................................................204

Exhibit D.14: Fiscal Health by Spending Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph) ...........................................................................205

Exhibit E.1: Lower Mainland – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels ............................206 Exhibit E.2: Vancouver Island – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels...........................207 Exhibit E.3: Southern Interior – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels............................208 Exhibit E.4: Northern Region – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels ............................209 Exhibit F.1: Lower Mainland – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation

Levels .....................................................................................................................210 Exhibit F.2: Vancouver Island – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation

Levels .....................................................................................................................211 Exhibit F.3: Southern Interior – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation

Levels .....................................................................................................................212 Exhibit F.4: Northern Region – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation

Levels .....................................................................................................................213 Exhibit G.1: Lower Mainland – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use

Consumption Reduction.........................................................................................214 Exhibit G.2: Vancouver Island – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use

Consumption Reduction.........................................................................................215 Exhibit G.3: Southern Interior – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use

Consumption Reduction.........................................................................................216 Exhibit G.4: Northern Region – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use

Consumption Reduction.........................................................................................217 Exhibit H.1: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Lower Mainland in F2006.....................................218 Exhibit H.2: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Vancouver Island in F2006 ...................................219 Exhibit H.3: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Southern Interior in F2006 ....................................220 Exhibit H.4: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Northern Region in F2006.....................................221 Exhibit I.1: Lower Mainland Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type ..........................222 Exhibit I.2: Vancouver Island Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type ........................223 Exhibit I.3: Southern Interior Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type .........................224 Exhibit I.4: Northern Region Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type..........................225 Exhibit J.1: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Lower Mainland in F2006

(KWh/yr) ................................................................................................................226 Exhibit J.2: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Vancouver Island in F2006

(KWh/yr) ................................................................................................................227 Exhibit J.3: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Southern Interior in F2006

(KWh/yr) ................................................................................................................228 Exhibit J.4: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Northern Region in F2006

(KWh/yr) ................................................................................................................229


Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. / Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd./ Ghoulem Research Page 19

1. INTRODUCTION TO CPR 2007 1.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES In 1991 and again in 2002, BC Hydro conducted an in-depth technical end use analysis of where, how and at what cost electricity demand in British Columbia could be reduced. These analyses are contained in two separate documents, known as Conservation Potential Reviews (CPR). Since completing the CPR 2002, new pressures in the electricity industry and on the environment have led to a renewed interest in conservation, load management and demand-side management (DSM). In addition, the performance efficiency of major energy-using technologies has continued to improve, technology prices have changed, new products have become available, and additional technologies, based largely on advances in information technology (IT) and materials science, are under development. In June 2006, BC Hydro initiated a third Conservation Potential Review (CPR) study that was carried out in cooperation with an External Review Panel (ERP), a panel of representatives from community groups and sectors from across B.C. This study investigates new and different ways for B.C.’s industries, businesses and households to save energy as provincial electricity demand continues to grow.

The purpose of the CPR 2007 is to develop estimates of electricity conservation potential in BC Hydro’s service area to the year 2026. This included analysing a broad range of energy-saving technologies, behaviour and lifestyle changes, small-scale renewable energies and fuel switching. This information will be used for:

Providing input to the Demand-side Management (DSM) Plan for BC Hydro’s Energy Conservation and Efficiency long-term goal

Developing new conservation programs and modifying existing ones Providing estimates for future Integrated Electricity Plans Providing input for load forecasts Developing new capacity programs to meet the needs of the British Columbia

Transmission Corporation (BCTC) and BC Hydro Distribution Planning



1.2 SCOPE AND ORGANIZATION The scope of CPR 2007 is expanded from CPR 2002. It covers a 20-year study period, rather than the 15-year time frame used in the previous CPR. It expanded its sector coverage to include street lighting in addition to the three core sectors (Residential, Commercial and Industrial). The CPR 2007 encompasses current and emerging electrical efficiency technologies or measures that are expected to be commercially viable by the year 2011. It also considers behavioural and lifestyle changes, customer-supplied renewable energies in the Residential and Commercial sectors, and fuel switching to natural gas. While the scope of the CPR is expanded, as with any study there are limitations to the scope. For example, the study did not include supply-side efficiency improvements within BC Hydro and BCTC’s systems and savings from emerging technologies beyond 2011 or step-changes in energy-efficient technologies. In addition, electricity savings from lifestyle changes were not included in the combined Upper Achievable Potential but could contribute substantially to meeting the BC Energy Plan target. The CPR 2007 has been organized into five Analysis Areas. The results are presented in 11 individual reports. Exhibit 1.1 provides an overview of each Analysis Area.

Exhibit 1.1: Overview of CPR 2007 Organization – Analysis Areas and Reports

Analysis Area 1 – Energy Efficiency and Peak Load Technologies and O&M

This area of the CPR 2007 assesses electricity and peak load reduction opportunities that could be provided by electrical efficiency and peak load reduction technologies that are expected to be commercially viable by the year 2011; operation and maintenance (O&M) practices are also addressed. The Analysis Area also includes an assessment of the potential impacts of emerging technologies in the latter portion of the study period. The results of this Analysis Area are



presented in three individual sector reports. In addition, as shown in Exhibit 1.2, the Analysis Area 1 results are included in a set of combined results that also include their potential impacts when combined with the results of Analysis Areas 2 and 3.

Analysis Area 2 – Customer-supplied Alternative Energies This area of the CPR 2007 assesses electricity and peak load reduction opportunities that could be provided by customer-supplied alternative energies. The results of this Analysis Area are presented in a single report. In addition, as shown in Exhibit 1.2, the Analysis Area 2 results are included in a set of combined results that also include their potential impacts when combined with the results of Analysis Areas 1 and 3.

Analysis Area 3 – Behaviour This area of the CPR 2007 assesses electricity and peak load reduction opportunities that could be provided by the actions of customers who habitually save energy within their daily routines. In addition, as shown in Exhibit 1.2, the Analysis Area 3 results are included in a set of combined results that also include their potential impacts when combined with the results of Analysis Areas 1 and 2.

Analysis Area 4 – Lifestyle This area of the CPR 2007 assesses electricity and peak load reduction opportunities that could be provided by customer choices related to the energy-consuming systems that they purchase or use, e.g., purchasing a refrigerator that is not only efficient but also smaller in size. As shown in Exhibit 1.2, the Analysis Area 4 results are contained in separate, stand-alone report.

Analysis Area 5 – Fuel Switching This area of the CPR 2007 assesses electricity and peak load reduction opportunities that could be provided by switching selected end uses, such as space or water heating, from electricity to natural gas. As shown in Exhibit 1.1, the Analysis Area 5 results are contained in separate, stand-alone report. 1.3 THIS REPORT This report presents the results of Analysis Area 4, Lifestyle (Report 7 in Exhibit 1.2, above). The remainder of this section provides: Scope of lifestyle choices addressed in this report Definitions of key terms used throughout this report An overview of the steps employed in completing Analysis Area 4 Report Presentation

1.3.1 Scope of Lifestyle Measures Addressed in this Report

This study addresses the potential for lifestyle changes that could result in significant reductions in electricity consumption. This includes changes that affect that amount of



electricity services that B.C. residents use (e.g. the amount of light that used). Technology changes (e.g. changing to more efficient light bulbs) and behavioural changes (e.g. turning the lights off when leaving a room) are being considered in other components of the CPR 2007. Note that the technology and behavioural changes do not impact the amount of electricity services that people use. Turning off the lights when people leave a room (a behavioural change) does not reduce the amount of light that they use because there is nobody there to ‘use’ the light in an empty room. Furthermore, replacing a light bulb (a technology change) still allows them to enjoy the same amount of light while in the room.

This study focuses on Residential electricity use as the majority of decisions about lifestyle of B.C. residents can be represented in the Residential sector. The analysis is divided into two components:

• Neighbourhood Design and Housing, including where people live (housing types,

neighbourhood patterns and designs), where they work (job location and building types), and how they get around (transportation options and alternatives)

• Energy Choices in the Home, including the types of appliances, electronics and leisure products people have and how they use them, and how they manage the heating and cooling of their homes

While both components deal with questions affecting the lifestyles of B.C. residents, they differ greatly in terms of the role of decision-makers. While B.C. residents make decisions on where to live and work and how to get around, these choices are strongly influenced by decisions made in both the public and the private sectors. For example, urban planners and developers negotiate, plan and design neighbourhoods, buildings and infrastructure that shape B.C. cities and towns. The federal, provincial and local governments all play significant roles in developing transportation infrastructure. Where people can choose to live and work and what transportation options exist are provided, to a large extent, by government agencies and the private sector firms that build cities and towns. For these reasons, the approach to the Neighbourhood Design and Housing component is policy based: it begins with the development of a policy framework consistent with a movement towards sustainable communities; it then evaluates the electricity implications of those changes. By contrast, Energy Choices in the Home relates to purchasing and use decisions primarily made by individuals and families. While it is true that the government and industry play a role in deciding what products are available and how they are marketed, the connection is less direct than the Neighbourhood Design and Housing component. The Energy Choices in the Home component focuses on changes that B.C. residents could make to change the level of energy services that they require in their homes; it then analyzes the electricity implications of those changes. There is a wide range of possible lifestyle measures that residents can undertake to reduce electricity usage in their homes. This project started with a long list of possible lifestyle measures, which were narrowed down through consultation with BC Hydro and with the External Review Panel (ERP) members through the 2026 Visioning Workshop.



The report considers 21 lifestyle measures in the following six categories: Space heating and cooling Domestic hot water (DHW) Major appliances Household electronics Lighting Leisure product (hot tubs)

Both the energy and peak load implications of the lifestyle measures were evaluated and are presented in Chapter 4. The difficulties associated with combining the lifestyle analysis with the other analysis areas in the CPR 2007 Technical Potential analysis areas (Analysis Areas 1, 2 and 3) were recognized early in the development of the study and the decision was made to keep the lifestyle study separate. These difficulties included issues like the impact of changes to the housing stock in the lifestyle study. With less single-family housing, for example, the Technical Potential for conservation based on changes to technologies in single-family housing would shift accordingly, making bundled comparisons difficult to evaluate.

1.3.2 Overview of Approach to Analysis Area 4

To meet the objectives outlined above, the study was conducted in two stages that involved a number of well-defined steps using two linked computer models: MetroQuest and RSEEM. MetroQuest, developed as a joint effort between the University of British Columbia’s Sustainable Development Research Institute and Envision Sustainability Tools, is an integrated GIS modeling framework that allows communities to simulate long range scenarios for land use, transportation, housing, environmental management, and economic development. MetroQuest has been used by communities throughout the province to create long range sustainability visions in collaboration with the public and stakeholder groups. A province-wide version of MetroQuest was created for the CPR 2007. MetroQuest was used to create scenarios as described below and key outputs from MetroQuest were input into RSEEM for detailed analysis of the electricity implications of the scenarios. RSEEM (Residential Sector Energy End-use Model), a Marbek in-house spreadsheet-based macro model, consists of three modules:

• A General Parameters module that contains general sector data (e.g., number of dwellings, growth rates, etc.)

• A Thermal Archetype module, as noted above, which contains data on the heating and cooling loads in each archetype

• An Appliance Module that contains data on appliance saturation levels, fuel shares, unit electricity use, etc.



RSEEM combines the data from each of the modules and provides total use of electricity by service region, dwelling type and end use. RSEEM also enables the analyst to estimate the impacts of the electrical efficiency measures on the utility’s on-peak system demand.

A summary of the steps of the analysis is presented below. STAGE 1: SCENARIO PREPARATION Stage 1 involved the preparation of a vision to the year 2026 for two components: 1. Neighbourhood Design and Housing Choices 2. Energy Choices in the Home Component 1: Neighbourhood Design and Housing Choices

Component 1 involves the creation and evaluation of a 2026 Vision, a vision for how communities in B.C. could change if the principles of sustainable community development and smart growth were to be aggressively adopted throughout the province over the next 20 years. Two scenarios were created: a current trend scenario designed to parallel the Reference Case used throughout the CPR 2007 and a 2026 Vision simulating continued movement towards sustainability and smart growth practices to 2026. The results of these scenarios on key sustainability indicators are reported in Appendix D. A key aspect of sustainable community development involves a re-examination of the most environmentally and economically sustainable mix of housing to meet the needs of future generations. The MetroQuest model was used to evaluate and export a new mix of housing according to the 2026 Vision. This data was used in Stage 2 to model the detailed electricity implications of the 2026 Vision. The steps used to develop and quantify the vision for Neighbourhood Design and Housing Choices follow:

Step 1: Create MetroQuest Model for B.C. Communities Evaluate existing versions of MetroQuest for suitability in contributing to

provincial model. Compare trend scenarios from selected implementations with CPR 2007

Reference Case scenario to verify selection.

Step 2: Calibrate MetroQuest Model with Reference Case Scenario Assumptions

Evaluate CPR 2007 Reference Case scenario to determine appropriate MetroQuest policy choices for selected versions.

Export MetroQuest Current Trend scenario (scenario that coincides with CPR 2007 Reference Case scenario) for use in the B.C. model.

Determine scenario scaling factors for MetroQuest scenario based on 2006 dwelling numbers in CPR 2007 Reference Case.



Apply scaling factors to MetroQuest scenarios to create B.C. MetroQuest model and B.C. MetroQuest Current Trend scenario.

Step 3: Develop 2026 Vision for More Sustainable B.C. Communities Evaluate contributing factors motivating shifts towards sustainable community

design. Study the sustainability planning efforts of cities and regions in B.C. Undertake market research specific to lifestyle choices in the Residential sector in

B.C. (the Panel Survey). Survey ERP members on key questions surrounding sustainability community

design (the 2026 Visioning Workshop, held Feb. 22, 2007). Calibrate the 2026 vision for BC Hydro’s four service regions.

Step 4: Determine the Sustainability Implications of 2026 Vision Apply policy changes to MetroQuest versions based on Step 3 findings. Run selected policy directions through MetroQuest Sustainability Visioning

Model. Export MetroQuest scenarios and scale to province using Current Trend model

from Step 2. Document model outputs for key sustainability indicators. Export new housing mix to run through RSEEM (Residential Sector Energy End-

use Model).

Component 2: Energy Choices in the Home

Component 2 involves the creation and evaluation of a vision that focuses on changes to energy choices that lead to lower electricity use in the home. The vision for Energy Choices in the Home was developed to harmonize with the vision for Neighbourhood Design and Housing Choices developed in Component 1. Centered on the social tasks supported by electricity services in the home, it envisioned changes in lifestyle and expectations that lead to lower electricity use for major Residential end uses. Parameters were established for the potential savings for each end use based on combinations of decreases in both saturation and consumption levels in a specified proportion of homes, as given in Appendix G. These savings were calculated relative to the Reference Case, as well as in conjunction with Component 1’s housing changes. The basic steps for the development and evaluation of the vision for Energy Choices in the Home follow: Step 1: Create a 2026 Lifestyle Vision Outline a framework for specifying a lifestyle change vision consistent with CPR

2007 objectives. Within this framework, develop a candidate list of lifestyle changes that would

lead to reduced demand of energy services in the home. Evaluate the changes in terms of potential energy savings, likelihood,

analyzability and overlap with other analysis areas of the CPR 2007. Determine a final list of lifestyle changes to be considered.



Step 2: Specify Savings Assumptions Translate the final list of lifestyle changes from electricity services into terms of

measures reducing end use saturation and consumption. Using BC Hydro data, sociological and other residential energy consumption

literature, quantitative analysis and project staff judgment, specify a set of 2026 saturation and consumption reductions for each end use by housing type and region.

Develop a set of alternative assumptions for rates of change for saturation and consumption between the Base Year and 2026; document rationale.

For each end use, select one model for rates of change and use it to determine level of change to be achieved for each Milestone Year. This creates the Lifestyle Scenario.

Export the new saturation and consumption levels to run through RSEEM (Residential Sector Energy End-use Model).

STAGE 2: SCENARIO ANALYSIS Stage 2 of the analysis involved running the scenario choices made in Components 1 and 2 through Marbek’s RSEEM (Residential Sector Energy End-use Model) to create three alternative futures to be compared to the Reference Case. These scenarios are: 1. Scenario 1: The Housing Scenario. This alternative presents a vision for the next 20

years in which B.C. makes changes towards smart growth and sustainable community design. In terms of electricity use, the scenario focuses on wide-scale changes to the types of housing that are developed to meet the demand of a growing and changing population. The impacts of the changes in the housing stock are analyzed in detail below. The smart growth policies were also applied more broadly using the MetroQuest sustainability model. The results of this modeling exercise are reported in Appendix D.

2. Scenario 2: The Lifestyle Choices Scenario (Lifestyle Scenario for short). This

alternative focuses on changes that B.C. residents could make to their lifestyles in the home. The scenario includes changes to a wide variety of key end uses in the Residential sector and focuses on end uses that were evaluated to have the most potential for changes in lifestyle that could reduce electricity use most significantly. This alternative assumes no changes in the housing stock relative to the Reference Case to allow for the evaluation of the impacts of these lifestyle changes independently.

3. Scenario 3: The Housing and Lifestyle Scenario. This alternative combines the

changes proposed to the housing stock associated with the Housing Scenario with the changes in end use activity in homes associated with the Lifestyle Scenario. This scenario is presented to summarize the total savings that may be achieved if these lifestyle changes were to happen.

The results of this detailed energy analysis are evaluated in terms of energy and peak load. The results are documented in chapter 4 of this study.



1.3.3. Report Presentation

The remainder of this report is organized as follows: Chapter 2 presents a profile of Residential sector electricity use in British

Columbia. Chapter 3 provides background information on sustainability and smart growth

and the changing attitudes and policies relating to sustainability. Chapter 4 presents and evaluates a vision for more sustainable communities and

lifestyles in terms of its impact on electricity demand in the Residential sector. Chapter 5 presents influencers and mechanisms associated with changing

lifestyles, and discusses the role for BC Hydro. Chapter 6 offers conclusions and recommendations. Chapter 7 lists sources and references. Chapter 8 is the Glossary and Abbreviations.



2. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR 2.1 INTRODUCTION As noted in Section 1, this report assesses electricity and peak load reduction opportunities that could be provided by the actions of Residential and Commercial sector customers if they were to habitually save energy within their daily routines. The information presented in this section is an abridged version of the more detailed analysis contained in the main Residential sector report entitled, 2007 Conservation Potential Review: The Potential for Electricity Savings through Technology Adoption, 2006-2026 – Residential Sector in British Columbia. This abridged description of electricity use in B.C.’s Residential sector presents highlights of the main report as follows:

Description of B.C. Residential housing stock (F2006 and F2026) Residential electricity use patterns Total Residential electricity consumption (F2006 and F2026) Residential peak load profiles

2.2 DESCRIPTION OF B.C. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING STOCK (F2006 AND F2026) BC Hydro currently (F2006) serves approximately 1.5 million residential customers; by the end of the study period (F2026), the number of BC Hydro customers is expected to grow to approximately 1.8 million. To facilitate the analysis of energy efficiency and peak load reduction opportunities, BC Hydro customer billing data were used to organize B.C.’s Residential housing stock into five distinct dwelling types. They are: Single-family Detached (SFD), which includes all detached single-family dwellings and

duplexes Row, which includes all row houses and townhouses Low-rise Apartment, which includes all apartment suites in buildings that are four storeys

or less High-rise Apartment, which includes all apartment suites in buildings that are more that

four storeys Mobile/Other

Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2 provide additional detail on B.C.’s residential dwellings. Exhibit 2.1 shows the distribution of B.C.’s residential dwellings by type, both in the

Base Year (F2006) and at the end of the study period (F2026). Exhibit 2.2 shows the distribution of B.C.’s residential dwellings by service region, both

in the Base Year (F2006) and at the end of the study period (F2026).



Exhibit 2.1: B.C. Residential Sector Dwellings by Type (F2006 vs. F2026)

Exhibit 2.2: B.C. Residential Sector – Dwellings by Service Region (F2006 vs. F2026)

SFD

Row

L-R

ise

Apt

H-R

ise

Apt

Mob

ile/O

ther

F2006F20260

100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,000

1,000,000

Dwelling Type

Units

LMVI

SINR

F2006

F20260

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Service Region

Units



As illustrated in Exhibits 2.1 and 2.2:

In the Base Year (F2006), SFDs and duplexes account for the largest share of B.C.’s residential dwellings1 (approximately 850,000 units or about 57% of the total). They are followed by: high-rise apartment suites (about 225,000 suites, or 15% of the total); low-rise apartment suites (about 160,000 suites, or 11% of the total); and row housing units (about 130,000 units, or 9% of the total). The remaining 7% is made up of mobile and other units.

Based on BC Hydro’s load forecast, in F2026 SFDs and duplexes are expected to

continue to account for the largest share of B.C.’s residential dwellings (approximately 980,000 units). However, the share of SFDs and duplexes is expected to drop to about 53% of the total. This modest decline in the share of SFDs and duplexes is expected to be matched by modest increases in the share of each of the remaining dwelling types.

In the Base Year (F2006), the largest share of B.C.’s residential dwellings is located in

the Lower Mainland (approximately 845,000 units or about 58% of the total). Vancouver Island accounts for the second largest share of residential dwellings (approximately 312,000 units or about 21% of the total), followed by Southern Interior (12%) and Northern Region (9%).

Based on BC Hydro’s load forecast, no significant shift in the distribution of residential

dwellings is expected among the four service regions. 2.3 RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY USE PATTERNS Electricity use within each of the dwelling types noted above is further defined on the basis of specific end uses. In this study, an end use is defined as “the final application or final use to which energy is applied. End uses are the services of economic value to the users of energy.”2 Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4 provide additional detail. Exhibit 2.3 provides a summary of the major Residential sector end uses used in this

study, together with a brief description of each. Exhibit 2.4 shows the distribution of Residential electricity use by end use in the Base

Year (F2006).

1 In this study, dwelling units are defined on the basis of BC Hydro customer account data; minor variations may exist with other housing data sources. 2 See Glossary in Chapter 7.



Exhibit 2.3: Description of Residential End Uses

Exhibit 2.4: Distribution of Residential Sector Electricity Consumption for the Total BC

Hydro Service Area, by End Use in the Base Year (F2006)

Further highlights are provided below for selected end uses.

End Use Description Space heating All space heating, including both central heating and supplementary heating Space cooling All space cooling, including both central air conditioning (AC) and room or

portable AC Ventilation Primarily the furnace fan, but also includes the fan in heat recovery

ventilators as well as kitchen and bathroom fans Domestic hot water (DHW) Heating of water for domestic hot water (DHW) use. Does not include

hydronic space heating Cooking Includes ranges, separate ovens and cook tops and microwave ovens Refrigerator Freezer Dishwasher Clothes washer Clothes dryer Lighting and controls Includes interior, exterior and holiday lighting Computer and peripherals Printers, scanners, modems, faxes, PDA and cell phone chargers Television Television peripherals Set top boxes, including digital cable converters and satellite converters Other electronics Stereos, DVD players, VCRs, boom boxes, radios, video gaming systems,

security systems Swimming pools and spas Elevators Also includes stair lifts Small appliance and Other There are hundreds of additional items within this category, each accounting

for a fraction of a per cent of household energy use, e.g., hair dryer, doorbells, garage door openers, block heaters, home medical equipment, electric lawnmowers, etc.

Refrigerator, 9%Cooking, 5% DHW, 9%

Ventilation, 4%

Space Cooling, 2%

Space Heating, 24%Elevators, 0.3%Small Appliances & Other, 7%

Freezer, 4%

Clothes Dryer, 6%

Clothes Washer, 1%

Dishwasher, 0.5%

Television Peripherals, 1%

Computer and peripherals, 4%

Lighting and Controls, 16%

Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs, 3%

Other Electronics, 1%

Television, 3%



Space Heating Space heating accounts for the largest share (about 24%) of Residential electricity consumed in BC Hydro’s service area. Analysis of BC Hydro customer billing data shows that electricity is the primary space heating fuel in approximately 35% of the provincial housing stock. However, in the Vancouver Island region, electric space heating serves 55% of the stock. The Northern Region has the lowest percentage of electric space heating at 26% of all dwellings. Exhibit 2.5 shows a comparison of typical electricity consumption levels in dwellings located in the Lower Mainland with electric and non-electric space heating as the primary fuel. As illustrated in Exhibit 2.5, a typical electrically-heated single-family dwelling in the Lower Mainland currently uses approximately 21,000 KWh/yr. A similar dwelling that is primarily heated by a non-electric fuel (principally natural gas) consumes approximately 9,800 KWh/yr. In contrast, a typical electrically-heated high-rise apartment suite in the Lower Mainland currently uses approximately 6,400 KWh/yr, while a similar non-electrically heated unit currently uses approximately 4,150 KWh/yr.

Exhibit 2.5: B.C. Residential Sector – Typical Electricity Use Per Dwelling (Electric vs. Non-electric)

SFD

Row

L-R

ise

Apt

Sui

te

H-R

ise

Apt

Sui

te

Mob

ile/O

ther

Non-electricElectric0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Dwelling Type

kWh/yr



Lighting Lighting (16%) is the second largest end use. The future share of lighting electricity use is expected to remain relatively constant. On the one hand, the increased penetration of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) as replacements for incandescent light bulbs offers significant savings potential. On the other hand, the trend towards larger homes (with more lighting) and the increased use of decorative indoor and outdoor lighting increases lighting use. Computers, Televisions and Peripherals, Other Electronics The electronic end uses (computers, televisions and peripherals, other electronics) combined account for approximately 9% of Residential electricity use. However, these end uses are expected to account for significant increases in future electricity use. The North American television industry has announced its commitment to convert all analog television to digital broadcasting within the next five years. These broadcast changes are occurring at a time when television technology and programming options are also rapidly changing. Some television technology changes, such as the introduction of liquid crystal display (LCD) and plasma models, may also have significant impacts on household electricity consumption. It is also possible that these changes will result in an increased rate of turnover in the current stock of televisions to models that are better able to take advantage of the high definition (HD) digital signal. Electricity consumption for personal computers is expected to increase despite the move to more energy-efficient flat screen technology. Again, this is due in part to the growing preference for larger screens but mainly due to a trend towards longer operating hours both in full operating mode and in idle mode. There is also a move towards increasing numbers and functionality of computer peripherals, increasing consumption further. Space Cooling Residential space cooling, which is addressed as a separate end use for the first time in this CPR, is highly concentrated geographically. Approximately 75% of all residential space cooling electricity consumption occurs in the Southern Interior. 2.4 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION (F2006 AND F2026) Total Residential sector electricity use is expected to grow from about 16,100 GWh/yr in the Base Year (F2006) to about 22,136 GWh/yr in F2026, an increase of about 38%. Exhibits 2.6 and 2.7 provide additional detail. Exhibit 2.6 shows the distribution of total Residential electricity use by dwelling type,

both in the Base Year (F2006) and at the end of the study period (F2026). Exhibit 2.7 shows the distribution of total Residential electricity use by service region,

both in the Base Year (F2006) and at the end of the study period (F2026).



Exhibit 2.6: B.C. Residential Sector – Total Electricity Use (GWh/yr) by Dwelling Type (F2006 vs. F2026)

SFD

Row

L-R

ise

Apt

Sui

te

H-R

ise

Apt

Sui

te

Mob

ile/O

ther

Non-electricElectric0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Dwelling Type

kWh/yr

Exhibit 2.7: B.C. Residential Sector – Total Electricity Use (GWh/yr) by Service Region (F2006 vs. F2026)

LMVI

SINR

F2006

F20260

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

Service Region

GWh/yr.



As illustrated in Exhibits 2.6 and 2.7: Single-family dwellings and duplexes account for the largest share of residential

electricity consumption in the Base Year (about 10,800 GWh/yr, or 67% of the total). Consistent with the forecast trends in numbers of dwellings noted above, single-family dwellings and duplexes are expected to account for a moderately smaller share of total residential electricity use in F2026 (about 13,700 GWh/yr, or 62% of the total). This moderate decline in the single-family detached and duplex electricity consumption is expected to be matched by modest increases in each of the remaining dwelling types.

Based on BC Hydro’s Load Forecast, no dramatic shift in the distribution of Residential

electricity use is expected among the four service regions. 2.5 ANNUAL APPLIANCE ELECTRICITY USE The next major task involved the development of estimated average annual unit electricity consumption (UEC) values for each of the major residential appliances. While most appliances have increased in efficiency over time there is no evident “improvement” in UECs for the single-family dwellings between homes built prior to 1976 and those built after 1976. This is due to the fact that the age of the home does not correlate with the age of the appliance. Older homes likely have had major appliances replaced several times and newer homes can have old appliances transferred from previous residences. Lacking any definite relation between the age of the home and the age of an appliance, an average value for all in-place appliances was used for all existing vintages. Exhibit 2.8 summarizes the estimated average annual UEC for major end-use appliances for the Lower Mainland. The values shown in Exhibit 2.8 apply to the current stock mix in the Lower Mainland. UECs vary slightly by service region, in some cases because of differences in occupancy rates. A brief discussion is provided below for each end-use appliance shown in Exhibit 2.8. Appendix J provides annual appliance UEC values for the other service regions. Note that the Reference Case assumes these numbers remain constant until 2026.



Exhibit 2.8: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Lower Mainland in F2006 (KWh/yr)

Dwelling Type

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Swim

min

g Po

ols a

nd

Spas

Smal

l app

s & O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 294 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 306 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 600 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 800 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 189 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 189 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 400 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 400 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 31 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 1,899 11,994 0 0 0 0 278 3,627 7,857 0 0 0 0 13,060 0 777Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 31 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 2,548 21,534 0 0 0 0 500 6,511 13,876 0 0 0 0 13,060 0 1,395High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 28 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 22,048 132,313 0 0 0 0 3,072 40,008 127,632 0 0 0 0 32,650 0 10,717High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 28 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 18,308 129,922 0 0 0 3,017 39,285 131,563 0 0 0 0 32,650 0 10,523Mobile, Electric Heating 196 2,538 585 830 650 76 59 760 1,010 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Mobile, Non-electric Heating 500 2,538 585 830 650 76 59 760 1,010 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25

Note: Values shown represent average annual electricity consumption per single appliance. The number of appliances typically found in each dwelling type is reported in Exhibit 2.9 Appliance Saturation Levels.



2.6 APPLIANCE SATURATION Exhibit 2.9 summarizes the saturation levels that are used in the present analysis. The values shown are for the Lower Mainland. In each case, the assumed saturation levels are developed from the Residential End-Use Survey (REUS).3 Saturations were obtained through querying the database, by end use and detachment; minor refinements were made in selected cases to assist in calibration.

Appendix E presents appliance saturation levels for the other three service regions.

3 BC Hydro. 2006 Residential End-Use Study. BC Hydro Power Smart Evaluation. Aug. 2006.



Exhibit 2.9: Appliance Saturation Levels for the Lower Mainland, F2006 – F2026, (%)

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026Detached/Duplex 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 15% 22% 29% 36% 42% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 151% 151% 151% 151% 151%Row/Townhouse 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 13% 18% 23% 28% 33% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115%First Nations 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 15% 22% 29% 36% 42% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 151% 151% 151% 151% 151%Lowrise <=4 fl, Suites 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104%Lowrise <=4 fl, Common Areas 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Highrise >4 fl, Suites 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104%Highrise >4 fl, Common Areas 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Mobile/Other 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 48% 71% 83% 91% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 113% 113% 113% 113% 113%



Swimming pools and spas Small appliances & other ElevatorsSegment Television Television peripherals Other electronics

DHW Cooking Refrigerator

Segment Freezer Dishwasher Clothes washer Clothes dryer Lighting Computer and peripherals

Segment Space heating Space cooling Ventilation

Notes: The term “Saturation” in the above table means the percentage of homes in a given dwelling type that have the end use. Thus, for end uses such as ventilation, DHW, cooking, lighting and other, which occur in all homes and which are most usefully analyzed on a “per dwelling” basis, the saturation is 100% and it is the unit energy consumption (and in some cases the fuel) that varies. For end uses that do not occur in all homes, such as space cooling, a percentage less than 100% is shown. In some cases, such as large appliances, televisions and the like, it is most useful to analyze consumption on a “per appliance” basis. The saturation for those end uses (specifically, refrigerator, freezer, dishwasher, clothes washer, clothes dryer, computer, television, television peripherals, other electronics and pools and spas) therefore indicates the average number of such items found in a dwelling. In the above table, the average single-family detached/duplex dwelling in the Lower Mainland has nearly two televisions, so the saturation is 198%. As detailed data were not available, electricity use for laundry appliances located in apartment common areas is included in the “other” end use. Source: BC Hydro, Residential End-Use Survey, 2006.



2.7 ESTIMATION OF FUEL SHARE BY END USE Data on fuel shares, for all end uses except space heating, is taken from the REUS. In the case of space heating, the starting point was the distribution of space heating appliances, by fuel type, as reported in the REUS and in the EnerGuide for Houses database. Both sources confirm that natural gas (67%) and electricity (27%) are the primary space heating fuels in the Lower Mainland. The same data also confirm that supplemental heating is widespread in dwellings heated primarily both by electricity and natural gas. Consequently, the more difficult question is the amount of heating load that is met by: Electricity in non-electrically heated dwellings (primarily natural gas) Non-electric sources in electrically-heated dwellings

Exhibit 2.10 summarizes the electricity fuel shares assumed for each of the end uses included in the present analysis. Adjustment of fuel shares for space heating was done in tandem with the adjustment of space heating loads described in Section 2.4 above. As in the preceding discussions, the values shown are for the Lower Mainland. The space heating fuel shares presented in Exhibit 2.10 have been selected on the basis that they provide a reasonable “fit” with:

General market description (i.e., known distribution of heating appliances by fuel) Data on heating loads as indicated by customer sales data used in the Terasen Gas 2006

CPR study Conditional demand analysis of customer billing data4 Results of a database query of the consultant home energy audit database

Note that the Reference Case assumes these numbers remain constant until 2026. Appendix H provides values for the remaining three service regions.

4 BC Hydro Power Smart, Conditional Demand Analysis of Residential Energy Consumption (CDA), May 29, 2006.



Exhibit 2.10: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Lower Mainland in F2006 (%)

Dwelling Type

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s & S

pas

Smal

l app

s & O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 70% 100% 100% 98% 85% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100%Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 70% 100% 100% 98% 85% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100%Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 3% 100% 100% 1% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100%Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 3% 100% 100% 1% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100%Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 70% 100% 100% 54% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 100%Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 70% 100% 100% 54% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 100%Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 9% 100% 100% 0% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 100%Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 11% 100% 100% 0% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 100%Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 97% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 100%Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 10% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 100%Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 16% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 0%Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 100%High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 99% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 0%High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 10% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 100%High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 42% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 0%High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 42% 0% 100%Mobile, Electric Heating 67% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 0%Mobile, Non-electric Heating 15% 100% 100% 34% 82% 100% 100% 100% 100% 94% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 42% 100% 0%

Note: A small number of apartment building common areas are reportedly heated entirely by electricity.



2.8 AVERAGE ELECTRICITY USE PER UNIT Exhibit 2.11 combines the building stock, efficiency, saturation and fuel share data presented in the preceding exhibits and shows the resulting electricity use by end use for each dwelling type in the Lower Mainland. Appendix I presents average electricity use data for the remaining three service regions.



Exhibit 2.11: Average Electricity Use per Dwelling Unit for the Lower Mainland in F2006 (KWh/yr)

Dwelling Type

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

w

ashe

r

Clo

thes

dr

yer

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

pe

riph

eral

s

Oth

er

elec

tron

ics

Pool

s and

ho

t tub

s

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs

Tot

al

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 9,174 87 294 3,267 657 1,252 499 74 77 937 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 20,970Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 8,674 70 306 3,267 657 1,252 499 74 77 937 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 20,466Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 931 83 600 46 634 1,252 499 74 77 889 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 9,738Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 931 83 800 46 634 1,252 499 74 77 889 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 9,938Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 4,033 33 189 1,507 581 956 323 56 54 664 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 11,730Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 3,576 27 189 1,507 581 956 323 56 54 664 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 11,266Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,915 40 400 0 496 956 323 56 54 630 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 8,204Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,962 40 400 0 496 956 323 56 54 630 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 8,251First Nations, Electric Heat 9,174 87 294 3,267 657 1,252 499 74 77 937 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 20,970First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 472 83 600 46 634 1,252 499 74 77 889 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 9,280Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 2,991 13 31 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 693 347 230 70 120 0 173 0 7,535Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 267 11 293 1,284 0 0 0 0 11 143 1,213 0 0 0 0 81 0 60 3,363Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 3,257 24 324 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 1,906 347 230 70 120 81 173 60 9,460

Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 508 13 31 294 392 581 86 32 23 280 693 347 230 70 120 0 173 0 3,871Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 0 11 219 109 0 0 0 0 11 140 1,193 0 0 0 0 45 0 60 1,788Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Total 508 24 250 294 392 581 86 32 23 280 1,886 347 230 70 120 45 173 60 5,400

High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 1,863 13 28 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 693 347 230 70 120 0 173 0 6,403High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 280 19 309 1,284 0 0 0 0 11 143 1,786 0 0 0 0 18 0 150 4,000High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 2,143 31 337 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 2,479 347 230 70 120 18 173 150 8,966

High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 790 13 28 294 392 581 86 32 23 280 693 347 230 70 120 0 173 0 4,150High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 0 16 261 109 0 0 0 0 11 140 1,875 0 0 0 0 19 0 150 2,581High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Total 791 28 289 294 392 581 86 32 23 280 2,568 347 230 70 120 19 173 150 6,472

Mobile, Electric Heating 4,728 147 196 2,538 585 936 533 54 50 685 1,010 272 312 182 163 0 837 0 13,229Mobile, Non-electric Heating 2,792 147 500 870 480 936 533 54 50 651 1,010 272 312 182 163 0 837 0 9,789



2.9 BASE YEAR PEAK LOADS Based on discussions with BC Hydro personnel, the following four peak period definitions were selected for inclusion in this study: Peak Period 1: Annual System Peak Hour – For BC Hydro, this has traditionally been

the hour ending at 6 pm on a day in December or January; highly correlated with the coldest day of the year.

Peak Period 2: System Critical Peak Days – The 4 to 9 pm period on the four highest

System Peak Days; totals 20 hours. Peak Period 3: Typical Winter Peak Day – This adds the morning peak 8 am to 1 pm to

the System Critical Peak Days definition; totals 40 hours per year. Peak Period 4: Winter Peak Energy – This uses the Typical Winter Peak Day hour

definition (8 am to 1 pm and 4 to 9 pm) for all winter weekdays when minimum daily temperature is below 0ºC. Typically, this consists of 45 days, or approximately the number of weekdays in December and January (not counting holidays), or 450 hours per year.

The core technology Residential sector report describes the methodology used to convert Residential electric energy to peak loads in each of the defined peak load periods. Exhibits 2.12 and 2.13 provide additional detail. Exhibit 2.12 provides a summary of the Residential sector aggregate peak demand for

each of the four peak periods and for each of the service regions as well as the total BC Hydro system.

Exhibit 2.13 shows the forecast increase in the Residential sector aggregate peak demand

for the total BC Hydro system over the 20-year study period, by peak period.



Exhibit 2.12: Residential Sector Base Year (F2006) Aggregate Peak Demand by Service Region and Peak Period (MW)

Period 1Peak Hour

Period 2Critical Peak Day

Period 3Winter Peak Day

Period 4Winter Peak Energy

Total BCH 4,813 4,360 3,638 3,055Lower Mainland 2,542 2,280 1,845 1,566Vancouver Island 1,352 1,250 1,092 891Southern Interior 489 440 373 322Northern Region 429 389 329 275

Service RegionPeak Period

Exhibit 2.13: Residential Sector Aggregate Peak Demand (MW) by Peak Period for the Total BC Hydro Service Area (F2006 to F2026)

As illustrated in Exhibits 2.12 and 2.13: The distribution of residential peak loads among the service regions directly follows the

pattern of electricity use. In the absence of new initiatives, the residential aggregate peak demand for the total BC

Hydro system is expected to increase from about 4,800 MW to about 6,800 MW by F2026.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2006 2026

Peak Period 1

Peak Period 2

Peak Period 3

Peak Period 4



3 MOVING TOWARDS MORE SUSTAINABLE B.C. COMMUNITIES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section introduces and discusses the rationale for the Vision 2026 scenario. The discussion is organized and presented as follows: Sustainability and smart growth Motivation for change Associated policy changes Changes in public opinion

3.2 WHAT IS SUSTAINABILITY? In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development coined the term sustainable development and defined it as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”5 This Commission was formed as a result of a growing recognition that human activity was exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth’s natural systems. The Commission also recognized that environmental, social and economic systems are interconnected and interdependent, giving rise to the concept of the three-legged stool, now typically referred to as “triple bottom line” thinking. If each of the three critical systems is represented as one leg of the stool, it is clear to see that the entire stool would become unbalanced if any leg were compromised. The concept of sustainable development, now popularly know as sustainability, has been steadily growing in popularity over the past 20 years and is now regularly cited as the key motivation for comprehensive and long-term strategic planning initiatives by both businesses and governments. In has been two decades since the term sustainable development was coined by the World Commission on Environment and Development. The concept of sustainability has been gaining momentum since then and there are several indications that the momentum will continue and possibly accelerate over the next 20 years. What follows is evidence of an increase in both the public’s and policy makers’ commitment towards acting in a more sustainable manner. 3.3 SMART GROWTH In terms of housing choices and sustainable community designs, the concept of smart growth has been at the centre of the discussions. According to Smart Growth BC, Smart Growth “is a collection of land use and development principles that aim to enhance our quality of life, preserve the natural environment, and save money over time.”6

5 Bruntland, G., Our Common Future, 1987. For more information about the Bruntland Commission, see http://www.are.admin.ch/are/en/nachhaltig/international_uno/unterseite02330/. Accessed June, 2007. 6 Smart Growth BC. “Smart Growth Principles”. http://66.51.172.116/AboutUs/SGPrinciples/tabid/133/Default.aspx. Accessed June, 2007.



The organization, which promotes Smart Growth and helps communities understand and implement the concept, has a set of principles that guide its efforts. The principles are: Mix land uses. Each neighbourhood has a mixture of homes, retail, business and

recreational opportunities. Build well-designed compact neighbourhoods. Residents can choose to live, work, shop

and play in close proximity. People can easily access daily activities, transit is viable, and local businesses are supported.

Provide a variety of transportation choices. Neighbourhoods are attractive and have safe infrastructure for walking, cycling and transit, in addition to driving.

Create diverse housing opportunities. People in different family types, life stages and income levels can afford a home in the neighbourhood of their choice.

Encourage growth in existing communities. Investments in infrastructure (such as roads and schools) are used efficiently, and developments do not take up new land.

Preserve open spaces, natural beauty and environmentally sensitive areas. Development respects natural landscape features and has higher aesthetic, environmental and financial value.

Protect and enhance agricultural lands. A secure and productive land base, such as B.C.’s Agricultural Land Reserve, provides food security, employment, and habitat, and is maintained as an urban containment boundary.

Use smarter and cheaper infrastructure and green buildings. Green buildings and other systems can save both money and the environment in the long run.

Foster a unique neighbourhood identity. Each community is unique, vibrant, diverse and inclusive.

Nurture engaged citizens. Places belong to those who live, work and play there. Engaged citizens participate in community life and decision-making.7

While the Smart Growth principles emerged from transportation and community planners, the link to electrical utilities has been consistently part of the Smart Growth discussion. Scott Bernstein points out that the infrastructure costs to service new suburban areas is far greater ($50,000 to $60,000 per unit) than the cost of servicing the kind of development Smart Growth advocates are encouraging planners to use: infill developments in existing areas such as brownfield sites (abandoned industrial or commercial areas) where costs are $5,000 to $10,000 per unit.8 In this context, current average cost pricing, where customers pay the same price per unit of power regardless of the true cost of their service, subsidizes sprawl development. 3.4 MOTIVATION FOR CHANGE Motivations for embracing sustainability as a lifestyle guide abound. Several are presented with specific B.C. linkages and examples.

7 Smart Growth B.C, ibid. 8 Scott Bernstein, “Moving from Split Incentives to Joint Stakes in Energy Technology and Climate Research Initiatives.” House Science Committee Hearing on New Directions for Climate Research and Technology Initiatives, April 17, 2002.



3.4.1 Climate change

Several factors may affect B.C. residents’ commitment to change their lifestyles in order to become more environmentally responsible in the future. Climate change may be one of the more influential factors. Since the Kyoto Protocol was drafted in 1997 and ratified in 2005, there has been a dramatic increase in public and decision-maker dialogue on the issue of global warming and climate change. In early February 2007, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released the first of a new series of reports on climate change, remarking that physical evidence is now unequivocal that the global climate system has warmed, and that, with very high confidence, the net effect of human activity on the global climate since 1750 has been the primary cause of this warming.9 Exhibit 3.1 shows evidence of this by way of exponential increases of greenhouse gas concentrations in the last 100 or so years.

Exhibit 3.1: Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases from 0 to 2005

9 Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.), Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Source: IPCC, 2007



Eleven of the last 12 years have been among the twelve warmest on record (since 1850), and glaciers and ice caps are melting, contributing to sea level rise. While nobody knows what will happen or when, the potential affects on Canada include not only a general warming and sea level rise, but also increasing frequency of severity of weather events such as heat waves, droughts and storms. Whatever the economic effects, be they positive or negative, ecological disruption on both land and in water may be substantial and rapid. Weather pattern changes could have important effects on energy consumption. Heating consumption may decrease, but cooling consumption would increase. Given the intimate link between weather and day-to-day human activity, the social and psychological impacts may be even more profound. Canada has been very successful in reducing the emissions of acidifying substances identified as an ecological menace in the 1980s. Controlling GHG emissions may be a far more complex challenge.

3.4.2 Evidence that climate change is impacting B.C. communities

Evidence is mounting that the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is linked to an increase in the frequency and severity of severe storm events and weather-related disasters.10 There have been a number of dramatic examples in B.C. over the past several years to suggest that the province is not immune to these phenomena. For example:

1. The Okanagan Valley has experienced longer and dryer summers over the past

decade and was subjected to a series of fires in August of 2003 that burned 247 homes in the rapidly growing City of Kelowna.11,12

2. Vancouver’s Stanley Park was hit with three major windstorms during the winter of 2006/2007 causing significant destruction including blowing down more than 10,000 trees and causing significant damage to the seawall.13 If storms like these become more common and severe, the public motivation to act on policies and lifestyle changes to reduce greenhouse gases could get a significant boost.

3. The next month brought unusually high volumes of precipitation and mudslides impacted many communities on Vancouver’s North Shore.

4. Vast areas of B.C.’s forests have been killed by a mountain pine beetle infestation including an estimated 10 to 12 million trees adjacent to high voltage transmission lines.14 The dramatic increase in the range of the pine tree destruction of the beetle in B.C.’s interior is thought to be directly linked to climate change.15

10 Ibid. 11 Johnston, Mark, Impacts and Adaptation for Climate Change in Urban Forests, Saskatchewan Research Council, presented at the 6th Canadian Urban Forest Conference, 2004, Kelowna, B.C. 12 NASA, Earth Observatory, news report, http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16284. 13 Vancouver Parks Board, Stanley Park Restoration Recommended Plan, 2007. 14 Connors, Jeff and Brian Fisher (BC Hydro), “Dead Trees Threaten BC Hydro Power Lines,” Transmission and Distribution World, 2007. 15 Carroll, Allan L., Steve W. Taylor and Jacques Régnière, Effects of Climate Change on Range Expansion by the Mountain Pine Beetle in British Columbia, Canadian Forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, B.C.; and Les Safranyik, Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre, Sainte Foy, Que.



Exhibit 3.2 Kelowna Fires, August 2003

Exhibit 3.3: Stanley Park Storm Damage, December 2006

Source: Judy Bishop

Source: Flickr.com - used with permission of photographer



Exhibit 3.4 Mountain Pine Beetle Devastates an Entire Landscape in BC

Exhibit 3.5: Mountain Pine Beetle Devastation Adjacent to BC Highway and River

Source: Parks Canada

Source: Dezene P. W. Huber



The debate is ongoing about whether severe weather events are increasing and, if so, whether the increase is linked to greenhouse gases. Given the complex nature of the global climate, the debate may never be concluded. Given the credibility of organizations like the IPCC, it appears that, while the debate is likely to continue, links between weather pattern changes and greenhouse gases are likely to gain credibility and more widespread awareness and acceptance. As awareness increases, motivations for residents to change their lifestyles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are likely to increase accordingly.

3.4.3 Energy Supply Challenges

BC Hydro’s Electricity Supply Approximately 90% of BC Hydro’s electricity generation is hydroelectric. Most of the remaining 10% is generated from gas-fired plants that operate when necessary to serve peak loads and any shortfall. New generation from independent power producers is calling for small hydro, biomass, wind and potentially some coal-fired plants. However, for the past five years, BC Hydro has been a net importer of electricity and most of the imported electricity is from fossil fuel sources such as coal. Increases in electricity demand in B.C. may, therefore mean increases in greenhouse gas emissions due to an increasing share of electricity produced by coal. B.C.’s Energy Plan16 set ambitious emission regulation and self-sufficiency goals. By doing so, the Plan put an increased emphasis on electricity conservation. As a response, BC Hydro is moving towards electricity self-sufficiency and conservation is a critical part of that solution. Increases in awareness of this critical challenge, particularly among those in “The Congregation” (see Section 3.5) who are among the most willing to change their actions given supporting information, may further increase the effectiveness of electricity conservation programs. Peak Oil and Prices Oil reserves vary greatly in terms of the amount of effort required to produce them for consumption. To date, most of the oil produced (i.e. removed from fossil fuel deposits) has been conventional light sweet crude oil, which requires little energy to extract and refine compared to the energy content contained in the processed fuel. Over last decade, rising oil prices have made production of oil from bitumen-laden oil sands economic. This process requires costly and energy-intensive production procedures, including the mining and transport of bitumen-laden sands, physical separation of the sand and bitumen, and extensive processing of the bitumen to produce a usable synthetic oil. Many observers suggest that the reason for the steady increase in the price of oil over the last decade is an inability to further ramp up production from conventional oil resources. Production at many established oil fields is now in decline as oil resources are depleted,

16 B.C. Ministry of Energy, 2007.



and this is increasingly offsetting gains in oil production from the (smaller) new conventional oil fields. According to Jeroen van der Veer, CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, “[m]y view is that ‘easy’ oil has probably passed its peak.” and “[o]ther new hydrocarbon energy frontiers include heavy oils and where oil is contained in sand and shales... But they are more carbon-intensive and increase the urgency of finding ways of tackling carbon emissions....”17 “Peak oil” analysts suggest that production of “unconventional oil,” such as that from the oil sands, will be insufficient to the meet the growing demand gap, and believe that total global production of oil may already be near its peak. These analysts contend that total oil production will slowly but steadily decline after this time, resulting in a pronounced and irreversible rise in the price of oil (and other energy supplies). So long as oil prices remain high, concerns about “peak oil” are likely to further raise awareness of the need for conservation and increased energy production from non-fossil fuel technologies.18

3.4.4 Other Indicators Supporting Sustainability

There is other evidence to support a move to more sustainable communities. The results from the MetroQuest Current Trend Scenario in Appendix G include indicators that highlight the negative realities of continuing with the status quo.

• Land lost over the next 20 years is projected to be 334 square kilometres provincially, 209 square kilometres of which are agricultural areas, further compromising food security.

• Person-distance travelled is projected to continue to increase faster than population growth due to continued low-density development resulting in people living farther and farther away from typical destinations in areas that are not able to support frequent transit service.

• Greenhouse gas emissions are projected to continue to rise, due in large part by increases in transportation activity. The Current Trend scenario in MetroQuest projects a 47% increase in the greenhouse gas emissions from single occupant vehicle travel, by far the largest component of all travel in the province.

3.5 SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS While there is growing evidence that a move towards sustainability is necessary, it will require a combination of collective and individual actions to move people from rhetoric to actual change. This section examines the collective component, which is largely a discussion about the range of choices that people have. These choices are shaped in a significant way by government policy, which can influence the types of houses people buy (e.g., through incentives for R2000 homes19), the cars they drive (incentives to purchase hybrids were included in the 2007 federal 17 “Jeroen Van der Veer outlines his vision for ‘Green Fossil Fuels’ ”, Financial Times, London, January 25, 2006. 18 Campbell, Colin J. and Jean H. Laherrère, “The End of Cheap Oil,” Scientific American, March 1998. 19 There are numerous fiscal incentives to build an R2000 home. A list can be found at NRCan’s Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE) website. The rebate varies by province and includes rebates, reduced permit costs and so forth. See



budget20) or the type of transportation choices they have available. The following section documents a number of policy initiatives at various levels of government as evidence that the policy side of the equation is becoming more aligned with sustainability.

3.5.1 Integrated Community Sustainability Planning Initiative

Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (ICSP) is a process for envisioning and planning for the long-term well-being of communities. According to Infrastructure Canada, it “promotes responsible development – not anti-development. It requires a democratic process of planning to achieve the greatest common good for all segments of the population, protect the health of the environment, and assure future generations of the resources they will need to survive and progress.”21

The B.C. Ministry of Community Services has taken the lead to encourage B.C. communities to create Integrated Community Sustainability Plans as a critical part of the federal government’s 2005 Gas Tax Agreement (GTA).22 Local B.C. governments have committed to undertake ICSP with the goals to “address climate change and encourage the development of healthier, less costly and more sustainable communities.”23 The process requires communities to engage in an innovative planning process that incorporates principles of sustainability. This initiative ties municipal funding from the GTA to sustainability principles in planning and decision-making. In the past, sustainability planning of this kind was limited to the “early adopters” like Greater Vancouver and Whistler. This initiative has the capacity to make municipal sustainability planning the new “business as usual” in B.C. The Ministry of Community Services cites Smart Growth as a recommended approach to community sustainability planning.

3.5.2 Regional Growth Strategies Under the Local Government Act, regional districts are required to create and regularly update a long-range strategic plan called a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). These growth strategies provide long-range direction for planning both at the regional and the municipal levels through the Official Community Planning (OCP) process within municipalities.

http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/incentives.cfm. Accessed June, 2007. 20 See http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2007/03/20/hydrid-budget.html for a CBC story. Accessed June, 2007. 21 Infrastructure Canada, Integrated Community Sustainability Planning, A Background Paper, 2005, http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/communities-collectivites/conf/documents/icsp-discussion_e.shtml. 22 Gas Tax Agreement. http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/communities-collectivites/agreements-ententes/gas-essence_tax/gt_can_bc_e.shtml. 23 BC Ministry of Community Services, “The Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (ICSP) Initiative,” (Victoria, BC. pg 1. 2007.)



While the RGS process is not formally a sustainability planning process or directly linked with approaches like Smart Growth, the list of strategies and goals of an RGS according to the Ministry of Community Services overlap heavily with Smart Growth principles. The process, which requires significant levels of community involvement, calls on regions and the municipalities within them to, among other strategies:

1. Promote compact development 2. Promote development that encourages transit use and walking and biking modes

of travel 3. Protect agricultural and natural areas 4. Promote energy conservation.

A RGS promotes human settlement that is social, economic and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities, land and other resources. It gives long-range planning direction for regional district and municipal official community plans (OCPs) and provides a basis for decisions regarding implementation of provincial programs in the area. There are currently eight regional districts within the three higher growth areas of the province with completed regional growth strategies.24

According to the Province of British Columbia, “[t]he Local Government Act outlines the following minimum content requirements for any strategy (although the rest of an RGS is largely left up to the local governments):

A 20-year minimum time frame Regional vision statements Population and employment projections Regional actions for key areas such as housing, transportation, regional district

services, parks and natural areas and economic development

There are 14 matters that the RGS should consider such as:

• avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner

• settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit

• the efficient movement of goods and people while making effective use of transportation and utility corridors

• protecting environmentally sensitive areas • maintaining the integrity of a secure and productive resource base, including the

agricultural and forest land reserves • economic development that supports the unique character of communities • reducing and preventing air, land and water pollution • adequate, affordable and appropriate housing • adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement

24 BC Ministry of Community Services, “Regional Growth Strategies: An Explanatory Guide.”, (2005). http://www.cserv.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/RGS_Explanatory_Guide_2005.pdf.



• protecting the quality and quantity of ground water and surface water • settlement patterns that minimize the risks associated with natural hazards • preserving, creating and linking urban and rural open space including parks and

recreation areas • planning for energy supply and promoting efficient use, conservation and alternative

forms of energy • good stewardship of land, sites and structures with cultural heritage value.”25

Regional growth strategies contribute to the movement towards more sustainable community design and development and the public involvement requirement can increase community awareness and support for these policies.

3.5.3 Summary of B.C. Sustainability Planning Case Studies

While sustainability planning at the municipal scale is in its infancy in B.C., the province has shown considerable leadership in sustainability planning at the regional scale. The following is a brief overview of some relevant case studies. GVRD Livable Region Strategic Plan

The Greater Vancouver Regional District’s Livable Region Strategic Plan was one of the earliest examples of a sustainability planning initiative in B.C. According to the GVRD, “[t]he Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) is Greater Vancouver’s regional growth strategy… [t]he LRSP is used by all levels of government as the framework for making regional land use and transportation decisions.”26

The LRSP received formal support from all 21 GVRD municipalities in 1996. The innovative plan outlines four main strategies.

1. Protect the Green Zone, including the region’s agricultural land and the most ecologically important natural areas.

2. Build complete communities (i.e., develop a number of town centres throughout the region, each with a balance and diversity of jobs, services and housing types) with the goal to minimize traffic and provide a diverse mix of housing choices close to services and jobs.

3. Achieve a compact metropolitan region by promoting more compact forms of housing and employment areas and maintaining growth boundaries to limit urban sprawl.

4. Increase alternative transportation use by managing the supply and demand for transportation and use land use strategies to promote more access to transportation alternatives.

25 Ibid. 26 GVRD, Liveable Region Strategic Plan, Vancouver, B.C., 1996, p 3. http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/lrsp/LRSP.pdf.



South Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy

Another more recent example of a RGS in the Southern Interior illustrates the common elements among these types of strategies across the province. While the local interpretation of the policies differs based on the community size and character, the policies that the regions decide on when thinking strategically about their future remain remarkably consistent. Completed earlier in 2007, and at the time of this writing still awaiting final approval, the RGS for the South Okanagan documents that the municipalities and electoral areas agree to: Promote a compact urban form Support infill of the existing services areas as a priority Create walkable, livable mixed-use neighbourhoods and communities

Smart growth policies seem to be resonating with small communities like Oliver, Osoyoos and Penticton as well as larger metropolitan areas like those that make up the GVRD. According to Regional District Okanagan-Similkameen (RDOS), “[t]he Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) is a long-term planning project that deals with growth management issues over a 20-year period for the South Okanagan area… [t]he South Okanagan RGS takes a “big picture” approach to planning which identifies and prioritizes common goals across the region that meet common social, economic, and environmental objectives.”27 This growth strategy includes a number of policy statements, including policy H2 that promotes compact urban form. It states: “[t]he south Okanagan municipalities and electoral areas agree to:

1. Recognize priority growth areas where 85% of the region’s growth should occur

and secondary growth areas where the greater part of the remainder will locate, in accordance with the South Okanagan Potential Growth Areas.

2. Support infill of existing serviced development areas as a first priority. 3. Create walkable, livable mixed-use neighbourhoods and communities. 4. Encourage accessible commercial, institutional and appropriately located light

and heavy industrial development within urban areas. 5. Integrate transportation infrastructure within and between communities.”28

27 Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, South Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy, 2007, http://www.rdos.bc.ca/index.php?id=108. Accessed June, 2007. 28 Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen, 2007, http://www.rdosmaps.bc.ca/min_bylaws/contract_reports/CorpBd/2007/May/RGSDRAFTBYLAW240507.pdf. Accessed June,



Dockside Green Community Development

While planners and the public seem to be moving towards Smart Growth, it is inevitably the developers who will transform B.C. communities. There are many examples of successful compact developments in Greater Vancouver with downtown, Metrotown and Surrey Centre serving as examples of very compact development and many other transit areas serving as examples of a more moderate level of compact housing. Recently there are examples emerging outside of Greater Vancouver in small and medium-sized cities. One noteworthy example is the Dockside Green community development in Victoria. Situated in the heart of the City of Victoria, Dockside Green is being developed on 15 acres of former industrial land adjacent to the Upper Harbour and downtown, between the Johnson and Bay Street bridges. With a planned total of 1.3 million square feet of mixed residential, office, retail and industrial space, Dockside Green represents the biggest development of city land in Victoria’s history. The development combines a mixture of attractive and compact housing types with office, retail and industrial space, green spaces, and a variety of transportation options within close proximity to downtown Victoria. (See Exhibits 3.6 and 3.7.) The developer is committed to the triple bottom line (TBL) approach to development and seeks to “balance profits with environmental and social dividends.”29 While the motivations of such a developer might be debated, it is clear from its positioning that these sorts of developments are responding to the market for a more sustainable lifestyle.

29 Dockside Green, 2007. http://docksidegreen.com/sustainability/overview/overview.html. Accessed June 2007.



Exhibit 3.6: Dockside Green Smart Growth Community Development, Victoria

Exhibit 3.7: Dockside Promotes New Urban Lifestyle, Access to Green Space, Transportation Alternatives

Source: Dockside Green, 2007

Source: Dockside Green, 2007



3.6 SHIFTING PUBLIC VALUES AND PRIORITIES The rise in currency of sustainability and public awareness about climate change is increasingly evident. Climate change was a key topic at a recent G8 summit in Europe; Al Gore is becoming increasingly popular as a central figure in the discourse due to his efforts to raise awareness about climate change, including spearheading the Academy Award-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. A 2006 study by James Hoggan and Associates and the associated poll and final report by McAllister Opinion Research confirms that values and priorities of Canadians have been shifting over the past decade.30

3.6.1 Sustainability as a Priority

The McAllister report illustrates three key points that can help inform the creation of the 2026 Vision and support this study’s assumptions on the willingness of the public to accept changes to their lifestyles and act in a more sustainable manner. First, the study divides Canadians into four categories according to their level of knowledge and receptivity towards sustainability, as summarized in Exhibit 3.8. While 15% of Canadians are knowledgeable and receptive to sustainability – a group the pollsters refer to as “The Choir” – two-thirds of Canadians were found to be receptive to sustainability but were not as knowledgeable as those in the Choir. It is amongst this two-thirds majority, which the pollsters call “The Congregation,” where the greatest opportunity lies for lifestyle changes. The authors describe the Congregation as “disproportionately female and between the ages of 40 and 65, with a college or vocational education, but not a university graduate. Most work full or part-time and are significantly overrepresented among women in the Atlantic region and in smaller cities outside of major suburban centres in Ontario and British Columbia. The Congregation follow political and social issues in the news and are highly likely to vote in the next federal election. Nearly eight in ten say that Canadians consume more than their fair share of resources, and that if everyone in the world lived the consumer lifestyle Canadians enjoy, it would destroy the planet. They are also the most likely of all segments to point to a lack of government leadership and poorly designed cities, workplaces and products as the main reason Canadians and they themselves do not act more sustainably.”31

30 McAllister Opinion Research, The Sustainability Poll Canada 2006 Final Report – Quantitative analysis of interviews with 560 Canadian thought leaders and 2,500 members of the public, August 2006. 31Ibid, p. 74.



Exhibit 3.8: A Segmentation of Canadians According to their Familiarity with and Priority for Sustainability

The study suggests that this group is most likely to shift lifestyles towards sustainability as a result of direct marketing efforts. The poll noted that while they are likely not currently behaving in a sustainable manner, they are much more likely to shift their behaviours when presented with information justifying the change. Second, the poll indicates that a majority of the public rate sustainability as a top or a high priority and that British Columbians are among the most likely to rate sustainability as a priority. Third, in terms of the acceptability of specific policy changes, the poll indicates that both the public (43%) and thought leaders (49%) are strongly in support of measures to promote denser, more walkable cities. As shown in Exhibit 3.9, the survey results illustrate how important sustainability is for a cross-section of Canadians. The findings indicate that a majority of the public rate sustainability as a top (24%) or high (58%) priority.

Source: McAllister Opinion Research, 2006



Exhibit 3.9: Poll Results - Priority of Sustainability as a National Goal

3.6.2 The Congregation

The following is a condensed description of the Congregation segment description presented in the McAllister report. 32 It is presented for its value in helping to inform the design of programs aimed at encouraging lifestyle changes towards increased sustainability. The Congregation is the key audience segment to target. Comprised largely of baby boomer women with college but not university education, living outside of the big metropolitan areas, these Canadians are enthusiastic and concerned about the issues sustainability seeks to address. They are however, unfamiliar with the jargon and do not respond to the same benefits that excite a policy expert. According to the McAllister report, they do not want to start the conversation with a discussion of land use policy and urban sprawl. They want to start with global warming (not climate change), children’s asthma and traffic congestion. As this group is prone to seeing unalterable human nature as the source of many problems, the conversation should not dwell on the negative, which they find demoralizing. While accurate information on negative consequences of human activity is important, the conversation needs to then move to practical solutions that give hope and optimism. This audience does not spontaneously link sustainability to economic and social benefits. The connection needs to be highlighted, but it might be a stretch as a point of entry.

32 Ibid, p. 77.

Source: McAllister Opinion Research, 2006



The Congregation responds well to essential emotional benefits related to the metaphors of life and renewal inherent in nature: water, food, generative ecosystems, children and life. The fragility of home and the need to take care of it are resonant with this segment. The Congregation would respond well to messages or stories from other Canadians that demonstrate they are not alone or marginal.

3.7 CONCLUSION The movement towards sustainability and Smart Growth has been significant over the past 20 years and there are many indications to support the continuation of the movement in terms of policy direction, private sector support and public attitudes. Since future lifestyles involve decisions by B.C. residents, governments and private sector firms, the future is uncertain and “doom and gloom” possibilities can also be offered as alternatives. For the purposes of developing a vision based on a movement towards sustainability and sustainable communities, this study assumes that the trend of increasing support continues for the next 20 years based on the momentum described above.



4. SCENARIO COMPARISONS: 2026 VISIONS VS. REFERENCE CASE

4.1 CHAPTER ORGANIZATION This chapter presents the methodology and results of the scenarios created for Analysis Area 4 relative to the Reference Case. The discussion is organized and presented as follows: Methodology for this analysis Description of the vision for Lifestyle Analysis Component 1: Neighbourhood and

Housing Choices Description of the vision for Lifestyle Analysis Component 2: Energy Choices in the

Home Analysis of scenario results for each component

4.2 METHODOLOGY Evaluating the lifestyle potential of electricity savings in future scenarios consists of exploring two lifestyle components: changes to Neighbourhood Design and Housing and changes to Energy Choices in the Home. To evaluate the potential for electricity savings through lifestyle changes in these component areas, the study team combined information from a wide variety of sources, including: A survey of existing data and documentation Comparisons of what has been achieved in B.C. and other regions Outputs from a 2026 Visioning Workshop held on February 22, 2007 (see summary

below and Appendix C for the detailed results) Results of a Panel Survey of 1,000 B.C. residents on specific questions about lifestyle

and behavioural changes for electricity conservation Analysis of the sustainability and growth management plans of communities throughout

B.C. The result of this analysis is a vision for what kinds of lifestyle changes may bring about a future that is both desirable and more sustainable. The group of lifestyle changes together is referred to as a Vision. The Vision combines changes to: Neighbourhood Design and Housing, including where people live (housing types,

neighbourhood patterns and designs), where they work (job location and building types) and how they get around (transportation options and alternatives). Due to the policy influence on these areas (e.g., urban planning and design, transit spending), the approach used here is to focus first on policies that could increase community sustainability and to then evaluate the electricity implications of those policies. From a lifestyle perspective, the analysis then focused on the extent to which sustainability policies could be feasibly implemented in each of the BC Hydro service regions. This created a Vision for B.C. communities which was then evaluated for its potential to impact electricity conservation.

Energy Choices in the Home, including the types of appliances, electronics and leisure products people have and how they use them, and how they manage the heating and



cooling of their homes. As these are decisions that individuals and families make in their homes without a direct connection to policy, the approach used here focuses on estimating the extent to which people might be willing to adjust their ownership and/or use of these products. A vision was created for each major residential end-use category and these were then modeled to determine the potential impacts on electricity use.

In order to allow for the investigation of these two important lifestyle components independently and in combination, this study presents and evaluates three alternative scenarios and contrasts each of these with the Reference Case described in Chapter 2. The three scenarios are: Scenario 1: The Housing Scenario. This alternative presents a Vision for the next 20

years in which B.C. makes changes towards Smart Growth and sustainable community design. In terms of electricity use, the scenario focuses on wide-scale changes to the types of housing that are developed to meet the demand of a growing and changing population. The impacts of the changes in the housing stock are analyzed in detail below. The Smart Growth policies were also applied more broadly using the MetroQuest sustainability model. The results of this modeling exercise are reported in Appendix D.

Scenario 2: The Lifestyle Scenario. This alternative focuses on changes that B.C.

residents could make to their lifestyles in the home. The scenario includes changes to a wide variety of key end uses in the Residential sector and focuses on end uses that were evaluated to have the greatest potential for changes in lifestyle that could reduce electricity use most significantly. This alternative assumes no changes in the housing stock relative to the Reference Case to allow for the independent evaluation of the impacts of these lifestyle changes.

Scenario 3: The Housing and Lifestyle Scenario. This alternative combines the

changes proposed to the housing stock associated with the Housing Scenario with the changes in end-use activity in homes associated with the Lifestyle Scenario. This scenario is presented to summarize the total savings that could be achieved if these lifestyle changes were to happen.

By their nature, the creation of these scenarios is subjective. Much depends on one’s level of optimism for people’s willingness to change in the future and a wide range of influencing factors around which there is uncertainty. These scenarios are not presented as predictions of what will happen. Rather, they are presented as possibilities of what could happen in order to help develop a dialogue on the range of possibilities that exist and how they could affect the future of electricity in the BC Hydro Service Area. 4.3 2026 VISIONING WORKSHOP SUMMARY A workshop on sustainability visions, entitled “2026 Vision for More Sustainable Communities: Opportunities for Lifestyle Changes in Electricity Conservation” (the 2026 Visioning Workshop) was held in conjunction with Lifestyle Analysis Area of the CPR 2007.33 Participants came from

33 This was CPR 2007 Workshop 2, held February 22, 2007, at the SFU Segal Centre in Vancouver.



all regions of the BC Hydro Service Area and included members of the External Review Panel, BC Hydro employees, members of the consultant team and the mayors of two Northern communities. Appendix A, B and C provide the workshop agenda, minutes, and summary of participant responses to a series of breakout group questions. Participant responses were used as guidance throughout the subsequent development of the lifestyle analyses, and several question areas covered in the breakout sessions were used to help develop assumptions for end-use saturation and consumption reduction in the Lifestyle modeling work. Among the most important overall themes of discussion were: Many, but not all, participants were critical of current lifestyles and thought that lifestyle

change was needed to move towards sustainability. Sustainability needs to be connected to social well-being. Providing more attractive community and public spaces could help sustainability and

well-being. Individual choices can be important to sustainability but they must be supplemented by

infrastructural and large-scale changes (transit systems, food acquisition, socially negotiated definitions of quality of life, materialism, pricing systems) and balanced by political and commercial actions toward sustainability.

Any movement towards compact neighbourhood development must include consultation on the design as many noted that the attractiveness of compact areas depends on many design considerations.

Canadians are faced with many pressures to consume, creating a matrix that is very difficult to escape.

Though no regulations were suggested at the workshop, a number of participants volunteered that the government should not interfere with consumers’ rights to purchase.

4.4 COMPONENT 1: NEIGHBOURHOOD DESIGN AND HOUSING

4.4.1 Factors Affecting Future Housing Demand

There are a number of important forces that will affect the future of the province. In addition to the shifts in attitudes and policies towards sustainability, conservation and Smart Growth discussed in Chapter 3, the demographic shift facing the province is arguably the most significant factor to be taken into consideration when creating a vision for sustainable communities in the province. While this study builds on a vision for more sustainable communities, the primary focus for the analysis of electricity impacts is limited to the Residential sector. Urban Futures has documented the aging population trend facing B.C. over the next 30 years and has related it to the changing need for housing to accommodate the province’s growing seniors population. 34 The report projects significant increases in the demand for more compact forms of housing due to three factors:

34 Berlin, Ryan, Andrew Ramlo and David Baxter. Seniors’ Housing Demand in British Columbia over the Next Thirty Years, Urban Futures Report Number 65, Urban Futures, 2006.



1. A rapidly growing seniors population due to increased projected lifespan and the aging of baby boomers over the next 30 years

2. A high percentage of seniors that seek more compact forms of housing 3. A growing percentage of seniors opting not to live in institutional settings.35

Exhibit 4.1 presents the expected dramatic growth in B.C.’s senior population relative to the total population. Exhibit 4.2 presents the projected population by age group in 2035 compared to the provincial demographic breakdown in 2005. Both diagrams clearly illustrate the trend towards an aging population. Urban Futures reports that while the provincial population is projected to grow by 37% over the next 30 years, the numbers of residents over the age of 65 will increase by 142% over the same time period. Due to projected increases in the average lifespan, the number of people over the age of 85 is projected to triple (a 200% increase).

Exhibit 4.1: B.C. Population Growth Projected to 2035 Showing Aging Trend (% change

from 2005)

35 Berlin et al.., 2006, p. 25.



Exhibit 4.2: Population by Age Group Projected to 2035

Exhibit 4.3 presents the current breakdown of housing types (between ground-oriented and apartments) by age group. The pattern shows a clear propensity for B.C. residents to shift towards more apartment housing as they age. Exhibit 4.4 projects the demand for housing for seniors between 2005 and 2035. Based on the trends that the report analyzed, it projects an increase of 194% in owner-occupied apartments, the fastest growing housing segment to accommodate the growing seniors’ population.

Source: Urban Futures, 2006



Exhibit 4.3: Housing Types by Age Group in 2001




Exhibit 4.4: Projected Housing Demand by Seniors to 2035

Constant current rates assume that choices in accommodations remain constant at 2005 levels. Trended rates are adjusted according to an analysis of historical trends and assume a continuation of those trends in the future.

To further evaluate the future demand for more compact housing, it is useful to understand more about how much extra room B.C. residents may have in their homes. Urban Futures also surveyed residents in detached homes in the Lower Mainland and found that there were 40% more bedrooms than people.36 This suggests that there may be significant extra unused space in homes, especially as this number does not take into consideration couples that share a bedroom. This finding was further supported by the CPR 2007 Panel Survey, which found that, of the 1,000 B.C. residents surveyed, 72% reported having extra bedrooms including 81% of respondents between age 55 and 64 and 85% of respondents over 65.37 Furthermore, the survey reports 36% of respondents having two or more spare bedrooms. Most respondents reported using the extra rooms as guest rooms or home office space. This finding was supported at the 2026 Visioning Workshop, where 70% of participants reported having extra bedrooms.

36 David Baxter, Personal communication from a report that is in development, 2007. 37 BC Hydro, CPR 2007 Panel Survey, 2007.




While having extra rooms provides many with the luxury of having dedicated home office space or room for guests, 38% of respondents responded favorably when asked if they could adjust to a smaller home. Indeed, 19% reported being able to adjust to a home that is 30% smaller or more. These findings suggest that, in addition to the natural trend towards more compact homes due to B.C.’s aging population, there may be willingness among other age groups to downsize as well. Discussion at the 2026 Visioning Workshop suggested that while there may be willingness to downsize, there are several urban design challenges associated with making more compact housing desirable. See Appendix B for a more complete report of the discussion.

4.4.2 Smart Growth

The vision for neighbourhood design and housing focuses on the creation of a future scenario for B.C. communities that is both more sustainable and simultaneously meets many community needs and priorities as effectively as possible. Envision Sustainability Tools and its partners have conducted over 150 sustainability visioning workshops with citizens, stakeholder groups and municipal and regional government decision-makers throughout the province over the past 10 years. These workshops have served to identify both community priorities as well as the extent to which governments and stakeholder groups are prepared to act on those priorities within their planning initiatives. The results of these efforts have been a collection of long-range visions developed collaboratively by the community and modeled in the MetroQuest scenario software. The perspective used in these workshops, stemming from the definition offered by the Bruntland Commission, is that sustainability is about meeting a community’s financial, economic and social needs as well as minimizing the environmental impacts of human activity. This study builds on the experience gained at these workshops as well as input collected in the 2026 Visioning Workshop. The discussion at these workshops was both rich and diverse and many critical issues were raised. The following priorities were heard repeatedly throughout the province.

Provide a wide range of housing options to meet the needs of lower income families

and changing provincial demographics. Meet the needs of an aging population, including allowing seniors to age in place as

much as possible and have access to the services they require. Protect the fiscal health of local governments to allow for an improvement in the

levels of services that can be offered while minimizing taxes. Protect agricultural and natural land for both future food security protection and for

the protection of the ecological services that natural areas provide. Provide for more access to green space in our communities. Reduce air pollution to minimize the health impacts of emissions.



Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the global climate and meet international commitments.

Minimize the ecological footprint of human activity. Reduce traffic congestion. Provide increased options for alternative forms of travel. Reduce time spent commuting to increase productivity and free time.

4.4.3 A Vision for Neighbourhood Design and Housing Choices

Following a review of sustainability planning case studies, Smart Growth principles, and the results of planning workshops held throughout the province and the 2026 Visioning Workshop, a common set of policies required to move towards more sustainable communities in B.C. was developed. The result of this research is summarized below as a policy-oriented vision to guide the development of Neighbourhood Design and Housing Choices in the BC Hydro Service Region over then next 20 years:

Over the next 20 years in the 2026 Vision, B.C. communities are assumed to continue to engage the community, stakeholder groups and decision-makers in collaborative visioning and planning efforts. These efforts are assumed to continue to:

• Educate decision-makers on the values and priorities of the community • Develop consensus on plans, policies and designs that meet the needs

of both current and future generations

In terms of neighbourhood design and housing, the following policy direction is assumed to be adopted and gain widespread acceptance over the two-decade study period.

Compact Community Design. Opportunities for increasing the density of both

residential and commercial areas are assumed to be pursued in a manner that is appropriate for the size and character of the community.

Transit-Oriented Development. Wherever possible, opportunities to locate new dwellings and commercial areas close to existing and future transit corridors are assumed to be implemented.

Development of Complete Communities. Communities are assumed to seek to balance population growth with job growth to allow people to both live and work in the community.

Mixed Use Development. Communities are assumed to seek to provide for both live and work opportunities along primary corridors.

Enhancement of Urban Space. Communities are assumed to provide opportunities for residents to access quality green space within walking distance from their homes.

The results of these policy assumptions differ from community to community since the local manifestation of these policies is assumed to evolve out of a collaborative process within the community. For the purposes of this study, the communities in the province were divided into the following three categories:



Metropolitan areas (e.g., Greater Vancouver and Greater Victoria) Medium-sized communities (e.g., Kelowna, Nanaimo) Small cities, towns and rural areas (e.g., Penticton, Fort St. John).

These communities differ in two important dimensions that are relevant to this study:

The level of density that is appropriate for the size of community The type of transportation infrastructure that is available now and may be possible in

the future

4.4.4 Resulting Changes in Housing Types

Based on the policy framework described above, the MetroQuest model was designed to simulate the impacts of Smart Growth policies in B.C. communities and used to create an alternative future for B.C. from F2006 to F2026. Two MetroQuest scenarios were created: one corresponding as closely as possible to the Reference Case, and one corresponding to the 2026 Vision. The vision is based on the policies and priorities described above and those that emerged out of over 150 community planning workshops in B.C. The policies and priorities were validated through the 2026 Visioning Workshop, the literature review and the Panel Survey. The Reference Case and the 2026 Vision both assume the same population growth rates in each BC Hydro service region and allocate the share of the new dwellings using electricity as their primary source of fuel for heating in approximately the same shares as shown. Exhibit 4.5 presents the growth rates for different types of housing by primary heating source. The table shows interesting differences in the growth rates between electric and gas-heated housing. For example, in the rapidly growing Lower Mainland region the growth in electrically heated homes is greater than non-electrically heated units for each housing type indicating a significant shift towards electric heating. The difference is greatest in apartments, which are growing at a rate of over 3.0% for electrically heated units while non-electrically heated units are growing at about 0.5 to 0.6%. Both the Reference Case and the 2026 Vision assume the same saturation rates and average electricity consumption by housing type for each end use as shown in Exhibits 2.8 to 2.11. This allows for the independent evaluation of a shift towards the new housing mix as dictated by the policies described in the Vision. The MetroQuest model results are described in Appendix D. As a part of the scenario results, MetroQuest also generated a future housing mix based on the priority and policies described above. Exhibit 4.6 presents the resulting housing mix compared to the baseline used in the Reference Case.



Exhibit 4.5: Growth Rates of Housing by Type and Primary Heating Source

Single/Duplex Row Apart

ment Mobile Single/Duplex Row Apart

ment Mobile

Lower MainlandF2006-F2011 2.1% 3.7% 3.3% 2.6% 1.1% 3.0% 0.5% 1.3%F2011-F2016 1.8% 3.0% 3.1% 2.6% 1.0% 2.5% 0.6% 1.3%F2016-F2021 1.5% 3.0% 2.8% 2.6% 0.8% 2.5% 0.6% 1.3%F2021-F2026 1.3% 1.9% 2.1% 2.6% 0.7% 1.6% 0.4% 1.3%

Vancouver IslandF2006-F2011 0.8% 0.6% 2.1% 2.4% 1.6% 2.8% 0.5% 1.6%F2011-F2016 0.7% 0.6% 2.0% 2.4% 1.3% 2.2% 0.5% 1.6%F2016-F2021 0.6% 0.6% 1.8% 2.4% 1.0% 2.2% 0.4% 1.6%F2021-F2026 0.4% 0.4% 1.3% 2.4% 0.8% 1.4% 0.3% 1.6%

Southern InteriorF2006-F2011 0.9% 1.4% 2.2% 1.9% 1.3% 2.1% 0.9% 1.7%F2011-F2016 0.7% 1.0% 1.7% 1.9% 1.0% 1.5% 0.8% 1.7%F2016-F2021 0.5% 0.9% 1.3% 1.9% 0.7% 1.3% 0.6% 1.7%F2021-F2026 0.3% 0.5% 0.8% 1.9% 0.5% 0.7% 0.4% 1.7%

Northern RegionF2006-F2011 0.6% 1.0% 1.0% 1.9% 0.8% 1.9% 0.4% 1.7%F2011-F2016 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 1.9% 0.7% 1.6% 0.4% 1.7%F2016-F2021 0.4% 1.0% 0.9% 1.9% 0.6% 1.8% 0.4% 1.7%F2021-F2026 0.4% 0.7% 0.7% 1.9% 0.5% 1.2% 0.3% 1.7%

Electric Accounts Non-Electric Accounts

Region and Period



Exhibit 4.6: Projected Number of Residential Dwellings by Type, Housing Scenario vs. Reference Case

SFD

Row

L-R

ise A

pt

H-R

ise A

pt

Mob

ile/O

ther

2006 Base Year2026 Reference Case

2026 Housing Scenario0

100,000200,000300,000400,000500,000600,000700,000800,000900,000

1,000,000

In the Housing Scenario, the share of detached and duplex homes decreased moderately for a total decrease of 16.3% relative to the Reference Case as a result of the policy framework incorporated in the Vision. These policies encourage more compact community development within walking distance to primary arteries and areas with access to transit. Because of the historical patterns of development in B.C. communities, many of the older homes are located in areas close to the city or town core. The result is a modest increase in the anticipated demolition rate for pre-1976 homes as a small percentage were assumed to have been replaced with row and apartment units, based on their proximity to transit and services. In addition, the share of new detached and duplex homes also declined relative to the Reference Case, based on the shift towards a more diversified mix of housing choices. The number of row and both low- and high-rise apartment units increased in each region relative to the Reference Case. The Lower Mainland experienced the most significant shift towards apartment housing due to several factors:

Higher levels of acceptability of apartment living in the metropolitan area A large number of areas already serviced by transit Significant planned expansion to the transit network A high cost of living motivating people to seek more affordable housing Scarcity of land available for new development



Row housing was the preferred choice for more compact housing outside the Lower Mainland as research results showed that ground-oriented compact housing was more appropriate for the medium and smaller cities and towns throughout the province.

4.5 COMPONENT 2: ENERGY CHOICES IN THE HOME

4.5.1 General Framework for the Lifestyle Scenario

The end-use component of the Vision for More Sustainable Lifestyles specifies a set of lifestyle shifts that could take place among customers in the BC Hydro service area that would lead to reduced electricity use, and translates to saturation reductions and UEC reductions relative to the Reference Case. These shifts are referred to as lifestyle choices to distinguish from other uses of “lifestyle” in the environmental and sociological literature.38 The Lifestyle Scenario speculates on the electricity conservation potential of shifts to more compact housing and moderate reductions in electricity services relative to the Reference Case over the next 20 years. The remainder of this section describes the basic framework within which the Lifestyle Scenario was developed. In summary, the conditions are:

The Lifestyle Scenario is defined so as to reduce electricity consumption in the home.

Only electricity use is considered, rather than total energy use. For the Energy Choices in the Home component, no resources, sectors or

environmental effects are directly considered other than Residential electricity use.39 In contrast, for the Neighbourhood Design and Housing component, a housing- and community-centered vision of sustainability was developed independent of electricity use and the effect of this sustainability vision on Residential sector electricity use was calculated.

Technological change and technological choices do not change from the Reference Case except as follows:

Decisions whether or not to have a particular end use (e.g., central air conditioning)

Number and size of devices serving the end use closely under consumer control (e.g., number and size of refrigerators)

How these devices are used, including choices between two devices in the home (e.g., normal thermostat setting, use of fan versus central air conditioners)

Device efficiency or device type (e.g., type of heating system), except as these are affected by housing choice, are not considered.

38 “Lifestyle” is a common term in the field of human dimensions of energy and environment. It has no commonly agreed usage but is often employed with population segmentation, e.g., types of consumers. For discussion of lifestyle concepts in energy consumption research, see Lutzenhiser, Loren and Marcia Gossard, “Lifestyle, status, and energy consumption,” 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 39 For a discussion of the cross-sectoral effects of domestic energy consumption, see Bin, Shui and Hadi Dowlatabadi, “Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related CO2 emissions,” Energy Policy 33, 2005.



Conservation through behavioural changes, defined as not affecting energy services, are not included, as they have been included in the Behavioural area of the CPR .

The Lifestyle Scenario is designed to paint a picture of the possible changes in everyday practices and patterns in the home toward lower electricity use, and to test the potential effects of such changes on total electricity use. It was intended to be neither too aggressive nor too modest, and is necessarily defined “for the sake of argument.”

Lifestyle choices by definition affect the level of electricity services in the home and are complementary to rather than integral with Behavioural Potential and Technical Potential areas of the CPR 2007. The Lifestyle Area is a separate, stand-alone report. However, the measures considered have been designed not to overlap those analyzed in other analysis areas.

Conservation has been defined as activity of electricity users that results in a reduction of electric energy use without adversely affecting the level or quality of energy service provided. Potential from lifestyle choices has been defined specifically as potential savings from changes affecting the level of energy services in the home. It is different from behaviours, operation or maintenance in that the latter refer to how one uses the energy-consuming systems that one already has, whereas Lifestyle considers the choices users make regarding what energy consuming systems are purchased or used.

Lifestyle choices include changes in the level of use of energy-consuming systems in the home as well. When the shifts in usage are assumed not to affect the level of energy services, they have been defined as behavioural conservation and thus the provenance of the Behavioural analysis area rather than the Lifestyle area. For example, reductions in winter heating temperatures when occupants are away or asleep have been considered Behavioural conservation measures, whereas reductions in winter temperatures when occupants are awake and in the home have been considered Lifestyle measures. What precisely constitutes an energy service is often ambiguous, so there were a number of grey areas in deciding whether measures were Behavioural conservation or instead Lifestyle measures. Decisions about these measures were resolved in joint discussions of the Behavioural and Lifestyle area teams. Both Behavioural and Lifestyle areas address savings from changed practices in the home, but savings from the two areas are not additive. For example, lowered norms for winter heating temperatures assumed in the Lifestyle Scenario reduces the potential savings from the Behavioural measure of turning the thermostat down to a fixed level overnight. Lifestyle choices also do not include changes in technological efficiency of a particular device, which is the provenance of the Technical Potential area. However, changes in the size or scale of the device (e.g., a smaller refrigerator) were considered as Lifestyle measures, as were choices made between various options within the same general end use in the home (e.g., using the fan rather than the central air conditioner, or the microwave as opposed to the range). For consistency with other CPR 2007 reports, the Lifestyle report uses the term “measure” to refer to changes directly affecting the energy consumption of the service. Where several technologies contribute to an end use in most homes, such as multiple



appliances used for cooking, “measure” refers to the ensemble of changes rather than changes in using specific technologies. Thus, “measure” for cooking addresses the net effect from more use of the microwave, less use of the range, more coordination in household cooking, etc., rather than attempting to address individual technologies and usage dynamics specifically. The term “strategy” refers to lifestyle choices that support measures, such as dressing more warmly in winter to support lowering thermostat setting, that do not save energy in themselves. Measures are restricted to a simple set of options depending on the end use including reducing the level of service by reducing time, quantity or intensity, or eliminating the service altogether. Strategies refer to likely “stories” or lifestyle shifts describing how these measures might be enabled. There are dozens of possible stories for most measures, with savings technically quantifiable only insofar as the stories are quantifiable.

4.5.2 The Lifestyle Vision

The Lifestyle Vision does not fix the level of energy services in the home. Technically, no electricity services are required to sustain life, given adequate infrastructure and alternative energy supply. Historical evidence suggests that people may be willing to make changes as evidenced by the conservation response to the recent California energy crisis. While many of these changes may have been short-term, it is evidence of a willingness to make changes in the face of a threat or crisis. As discussed in chapter 3, there is recent evidence of members of society feeling increasingly threatened by sustainability issues. Despite these factors, the level of electricity services used in the home has increased with time. Both everything and nothing are possible. A useful specification of lifestyle choices must chart a path between these two extremes. “Societies learn, yet the world is hard to change.”40 The lifestyle choices that may happen in the next 20 years depend critically on changing conditions and events, such as prices, weather, electricity supply, etc., all obviously unknowable.41 The Lifestyle Vision was developed to be realistic and appealing for a world that is much like that of today. Radical changes could bring far more radical changes in lifestyle. Scenario assumptions were intended to be consistent with a view in which sustainability has positive personal effects, in particular, lighter, more natural and less controlled, possibly with social and health benefits, rather than a more “anti-pleasure” view stressing reduction, constraint or overly romantic views of simplicity. However, the envisioned reductions in energy services can create burdens as well, such as reduced convenience and comfort, as subjective these notions may be.42 Also, the envisioned reductions almost unavoidably clash with notions of rights and personal

40 Eder, Klaus, “Societies learn, yet the world is hard to change,” European Journal of Social Theory, 1998. 41 Lindén, Anna-Lisa, Annika Carlsson-Kanyama, and Bjørn Eriksson, “Efficient and inefficient aspects of residential energy behaviour: What are the policy instruments for change?”, Energy Policy, 2006. 42 For a discussion of energy sustainability and domestic inconvenience, see Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika, and Anna-Lisa Lindén. “Energy efficiency in residences – challenges for men and women in the North.” Energy Policy, 2007



choices, such as decisions to have a hot tub or to run the central air conditioner. No specific moral agenda is intended; the lifestyle choices envisioned are designed to identify possible opportunities to changes in lifestyle toward lower electricity consumption. Several common themes run through the lifestyle strategies envisioned:

Reduce maximum capacity

End-use capacity in homes is often designed around maximum expected needs. Second refrigerators may be left plugged in ready for the occasional party, and central air conditioners may be designed not only to adequately provide air conditioning on the hottest days but also to exceed these standards to reduce the possibility of user complaints. Excess capacity provides a potential service in the home, but also builds in what might be defined as “waste” insofar as the full installed capacity is rarely used.

Shift toward more communality

Modern technologies, affluence and the availability of space have allowed expansion of electric end uses in space and in time. Concurrently, there is evidence that modern North American societies find community and social opportunities lacking.43 The envisioned lifestyle changes include increases in the use of shared space, both within and outside the home, resulting in some energy-use savings through greater sharing of electricity services.

Shift toward natural cycles and fluctuations

Modern technical means have allowed tighter control of the physical environment, including air and water temperature and lighting, which requires energy services. Relaxing the expectations and needs for control over the environment, and instead accepting and adapting to natural fluctuations to a greater degree, can lead to lowered energy use.

Changed norms and aesthetics

Expectations for electricity services depend strongly on social norms.44 Variation in the use of energy services across history, countries and households speaks to the potential fluidity of these norms. These norms may not be easy to change at will, but policy may be able to influence them.

43 Wachtman, Edward, Discovering the Sustainability Story 2005-2006, 2006. 44 Shove, Elizabeth, Comfort, cleanliness, and convenience: The social organization of normality, Berg Publishers, Oxford and New York, 2003.



4.5.3 Quantitative Standards and Data Sources for the Lifestyle Scenario

The Lifestyle Scenario postulates changes from two mechanisms: reduction in saturation and reduction in consumption. Percentage reductions for both mechanisms were specified in relation to the Reference Case. The modeling results, discussed in the final section of this chapter, present Residential energy use and peak loads resulting from this scenario. The Lifestyle Vision is by nature less technical and less based in documented quantitative assumptions than the Technology or Behavioural Potential areas of the CPR. The assumptions made for lifestyle choices in each end use drew from sources including:

The Panel Survey (see Behavioural Report) The Lifestyle Workshop titled “2026 Vision for More Sustainable Communities:

Opportunities for Lifestyle Choices in Electricity Conservation” Available BC Hydro data, including the Residential End-Use Survey45 Literature review, including comparative data on historical trends and on electricity

consumption patterns in Canada and other countries, and contemporary literature on environmental sociology and sustainability

Judgement and experience of project staff

In the discussion of the modeling assumptions made for each end use below, specific references are provided where relevant. In addition to these specific sources, several standards of interpretation and quantitative defaults were developed for the lifestyle choices analysis. In the absence of other information, these standards and defaults were used to develop the modeling assumptions used. In the cases where little or no empirical data was found, the assumptions should be considered to be conservative estimates or safe guesses made by the study team. The structure of these assumptions and the defaults used to develop model assumptions are described below.

Saturation Reductions

For a number of end uses, the Lifestyle Scenario postulates saturation reductions relative to the Reference Case levels:

Se,b,r for each end use e, residential building type b and region r

Consumption Reduction

For a number of end uses, the Lifestyle Scenario postulates reductions in household-level consumption. These are expressed as percentage reduction versus the Reference Case and were developed using a combination of two elements. The first element, L, is an estimate of what percentage of households with the end use

would make lifestyle choices affecting the consumption for that end use. For reasons 45 BC Hydro, 2006.



explained below, 67% was the standard assumed for single-family and duplex homes, and 40% to 50% was assumed for homes in other building types.

The second element, R, was an estimate of how much savings, on average, these

households making relevant lifestyle choices (i.e., 67% in the case of single-family homes) could reduce consumption.

This was expressed as a percent of household-level consumption. Thus aggregate

percentage consumption reduction, C, was the product of the two elements:

Ce,b,r = Le,b,r * Re,b,r

for each end use e, building type b and region r. In practice, there was rarely any basis to distinguish consumption reduction by region.

Twenty percent savings are a traditional benchmark in mass-oriented energy conservation programs. Recent examples include California 20/20 programs, the Toronto 20/20 Program and the European Commission’s Energy Efficiency Action Plan, which proposes “Saving 20% by 2020.”46 In keeping with this tradition, for single-family and duplex homes, 20% end-use savings at the household level was used as the central tendency for lifestyle choice assumptions, insofar as specific data or alternative arguments were not available for the end use, and the level made sense with respect to the lifestyle strategies proposed for the end use. For multi-family dwellings, the central tendency was 10% to 15% rather than 20%, under the expectation that on average, multi-family households have less flexibility in reducing end-use consumption and, given lower absolute consumption on average, less motivation to do so.

As described in Chapter 3, a 2006 survey on Canadians’ attitudes toward sustainability indicated that 82% of the Canadian public rated sustainability as a top or high priority. Many (60%) were familiar with the term sustainability, but only a small portion (17%) could give what was a considered a correct definition of sustainability.47 This impreciseness of understanding reflects both the natural complexity of sustainability but also the vagueness with which sustainability is used in discourse and the conflicting and fragmented visions promoted on how to achieve it. The report identified four segments of the Canadian population with respect to attitudes toward sustainability.48 “The Choir,” representing 15% of Canadians, knew what sustainability meant technically and were

46 Summaries are available in: (a) Summit Blue Canada, Inc., Quick-hit DR programs: A case study of California's 20-20 program, prepared for Ontario Power Authority, 2005; (b) Toronto Public Health, 20/20: The Way to Clean Air, 2005; and European Commission, Saving 20% by 2020: European Commission unveils its Action Plan on Energy Efficiency, Press Release IP/06/1434, October 19, 2006, Brussels. Many 20% programs include technological changes as well as behavioural and social changes in the mix of proposed mechanisms. However, quick conservation programs such as used during energy crises have shown short-term savings at the 3% to 20% level, mostly from non-technological measures; see: International Energy Agency. Saving electricity in a hurry: Dealing with temporary shortfalls in electricity supply, International Energy Agency, OECD, Paris, France, 2005. 47 McAllister Opinion Research, The Sustainability Poll Canada 2006 Final Report – Quantitative analysis of interviews with 560 Canadian thought leaders and 2,500 members of the public, August 2006. 48 Ibid, p. 12.



sold on the idea. “The Congregation,” representing 67% of Canadians, could not define sustainability themselves but were enthusiastic about the notion; they tended to be more suburban and rural dwellers rather than those living in large urban centers. “The Oblivious,” representing 16% of Canadians, were not interested in sustainability. These tended to be younger adults (under 35), oriented to consumerism and rejecting the notion that North American consumerism is ultimately unfulfilling. “Atheists,” the remaining segment, represent only 2% of the Canadian population, understand the term sustainability but maintain the economy must come before sustainability; these tended to be affluent older men as well as university-educated younger men.

For most of the end uses considered, the Lifestyle model assumes that some percentage of households will make lifestyle choices to reduce electricity services for that end use. The poll results were used schematically to develop these estimates. “The Congregation,” or a portion equivalent in size, were interpreted as being amenable to lifestyle choices toward sustainability and had fluidity toward making these changes. “The Choir”, or a portion of households equivalent in size, was interpreted as having already made such changes, thus presenting limited potential for future savings. “The Oblivious” and “Atheists” were characterized as being disinterested in sustainability, at least for its own sake, or more likely to change lifestyles toward lower sustainability. Thus, for most lifestyle choices it was assumed that, among those who have a particular end use, 67% of households living in single-family homes and duplex homes would make lifestyle choices for the particular end use. Lower proportions were assumed for multi-family dwellings (50% for row/town houses and 40% for apartments) and for mobile homes (40%), since these households already tend to consume less electricity and may have more limited flexibility to make changes. Assumptions about the amount of consumption reduced, and of changes in saturation where applicable, were made on the basis of end-use specific data as outlined below.

Rates of Adoption over Time

The lifestyle choices saturation and consumption reduction assumptions were developed to reflect changes by F2026. These changes are envisioned to take place gradually from now over the period between the Base Year and F2026. To specify what proportion of the change would have taken place at each Milestone Year (F2011, F2016, F2021), three different models for rates of change were developed. For each end use, one of the curves was selected to specify rates of adoption of lifestyle changes for both saturation and consumption reductions. The choice is explained in the discussion of end-use assumptions. The three forms are:

S-Curve. The S-curve is traditional in the theory of technology diffusion, but it

applies to diffusion of innovation of any sort. Different degrees of curvature and time to maturity can be chosen; the proposed curve is moderate form with maturity in F2026. For particular measures, this model is appropriate if there are a combination of facts

Tipping Point. Rather than changing at a steady rate, the “tipping point” model assumes a slow start and then a rapid rise. This model is appropriate if one limiting factor exists and is overcome, for example. It also fits well with changes due to intensive programs or watershed events (e.g., an energy crisis).



Linear. This model assumes a constant rate of change, balancing risks of underestimating and overestimating.

These forms are illustrated in Exhibit 4.7, which uses a 0% to 100% scale; 0% marks the baseline value (F2006) and 100% marks the value attained in F2026, which is assumed to be the maximum (i.e., there is no aggregate reversion to less sustainable lifestyles). The parameters are defined such that the S-Curve is the most conservative assumption, the Tipping Point Curve, which as assumed has an early tipping point, is the most optimistic assumption in terms of sustainability, and the Linear Curve is the moderate assumption.

Exhibit 4.7: Rates of Adoption Options for Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions

4.5.4 Lifestyle Measures by End Use

For each end use, the lifestyle measures considered are presented along with the assumptions made for the effect these measures have on end-use penetration and consumption, along with lifestyle choices and strategies envisioned to enable them. Exhibit 4.8 presents all the measures finally considered in the Lifestyle Scenario.



Exhibit 4.8: Measures Considered for Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions

Space Heating

• Reduce heating temperatures • Reduce amount of space heated • Reduce duration of time heating is used

Space Cooling

Slow rate of introduction of central air conditioning

Increase temperature set point for cooling Increase use of fans, evaporative coolers, and

room air conditioners instead of central air conditioner

Decrease space cooled Reduce duration of time cooling is used

Domestic Hot Water

• Decrease dishwasher and clothes washer use • Reduce personal use

Major Appliances

• Reduce penetration of clothes dryer • Decrease use of clothes dryer • Decrease use of clothes washer • Decrease use of dishwasher • Reduce penetration of second and third

refrigerators • Reduce penetration of freezers • Reduce refrigerator size

Household electronics

Reduce size Reduce duplicate systems running

Lighting

Reduce lighting levels Schedule changes to make better use of daylight

Other

• Reduce penetration of hot tubs

4.5.4.1 Space Heating

The Lifestyle Vision for heating emphasizes alternatives to the thermostat for coping with cold temperatures. These alternative strategies turn the focus of heating away from a space-orientation to an historically older, more body-oriented vision. This approach is consistent with research on adaptive comfort, which suggests that a wide range of temperatures can be considered sufficiently comfortable, and sociological work that shows how technical and economic means strongly shape “needs.”49 The strategies considered centre on:

Dressing more warmly, correspondingly allowing reduced heating temperature levels Adapting expectations to lower indoor temperatures Changing activities or habits to better accommodate the weather Centralizing activities in the home to reduce the amount of space for which heating is

required

These alternatives do not reduce heating consumption themselves but rather enable it. Two space heating measures were considered:

Reduced heating temperatures and/or reduced duration of use Reduce amount of space heated

Eliminating the use of supplementary heating was also considered but not pursued because it requires nuanced analyses of technical systems.

49 For a summary of the sociological perspective, see Shove, 2003, pp. 34-41. Shove cites, for example, that in Antarctica people reported that 6°C was still comfortable as a winter indoor temperature.



Exhibit 4.9 shows the assumptions made for Lifestyle Scenario reductions in the heating end use for single-family and duplex dwellings in each of the four service regions for F2026. Savings estimates from the two basic measures were combined to estimate consumption reduction. Details on strategies and quantitative assumptions made for each measure are provided below. The levels attained at each of the milestone years were modeled by an S-Curve to reflect transformation of the complex socio-technical changes shaping heating use. The full set of consumption-reduction values for all housing types are given in Appendix G. Savings percentages assumed for multi-family and mobile homes are somewhat lower than those for single-family/duplex buildings, based on the argument that there is less flexibility in smaller dwellings, such as the ability to concentrate activities or to adjust temperatures, and because lower absolute consumption characteristics of smaller dwellings makes additional savings less compelling to occupants.

Exhibit 4.9: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Heating End Use, Single-

Family Detached and Duplex Homes

Saturation in Reference Case (%)

Saturation under Lifestyle Choice Vision (%)

Households Reducing Consumption (%)

Consumption Reduction among Households Reducing (% of Reference Case Consumption)

Resulting Overall Consumption Reduction for those with End Use (%)

Lower Mainland 100 100 67 20 13 Vancouver Island 100 100 67 20 13 Southern Interior 100 100 67 20 13 Northern Region 100 100 67 20 13 Time Trend Used: S-Curve

Reduced heating temperatures and/or reduced duration of use Description of measure

The measure envisions a reduction of thermostat set points relative to those in the Reference Case, including turning the heating system off. Reducing heating temperatures when occupants are away from home or are asleep are considered Behavioural measures and are not considered here. Vision and Assumptions An estimated 39% of BC Hydro customers say they always dress more warmly in the winter and reduce thermostat setting to 20°C or below, and 31% percent say they usually do so, with the percentage of those who either “always” or “usually” dress more warmly varying little by region.50 This is an already high percentage of households who cope with winter temperatures indoors by dressing warmly.

50 BC Hydro data, “Behaviours by region” detail of Power Smart Residential End-Use Survey data, 2006.



The Panel Survey asked respondents how much they might be willing to reduce heating set points: Q: Households can save energy in the winter months by lowering their temperature and having their occupants dress more warmly. How much cooler do you think you could keep your home during winter months? Fifty percent of respondents said that they could keep the house cooler (12% said one degree cooler, 20% said two degrees cooler, 7% said three degrees cooler, 5% said four degrees cooler, and 6% said more than four degrees cooler), with Northern residents less likely to say they could reduce temperature (41% said they could). A similar question was asked at CPR 2026 Visioning Workshop. There, a smaller proportion, about one-third of those responding, said that they could reduce heating temperatures further, usually by one or two degrees. A quarter of the participants said they would definitely heat more if heating were free, and an additional 40% said they might do so. These results in themselves do not suggest great potential for reducing heating consumption based on pure will for sustainability. Using the traditional rule of thumb for heating energy-use consumption, the stated willingness would result in not more than 6% savings.51 Changes in perceptions of comfort toward cooler temperatures could bring considerably higher savings.

Reduce amount of space heated

Description of measure This measure envisions that household members can concentrate in a smaller area of the house when space heat is needed, leaving a smaller area to be heated. A similar effect can be had by other forms of social concentration, for example, gathering in a community spaces rather than private spaces more often. Vision At the 2026 Visioning Workshop, the possible role of increasing sociability for bringing about increased sustainability was discussed. Most of the discussion centred on sociability outside the home, for example, in public spaces or cafés in urban and suburban areas, with the general consensus that more community spaces would be welcomed. In the home, it was noted that personalization and portability of entertainment and electronics, if not joint family activities, could support some “back to the hearth” clustering within the home. Most (73%) households claim to usually or always shut off

51 Though the HOT 2000 model was used to model savings from heating temperature changes in other areas of the CPR 2007, its level of precision is not supported given the speculative nature of the assumptions made for lifestyle choices.



heating to unused rooms.52 Even a mild degree of increased clustering could lead to reductions in residential heating consumption.

The Lifestyle Scenario assumes an additional 14% savings, over the 6% savings assumed for temperature reduction, to come from reduced space heated made possible by compressing activities in the home during the heating season and from more time spent “sharing” heating outside the home.

4.5.4.2 Space Cooling Space cooling includes room and portable air conditioning as well as central air conditioning. Sociologically, central air conditioning is one of the most socially loaded electrical end uses in the home. Even academic discussions in the energy consumption field are impassioned on the topic of air conditioning. The Lifestyle Scenario proposes substantial reductions in saturation growth and in energy consumption relative to the Reference Case. This does not imply that air conditioning is bad or unsustainable. Rather, it reflects on the relatively recent social and technical changes that lead to increasing expectations for air conditioning. Three measures are considered:

Reducing the rate of introduction of new central air conditioning systems Increasing thermostat set point Reducing the duration of time that air conditioners are used during the day or season

and/or the amount of space cooled

The Lifestyle Strategies considered for this end use included:

Reducing the degree to which air conditioning is considered a “need” Encouraging building, siting and landscaping techniques that reduce the need for

mechanical cooling Finding alternatives to the thermostat for coping with heat, such as fans, rest or

arranging schedules so as to better coordinate with weather patterns Cooling less space

The vision for lifestyle choices affecting space cooling proposes a strong turn away from increases in central air conditioning, in contrast to the strong growth foreseen in the Reference Case. The reduction in air conditioning could be supported by a combination of shifts in construction practices and alternative, lower-impact cooling strategies, as well as adaptive strategies in daily schedules, activity patterns and expectations. Exhibit 4.10 shows the modeling assumptions made for the cooling end use. For the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island and Northern Region, the marked increase in air conditioning strategies envisioned in the Reference Case are greatly reduced, with a F2026 saturation half that of the Reference Case, under the vision that air conditioning does not really catch on in these regions. For the Southern Interior, where air conditioning is already typical, air conditioning saturation in F2026 is assumed to be only 10% higher than its level in the Base Year F2006.

52 BC Hydro, Power Smart Evaluation, 2006.



Exhibit 4.10: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Cooling End Use, Single-







Lower Mainland 42 21 67 10 7 Vancouver Island 44 22 67 10 7 Southern Interior 78 59 67 15 10 Northern Region 22 11 67 10 7 Time Trend Used: Linear

Details on the Lifestyle Strategies supporting each measure are described below.

Reduce the rate of introduction of new central air conditioning systems

Description of measure

The rate of installation of central air conditioners in new construction would be reduced relative to the Reference Case. Vision Central air conditioning accounts for less than 2% of residential electricity use in the BC Hydro service area in the F2006 Base Year; however, the situation is expected to change dramatically over the study period. The Reference Case assumes, for example, an increase in the saturation levels of air conditioning in the Lower Mainland from 15% in 2006 to 42% in 2026. These changes mean that the impact of lifestyle changes on electricity consumption for space cooling will increase significantly over the study period. Asked what would prompt them to add central or wall air conditioner to their current dwellings, many participants at the 2026 Visioning Workshop volunteered that they did not like air conditioning or did not feel much discomfort from heat and had no interest in installing a central or room air conditioner.53 The normalization of central air conditioning in the Southern Interior region or elsewhere is not necessarily driven by isolated consumer demand. Research has shown that even in hotter regions such as California’s Central Valley, “normal” households can still do without air conditioning, which is not to insist that they should but there are powerful barriers to doing so.

53 Others mentioned that they might install one in their existing dwelling only after sustained period of very high temperatures, if no other cooling options were satisfactory, as part of a heat pump or HVAC circulation upgrade, or if the price was low enough. Some mentioned interest in evaporative coolers.



Increasing thermostat set point


Households with central air conditioners could shift thermostat set point for cooling upward by one or two degrees.

Vision and assumptions Of those with air conditioning in the Southern Interior, 33% report always setting the thermostat at 26ºC or higher during the summer, 30% report usually doing so, 14% report occasionally doing so and 18% report never doing so.54 The Lifestyle Scenario assumes that by changing expectations and activities, the 44% who report usually or occasionally setting the thermostat at 26ºC can usually increase the thermostat set point by one degree.

Reduce use of air conditioners and use alternative mechanical or natural

methods instead Description of measure

Instead of using the central air conditioner, households could use a lower-consuming device such as a fan or evaporative cooler, or use natural ventilation. They could change expectations of activity levels to suit the weather. Vision Of those with air conditioning in the Southern Interior, 62% report using the air conditioning only when it is very hot and natural ventilation is insufficient, 29% report usually doing so, 5% report occasionally doing so and 3% report never doing so.55 Thus, by their own standards, over 90% already use the air conditioning only when it is needed. The Lifestyle Scenario assumes that some proportion of these households who actively manage their air conditioning could push the limits a little further, especially to the extent that activity patterns could be shifted to better suit natural weather patterns, e.g., more restful activities in the home when temperatures are high. In addition, slight shifts to more concentration of space cooling within the home, to more activity outside the home, would nudge air conditioning consumption a percentage point downward among households who made such lifestyle choices. 4.5.4.3 Ventilation

The lifestyle choice for ventilation is envisioned as a moderate reduction in the amount of time for which ventilation is used for some portion of households. Exhibit 4.11 gives the modeling assumptions for the ventilation end use. A moderate 10% consumption

54 BC Hydro data, “Behaviours by region” detail of Power Smart Residential End-Use Survey data, 2006. 55 Ibid.



reduction was assumed for all households reducing consumption. Saturation is assumed to remain at 100%.

Exhibit 4.11: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Ventilation End Use,

Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes







Reduce time that ventilation system is used


The ventilation system would run for fewer hours during the year.

Vision The envisioned reductions in the amount of time the heating system is on and the amount of space heated, specified in the heating end use, provide much of the envisioned savings. BC Hydro data indicate that 66% of households use the furnace blower fan only when the heater is on, with a somewhat higher proportion of households in the Southern Interior running the blower fan without heating.56 Opening windows could substitute for some of the reduced use of mechanical ventilation. An estimated 36% of BC Hydro residential customers use open windows to provide ventilation during the heating system57 and presumably more do so in the summer.

Reduce over-sizing of ventilation systems


Use the recommended size of furnace fan motor in new housing stock.

Vision A recent trend toward larger furnace fan motors, designed so that HVAC systems are “air-conditioner ready,” has been noted.58 Countering this trend, the Lifestyle Choice

56 BC Hydro, Power Smart Evaluation, 2006. 57 Ibid. 58 See CPR 2007 Economic Potential Report.



vision proposes that an aggregate turning away from the view of central air conditioning as normal, discussed above, would make bigger furnace fan motors unnecessary. This measure depends on manufacturer and contractor choices but, with increased public education on the issue, it is not beyond the influence of home purchasers and occupants. 4.5.4.4 Lighting Lighting energy represents 16% of residential electricity use in the Base Year. At first, it seems to be an appealing route for energy savings by lifestyle choices, especially since lighting is technically easy to control. Historical comparison and experience with energy crises outside of British Columbia suggest that lighting levels could be substantially reduced. However, survey data indicate that most households in British Columbia, as in many other countries, claim to already be conservative with lighting.59 The most promising route for reducing lighting on a lifestyle basis may be aesthetic changes that favour lower lighting levels where possible. It is useful to recognize, however, that as the population ages, lighting needs may change. Aging residents may require higher lighting levels and be more sensitive to the affects of glare.60 These factors may affect both conservation efforts as well as home design considerations. The general Lifestyle measures considered are:

Reduce the space lit or lighting levels Use electric lighting for less time

Using CFLs or lower-wattage bulbs rather than standard incandescent bulbs was considered as a candidate measure, but since the measure was partially included in the Economic Potential (for CFLs) and Behavioural Potential (for other lower-wattage bulbs) areas, the Lifestyle Scenario did not include this measure. Reducing specialty lighting such as decorative outdoor lighting or holiday lighting was also included as a Behavioural measure, so the Lifestyle Scenario did not consider it. Exhibit 4.12 summarizes the consumption reduction assumptions made for single-family and duplex homes. A Tipping Point time trend is assumed, to reflect the possibility of a rapid change in aesthetic standards.

Exhibit 4.12: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Lighting End Use, Single-







Lower Mainland 100 100 67 20 13 Vancouver Island 100 100 67 20 13 Southern Interior 100 100 67 16 11 Northern Region 100 100 67 15 10

59 See CPR 2007 Behaviour Report, Appendix A: Summary of Experience in Other Jurisdictions. 60 Pomeranz, Stan, “Lighting Design for Aging Eyes,” Lighttech Design, 2007.



Time Trend Used: Tipping Point

Reduce the space lit or lighting levels

Description

Reducing lighting levels and using lower-wattage bulbs were both considered as conservation measures in the CPR 2007 Behavioural report. These are not entirely excluded here, but the emphasis is on focus lighting and compressing household activities to restrict lighting to smaller spaces.

Vision

By reducing the space in which household activities requiring lighting take place, lighting requirements may be lowered. Residential lighting use is relatively well studied, and there is fair amount of self-reported data on its use, both in British Columbia and elsewhere. However it remains difficult to understand how lighting “needs” are defined and how much lifestyle changes reduce it.

The Panel Survey asked respondents about their preferences for changes in light levels:

Q: Thinking about where you work or spend time at night, would you like: more lighting, less lighting, or about the same level of lighting? Most (78%) responded that current levels of lighting were about right, while 9% said they would prefer less lighting and 20% said they would prefer more lighting.

Asked the purpose of lighting in their homes, almost all respondents at the 2026 Visioning Workshop reported that one of the chief purposes of lighting in their homes was to provide a nice atmosphere. Rather than targeting reduced lighting in the home as a resource for lighting savings, many participants pointed to commercial and outdoor lighting as more important marks. Changes in outdoor lighting elsewhere could motivate changes in the house, as well.

The Workshop and Panel Survey results both suggest some resistance to reduced lighting levels. Conservation is already very high according to self-reports. Among BC Hydro customers, 55% surveyed say they already always only use the minimum number of lights for what they are doing, and only 6% say they only occasionally or never do so.61 The 40% who report “usually” doing so are a logical target for a lifestyle choices toward lower lighting. As to turning off lights when no one is in the room (a conservation measure considered in the CPR 2007 Behavioural report), 62% say they always do so, and an additional 32% say they usually do.

61 BC Hydro data, “Behaviours by region” detail of Power Smart Residential End-Use Survey data, 2006.



Despite the low enthusiasm for this measure, the Lifestyle Scenario assumes that a combination of aesthetic changes and more clustering of activities in the home could allow marked decreases in lighting energy consumption. 4.5.4.5 Domestic Hot Water Domestic hot water end use includes personal use as well as usage by clothes washers and dishwashers. From a sociological perspective, hot water use is closely linked with notions of cleanliness. Standards of perceived cleanliness, along with hot water use, appear to have been rising over the last few decades in countries where this has been studied.62 If this is true for British Columbia as well, a relaxation of the idea of “clean” could facilitate lifestyle changes toward lower hot water consumption. Increased consciousness about water resources could lead to lower domestic hot water consumption as well. The measures considered for domestic hot water end use are simply to decrease hot water use:

Reduce use of clothes washer Reduce use of dishwasher Reduce personal use

The first two measures are discussed in the sections for clothes washer and dishwasher respectively.

Exhibit 4.13 shows the assumptions for domestic hot water consumption reduction for single-family detached and duplex homes, based on the ensemble of these measures; a 20% reduction among households reducing use has been assumed. The rationale for the ensemble measure is given below.

Exhibit 4.13: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Domestic Hot Water End

Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes






Lower Mainland 100 100 67 20 13 Vancouver Island 100 100 67 20 13 Southern Interior 100 100 67 20 13 Northern Region 100 100 67 20 13 Time Trend Used: Tipping Point

62 Shove, 2003.



Reduce DHW consumption Description of measure Reduce domestic hot water use by reducing clothes washing (at least hot- and warm-water clothes washing), dishwashing and personal use. Vision Exhibit 4.14 shows the distribution of uses for domestic hot water in new stock.63

Exhibit 4.14 Distribution of DHW Electricity Use by End Use in New Stock (KWh/yr)

End Use Electricity Use

(KWh/yr) %

Personal Use 932 35 Dishwashing 590 23 Clothes Washing 740 27 Standby Losses 385 15 Total 2,647 100%

Based on this table, the proposed reductions in clothes washing and dishwashing due to lifestyle choices result in domestic hot water electricity savings of 5% for clothes washing (20% reduction in clothes washer loads multiplied by 27% of DHW electricity use for clothes washing as presented earlier) and 2% (8% reduction in dishwasher loads multiplied by 23% of DHW electricity use for dishwashing as presented earlier), totaling 7% for the average household.64 Another 13% reduction can be achieved by a moderate reduction in the length of time spent showering or the amount of hot water used for bathing, e.g., taking 7-minute showers rather than 8-minute showers or skipping one shower per week. 4.5.4.6 Refrigeration The measures considered for the Refrigeration end use include:

Remove secondary refrigerators or reduce their consumption When purchasing a refrigerator, reduce the size and avoid selecting models with

energy-costly features

Exhibit 4.15 shows the assumptions for refrigeration saturation levels and consumption reductions for each region.

63 Table is reproduced from the CPR 2007 Economic Report. 64 This assumes that the proportion of cold water to total number of washes remains the same with Lifestyle Choices as it was in the Reference Case. Note that cold-water washing is considered a Behavioural measure, rather than a Lifestyle measure.



Exhibit 4.15: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Refrigerator End Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes






Lower Mainland 151 113 67 8 5 Vancouver Island 133 100 67 8 5 Southern Interior 140 105 67 8 5 Northern Region 130 100 67 8 5 Time Trend Used: S-Curve

Remove secondary refrigerators or reduce their consumption

Description of measure Rather than keeping a second refrigerator constantly plugged in, plug it in only during periods when it is actively used. Otherwise, remove and recycle the refrigerator. Vision To reduce the saturation of secondary refrigerators, BC Hydro’s Power Smart Refrigerator Buy-Back Program has offered consumers free pick-up of used refrigerators along with cash bonuses, garnering demand and electricity savings.65 The penetration of secondary refrigerators in jurisdictions with similar programs does not necessarily decrease. The Lifestyle Scenario makes the strong reduction assumptions for single-family homes under the theory that this could be promoted as a simple and effective one-time step to a more sustainable and less encumbered lifestyle. Some of the decreased storage capacity can be recuperated by a revision of ideas of what needs to be refrigerated. Sociologists have noted that alternative food storage traditions, root cellars or similar cold spots, for example, have been largely forgotten.

If the second refrigerator is not eliminated, then for many households almost as much energy could be saved by leaving the refrigerator running only when it is actively needed. According to Natural Resources Canada data, 83% of Canadian households who kept their old refrigerator after purchasing a new one left the refrigerator plugged in all year.66 No data on the details of typical usage was obtained, though it seems likely that most of these refrigerators are not actively used most of the year, unless they are in a separate living unit.

65 BC Hydro, Revenue Requirement Application 2004/05 and 2005/06, DSM Evaluation Summary and Plan, Volume 2, Appendix M. 66 Natural Resources Canada, Survey of Household Energy Use 2003, 2006.



Reduce the size of the refrigerator and avoid energy-costly features


When it is time to replace the refrigerator, consumers would buy a smaller (15% smaller than the Reference Case) refrigerator, and would avoid selecting models with ice cube dispensers unless they really wanted that feature.

Vision The BC Hydro Power Smart Residential End-Use Survey 2006 asked respondents how frequently they chose the smallest appliance that met their needs. Twenty-nine percent responded “always,” 40% responded “usually,” 17% responded “occasionally,” and 5% responded “Never.”67 Refrigerators on the market have been getting bigger as they have been becoming more efficient.68 Several participants in the 2026 Visioning Workshop mentioned that when shopping for refrigerators, they had difficulty finding smaller efficient refrigerators on the market. If these experiences are typical, they suggest that lifestyle choices toward smaller refrigerators might face strong barriers. Smaller refrigerators are typical in other countries, though whether B.C. residents could use smaller refrigerators depends on infrastructural and larger social factors that are not readily transferable. In short, the refrigerator purchase would be based on a consideration of total energy consumption rather than just efficiency. 4.5.4.7 Freezer For the freezer end use, the main option considered is to reduce freezer penetration province-wide. Changes in the composition of the housing stock toward smaller and attached units would provide a synergistic effect. Other energy-conserving options include placing the freezer away from heat sources and instead in cold spots such as outdoors or in an unheated garage, using the freezer for only part of the year, and reducing freezer size (or choosing a different category of freezer, e.g., manual or automatic defrost). Exhibit 4.16 shows the assumptions for freezer saturation changes and consumption reduction for each region.

67 BC Hydro Power Smart Residential End-Use Survey detailed tabulations, “Cross tabulations by region.” The remaining 9% responded “Don’t know.” 68 Natural Resources Canada, Trends in Residential Energy Efficiency, 2005.



Exhibit 4.16: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Freezer End Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes







Eliminate stand-alone freezer

Description of measure This measure applies to any residence with one or more stand-alone freezers. Rather than using a stand-alone freezer, more households would use only the freezer component of their refrigerator for keeping frozen foods, unplugging and eventually recycling existing freezers. Fewer new households would buy a freezer.

Baseline About 61% of BC Hydro customers have a freezer separate from the freezer compartment in their refrigerator in F2006, with 46% having chest freezer and 15% having an upright freezer.69 About 6% have a secondary freezer. Freezer penetration is markedly higher in the Northern Region and Southern Interior (over 80% have a freezer) than in Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island. Power Smart Evaluation data70 results show a drop of 8% in chest freezer penetration from 2004 to 2006, though there is no strong indication of a trend over the past five years. From a total conservation standpoint, freezer use is an appealing target because it easy to talk about and, at an estimated 4% share of residential electricity consumption, represents sizable potential savings. However, freezers are culturally important and have strong lifestyle ties for many BC Hydro customers, as discussed below. Vision The Panel Survey asked: Q: Even the most efficient freezers consume significant amounts of energy to operate. How easy do you think it would be to adjust to life without a stand-alone chest or upright freezer?

69 BC Hydro, Power Smart Evaluation, 2006. 70 Ibid.



In response to this question, 22% of those with freezers said that it would be “very easy” (6%) or “somewhat easy” (16%), with the remaining 78% of respondents saying that it would be “somewhat difficult” (40%) or “very difficult” (38%). The 2026 Visioning Workshop participants gave similar responses: asked whether their freezer was a necessity, a tradition, or a luxury, 80% of those with freezers responded that it was a necessity.

Penetration of freezers in British Columbia is markedly higher than in other Canadian provinces and in the United States, where penetration in 2001 was just 32%, in gradual slow decline from a 38% penetration in 1980.71 Freezers are an important part of the home food provision system used for storing meat, produce and prepared foods (e.g., for bulk purchase, reducing trips to store, convenience). Rural area residents with less access to stores have special needs in the area. The Lifestyle Scenario assumes that the 22% of households that considered it very easy or somewhat easy to get rid of their freezers, as estimated in the Panel Survey, follow through with it. It also estimates that most households with second freezers (6%) can reduce to one freezer, and that the rate of introduction of new freezers will be slowed.

Reduce freezer consumption

Description of measure Place freezer away from heat sources, and/or unplug and use the freezer compartment of the refrigerator when freezer storage needs permit. Vision This is a combined measure leading to minor reductions in freezer UEC. Though freezers usually go “wherever they fit” there may be some flexibility to move them. This measure may better fit the definition of Behavioural conservation, but there were no data on social potential, and it was not considered in the final set of behavioural conservation measures. 4.5.4.8 Cooking Cooking is a complex energy end use in that it consists of many separate energy services (range, microwave, toaster, kettle, etc.) depending in turn on use of refrigerator, freezer and dishwasher. Only the mode of cooking in the home is considered in the Lifestyle Scenario analysis, though it is recognized that food choices are a critical factor in sustainability, affecting energy and resource use far beyond the home kitchen. Roughly, it is expected that less use of the range would reduce cooking energy use, and this is the only measure considered in the lifestyle choices analysis. A more thorough analysis of

71 Energy Information Administration, Appliance Market-Share Trends, U.S. Households, U.S. Department of Energy, 2006, (http:://www.die.doe.gov/emeu/reps/appli/all_tables.html).



sociological and technological factors in cooking energy use could reveal other possibilities for reducing cooking energy use. Exhibit 4.17 shows the assumptions for cooking saturation changes and consumption reduction for each region.

Exhibit 4.17: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Cooking End Use, Single-








Less or more efficient use of range

Description of Measure

Coordinate cooking using the range so that less use is required overall. Substitute the microwave for range use, when possible.

Vision End-use metering data on cooking have shown cooking energy use among similar households varies greatly. For example, average daily range electricity use metered over a year varied from 0.1 KWh/yr to 5.1 KWh/yr among ten Florida households, with the differences not readily explained by variation in household size.72 Other studies show similar levels of variation.73 Survey data from the United States indicate that cooking in the home declined over the past decade, with 27% of U.S. households cooking only a few meals or less in the home in 2001, as compared to only 20% in 1993.74 In 2001, 32% cooked two meals or more per day and 41% cooked one meal a day, with the number of meals cooked varying strongly by house type and number of occupants. Mobile home dwellers cooked the most. Thus, U.S. data suggest less use of the range at home, probably substituted in part by microwave use and by more eating out. These trends may not be in line with increased

72 Parker, Danny, Maria Mazzara and John R. Sherwin. “Monitored energy-use patterns low-income housing in a hot and humid climate,” Florida Solar Energy Center, 1996. 73 Sidler et al,. 2000; Sonderegger, 1978. 74 Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Cooking trends in the United States: Are we really becoming a fast food country?”, U.S. Department of Energy. 2002.



sustainability, but they do suggest a natural trend in the U.S. toward lower cooking energy use in the home. No information is available on whether this is true for Canada. The Lifestyle Scenario postulates a 15% reduction in cooking energy use, based primarily in evidence that the social efficiency of cooking can vary greatly, including both how meals are cooked and the synchronicity or coordination of meal preparation. For example, people can plan oven-based cooking tasks together to take advantage of the heated oven. Electricity use feedback could be particularly useful in guiding households toward lower-energy cooking habits. 4.5.4.9 Dishwasher Exhibit 4.18 shows the Lifestyle Scenario assumptions for F2026 for the dishwasher end use in single-family detached and duplex homes. Hot water aside, the dishwasher end use represents only a 0.5% share of Residential electricity in the Base Year. It is uncertain whether washing dishes by hand uses less energy, especially since this may often be done with the hot water running rather than filling the basin.75 Thus, no reduction in dishwasher saturation is proposed in the Lifestyle Vision. The ease of machine dish washing, may have contributed to higher washing standards and less reuse, which could revert back if dishwashers became less common, but this dynamic is beyond the scope of the investigation. The sole change specified for dishwashing end use is a minor (1 in 12) reduction in number of loads washed, to reflect modestly higher levels of energy and water use consciousness among some proportion of households.

Exhibit 4.18: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Dishwasher End Use,








4.5.4.10 Clothes Washer Saturation of clothes washers is nearly 100% among single-family and duplex homes in the Base Year, and 26% or less in multi-family dwellings depending on the region. Because there are few modern alternatives to the clothes washer, the Lifestyle Choice vision assumes no reduction in penetration relative to the Reference Case. It does, however, assume reductions in the amount of washing done. Exhibit 4.19 summarizes the Lifestyle Choice assumptions for clothes washers for single-family detached and duplex

75 Lindén et al., 2006.



homes. Strategies and data supporting these assumptions are given below. Changes in wash and rinse temperature are not considered as they have been treated as conservation behaviours in the Behavioural area of the CPR. A Tipping Point time curve is applied to project rates of change for the milestone years, based on the argument that changes in clothes drying practices, discussed below, may drive laundering practices and reductions in washing and drying would take place as an ensemble.

Exhibit 4.19: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Clothes Washer End Use,









Do less clothes washing

Description of measure Reduce the number of loads washed by relaxing working definitions of “clean” and by using alternative methods such as spot cleaning and airing. Vision Though no data specific to Canada is available, international data suggest an increase in the pace of washing, or put another way, an increase in standards of cleanliness.76 Alternatives to machine washing, such as airing clothes or spot cleaning, are no longer common.77 If this trend could be somewhat reversed, by omitting one out of five launderings for each item or similarly reducing the number of items actively used, a 20% reduction could be achieved. Changing wash temperature to cooler levels is considered as conservation in the CPR 2007 Behavioural report. 4.5.4.11 Clothes Dryer The measures considered for clothes dryer were: • Using the clothes dryer less • Doing without a clothes dryer

76 Shove, 2003. 77 Lindén et al., 2006.



Exhibit 4.20 presents the Lifestyle Choice assumptions used for the clothes drying for single-family detached and duplex homes. Both saturation reduction and consumption reduction are proposed. For the milestone years, a Tipping Point time curve is applied to project rates of change, based on the argument that alternative methods of clothes drying can catch on socially fairly quickly, e.g., by seeing neighbours drying clothes on clothes lines, relaxation of restrictions on outdoor clothes drying, and the presence of line drying accessories in local stores. Details on the assumptions made and the strategies supporting each measure are discussed below.

Exhibit 4.20: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for the Clothes Dryer End Use,









Doing without a clothes dryer

Description of measure Under this measure, fewer new homes would come equipped with a dryer (developer choice) and fewer new households would purchase a dryer (household choice). Contributing to saturation reduction, some households that have dryers would not replace them when their existing unit is retired. Vision Penetration of clothes dryers varies greatly by country. Penetration of dryers in Canadian single-family homes is high, while in Italy clothes dryer penetration was just 2% in 2005. Among other countries in Western and Southern Europe, in Sweden, France, Spain, Austria and Portugal, clothes dryer penetration was 35% or lower in 2005, though in the Netherlands 62% of households have clothes dryers.78 Whatever the differences in weather, affluence and housing types, the large variation in clothes dryer penetration suggests that tradition has a strong role in determining how clothes get dried. This measure thus proposes a “reversion” to lower levels of dryer penetration. Once accustomed to a clothes dryer, using it may become “normal” even when there are ready alternatives. The ease of machine clothes drying may even increase the pace of

78 Bush, Eric and Jürg Nipkow, “Tests and promotion of energy-efficient heat pump dryers,” Proceedings of the International Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting Conference (EEDAL), 2006.



laundering in general, as suggested by examples in Shove.79 An effective electricity consumption change insofar as laundering is concerned would be to make clothes dryers less the norm. How this shift would come about is unclear. However, air drying clothes is not globally considered inferior to machine drying, so there is room to manoeuvre. As shown in Exhibit 4.20, dryer penetration in single-family detached and duplex homes is 93% or above for all regions, and the Reference case projects no saturation increase to F2026. Clothes dryers are rarer in multi-family dwellings (about 25%). The Lifestyle Scenario assumes a straight 20% reduction in clothes dryer saturation for single-family detached and duplex homes relative to the Reference Case. The Lifestyle Scenario assumes a 10% reduction in saturation relative to the Reference Case saturations for multi-family units (see Appendix E), on the grounds that multi-family units that already have clothes dryers are exceptional and less likely candidates for change.

Using the clothes dryer less

Description of measure Households with clothes dryers would air dry their clothes instead of using the machine, either year round or when suitable given weather and needs for finished laundry. Clothes could be dried outside when weather and space permitted, or inside, whether in makeshift or more formalized arrangements. A lower rate of laundering (see Clothes Washer) would contribute to reduced drying needs as well. A trend toward smaller dwellings (See the Housing Scenario) would contribute to lower dryer penetration. Vision Nine percent of BC Hydro households always hang clothes out to dry rather than machine dry. Most of the rest usually (14%) or occasionally (50%) do so.80 Those who sometimes but do not always hang clothes dry are considered candidates for more line drying. Willingness to air dry clothes was seen as a litmus test of hard-line conservation during California’s 2000-2001 Energy Crisis. Besides the image of being radical, a number of practical barriers limit practice, such as local regulations that prohibit outdoor line drying, and limited availability of drying racks, clothes pins and other equipment and know-how facilitating clothes drying. The estimate of 25% consumption reduction for single-family and duplex homes is based on the assumption of 20% less clothes washing (see Clothes Washer) and line drying 40% of laundry loads during the summer months. Since air drying is possible inside the home during any season, and outdoors for many more months in some regions, even higher reductions are plausible. For multi-family homes, 10% consumption reduction is assumed for households reducing consumption, reflecting lower opportunities for air drying (less interior and exterior space) and expected recalcitrance of dryer consumption in multi-family households given that it is fairly uncommon among them.

79 Shove, 2003. 80BC Hydro data, “Behaviours by region” detail of Power Smart Residential End-Use Survey data.



4.5.4.12 Household Electronics Computers, televisions and peripherals, and other electronics combined account for 9% of residential electricity use in the Base Year. They are expected to grow substantially over the next 20 years, as reflected in the F2026 Reference Case. Given the short life of consumer electronics relative to other residential electricity uses, purchase decisions can figure strongly in how this growth is shaped. Less than simply choosing models rated as efficient among what is on offer, a strong consumer consciousness toward moderate size and innovative power management may help push the market to lower energy-consuming and otherwise more sustainably designed products. Since there are few similar alternatives for most electronic items, the Lifestyle Scenario proposes minimal changes for these end uses. Considered separately each contributes relatively little to consumption at present, so voluntary constraints seems unlikely and not particularly effective. Details are given for each end-use category below. 4.5.4.13 Computers and Peripherals In keeping with the vision of a sustainable B.C. lifestyle as modern, the Lifestyle Scenario assumes no reduction in saturation of electronics relative to the Reference Case. A modest reduction in electricity consumption for these end uses is assumed to account for savings from a higher resource consciousness and preferences for portability, leading to purchases of slightly lower energy-consuming alternatives and more aggressive power management. Exhibit 4.21 lists the assumptions for the single-family detached and duplex homes.

Exhibit 4.21: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Computer and Computer

Peripherals Use, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes







Time Trend Used: S-Curve

4.5.4.14 Televisions and Television Peripherals Lifestyle choices envisioned for televisions and television peripherals presume an aesthetic sizing compactness and multi-functionality and a somewhat lowered interest in watching television. The measures considered include:

• Reduction in the number of televisions used simultaneously in the home • Constrain the size of the television screen • Use of personal devices rather than television for watching broadcast and video



Exhibit 4.22 and Exhibit 4.23 show the assumptions made for televisions and television peripherals respectively. For televisions, moderate reductions in saturations were assumed for single-family and duplex homes. A consumption reduction of 15% was assumed. For television peripherals, a consumption reduction of 15%, as for televisions themselves, was assumed, though saturation was assumed to stay at Reference Case levels. The rationale is given below.

Exhibit 4.22: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Televisions, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes







Time Trend Used: S-Curve Exhibit 4.23: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Television Peripherals, Single-









4.5.4.15 Other Electronics This category refers to electronic entertainment devices. In keeping with the general decision on how household electronics are treated, the Lifestyle Scenario assumes no saturation reduction relative to the Reference Case. A slight reduction in the energy consumption was assumed, enabled by a combination of purchasing slightly smaller or otherwise lower-consuming models, and by substituting use of more personal, portable systems for some use of larger-scale entertainment systems. Exhibit 4.24 summarizes the assumptions made in the case of single-family detached and duplex homes.



Exhibit 4.24: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Other Electronics, Single-Family Detached and Duplex Homes








4.5.4.16 Pool and Spa Pool and spa are specialized end uses present in few homes, and their nature, generally as semi-luxury (though sometimes therapeutic), calls for different treatment than end uses with high saturation. The Lifestyle Choice scenario assumes, for the sake of argument, a 50% reduction in saturation hot tubs and pools in each region. It is also assumed that about 10% of those with pools or hot tubs may retire them or manage heating aggressively, e.g., turning them off except for a few times of year in which they are in use, etc. This would be plausible to the extent that many hot tubs are of symbolic rather than active use (e.g., used for a year or two after purchased, and then in standby). These assumptions are not based on any specific knowledge of hot tubs or pools and would profit from a more nuanced analysis. Exhibit 4.25 shows the assumptions for hot tub saturation changes and consumption reduction for each region.

Exhibit 4.25: Lifestyle Scenario Assumptions for F2026 for Hot Tubs, Single-Family

Detached and Duplex Homes







Time Trend Used: Linear



4.6 SCENARIO RESULTS There are three layers of modeling results for the Lifestyle Area:

The Housing Scenario, corresponding to the vision for Neighbourhood and Housing Choices, considered independently of other Lifestyle changes

The Lifestyle Scenario, corresponding to the vision for Energy Choices in the Home, considered independently of Housing changes

Housing and Lifestyle visions combined The combined scenario corresponds to the overall Lifestyle vision and represents the principal set of modelling results for energy use and peak demand. Because of dynamics between the Housing and Lifestyle Scenarios, the results are easier to interpret when discussed separately.

4.6.1 Model Results for the Housing Scenario

The changes described in Section 4.4.3 were used to create a future scenario using MetroQuest to determine the broad sustainability impacts of the vision. These results are presented and discussed in Appendix D. The housing data were also exported from MetroQuest and used in the Marbek Residential Sector Energy End-use Model (RSEEM) to determine the detailed electricity implications of the vision in relation to the Reference Case. A scenario called the Housing Scenario was developed that differs from the Reference Case only in terms of the housing stock changes that are assumed for each region throughout the 20-year study period. The detailed results of the Housing Scenario are presented in the Exhibits in this chapter and in the appendices. Exhibit 4.26 illustrates the energy savings that resulted from the changes in the Housing Scenario. The graph illustrates small savings in electricity use in the early part of the study period (F2006 to F2011) and increasing savings during the later stages. Annual electricity consumption in F2026 was 3.5% less than the Reference Case, resulting in savings totalling 786 GWh/yr as shown in Exhibit 4.27. The slower start in savings shown in Exhibit 4.26 can be attributed to the time required to shift land use policies and the slow turnover in housing units due to their long average lifespan. The negative savings shown in Exhibit 4.27 are the result of the changes assumed in the housing stock relative to the Reference Case. For example, the Housing Scenario assumes a significant increase in the stock of row housing units, causing many savings to be negative in row housing due to large increases in the total stock of those units. These results are explained in more detail in the following sections. Peak load savings of the housing scenario are presented in section 4.6.3.2 to allow for comparison between each of the three scenarios modeled relative to the Reference Case.



Exhibit 4.26: Projected Electricity Consumption for the Reference Case and the Three Scenarios by Milestone Year

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Ann

ual E

lect

ricity

Con

sum

ptio

n (G

Wh/

year

)

Reference Case Housing Scenario Lifestyle Scenario Housing & Lifestyle

Reference Scenario

Housing Scenario

Lifestyle Scenario




Exhibit 4.27: Projected Electricity Savings for the Housing Scenario (GWh/yr)

Tot

al

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

Was

her

Clo

thes

Dry

er

Lig

htin

g an

d C

ontr

ols

Com

pute

r an

d pe

riph

eral

s

Tel

evis

ion

Tel

evis

ion

Peri

pher

als

Oth

er

Ele

ctro

nics

Swim

min

g Po

ols

and

Hot

Tub

sSm

all

App

lianc

es &

O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

F2011 607 125 10 43 35 28 43 21 3 3 37 82 30 23 26 9 24 64 0F2016 1,250 252 22 86 68 57 79 39 6 7 73 166 74 47 60 19 46 149 0F2021 1,739 351 35 117 94 75 95 49 8 9 95 222 118 66 85 27 63 230 0F2026 2,161 431 48 142 113 90 102 55 10 10 111 266 166 84 105 34 76 319 0

F2011 -151 -50 0 -5 -16 -7 -9 -4 -1 -1 -8 -17 -7 -6 -6 -2 -1 -11 0F2016 -319 -98 -4 -11 -32 -14 -17 -8 -1 -1 -16 -35 -19 -13 -17 -5 -3 -25 0F2021 -475 -141 -10 -17 -46 -20 -21 -11 -2 -2 -22 -50 -34 -20 -25 -8 -5 -41 0F2026 -613 -175 -15 -22 -57 -25 -24 -14 -2 -2 -27 -63 -51 -27 -33 -11 -7 -58 0

F2011 -102 -21 -2 -4 -12 -5 -6 -1 0 0 -3 -30 -5 -4 -3 -2 0 -2 -2F2016 -276 -52 -4 -10 -31 -12 -15 -3 -1 -1 -8 -79 -18 -11 -14 -4 -1 -7 -5F2021 -493 -93 -6 -18 -54 -21 -26 -4 -2 -1 -13 -139 -37 -20 -25 -8 -1 -15 -9F2026 -640 -120 -9 -23 -70 -27 -32 -5 -2 -1 -16 -175 -54 -27 -33 -10 -1 -21 -12

F2011 -190 -49 -3 -7 -22 -9 -12 -3 -1 0 -5 -44 -10 -8 -6 -3 -1 -5 -1F2016 -344 -86 -5 -13 -37 -16 -21 -4 -1 -1 -9 -77 -23 -14 -18 -6 -2 -9 -2F2021 -356 -91 -7 -13 -39 -16 -20 -4 -1 -1 -9 -76 -26 -15 -19 -6 -2 -10 -2F2026 -570 -145 -10 -21 -62 -24 -29 -6 -2 -1 -14 -120 -48 -24 -30 -10 -3 -18 -4

F2011 84 16 4 4 11 4 6 4 0 0 5 7 3 3 4 1 2 7 0F2016 206 45 11 10 28 9 13 8 1 1 11 17 10 9 10 3 5 16 0F2021 313 69 18 15 41 13 16 11 1 1 15 25 18 13 17 5 8 26 0F2026 449 100 27 21 57 18 20 15 1 2 21 35 31 20 24 7 11 40 0

F2011 247 21 9 31 -3 11 22 18 2 2 26 -1 10 8 15 3 24 53 -3F2016 517 61 20 61 -4 23 39 33 4 5 51 -8 25 17 21 7 46 123 -7F2021 727 96 31 83 -5 31 44 41 5 6 67 -18 39 25 32 10 63 191 -11F2026 786 91 40 96 -19 31 37 46 5 7 75 -56 43 26 32 10 75 261 -15

Mile

ston

e Y

ear Residential

Mobile/Other

Grand Total

Det/Dupl

Row/Town

Dw

ellin

g T

ype

Highrise

Lowrise



As shown in Exhibit 4.28, the Housing Scenario involved significant decreases in the percentage of housing in detached and duplex units (16.3% less than the Reference Case) and mobile housing (28.8% less) and corresponding increases in row and apartment units. These changes would result in significant reductions in many areas including:

Total amount of Residential floor space Amount of space needing to be heated, cooled, lighted, ventilated Number of appliances (i.e., stand-alone freezers) that can be accommodated Number of electronics that can be accommodated Number of backyards large enough for hot tubs

Given these factors, it would be reasonable to expect larger than 3.5% savings per year by F2026 since smaller dwellings would require considerably less electricity. The anticipated savings were not realized as a result of some interesting and sometimes counterintuitive impacts of a shift towards more compact housing as described below. Exhibits 4.29, 4.30 and 4.31 present a breakdown of the savings achieved by F2026 by end-use category. These exhibits reveal a more detailed picture of how the savings are achieved. The next subsections will discuss each of the end-use categories separately.

4.6.1.1 Air Conditioning The impact of compact development results in significant reductions in the total residential floor space area and therefore the total area requiring cooling if cooling appliance were installed. The savings associated with a movement toward more compact forms of housing, however, yielded only very modest savings in air conditioning. There are two key reasons for this. 1. Outside the Lower Mainland, the saturation of air conditioning in the Reference Case

is assumed to be higher for row housing units than detached and duplex units. As more housing shifts to row housing in these less metropolitan regions, the number of air conditioners increases as shown in Appendix E. In these regions the desirability of ground-oriented compact housing (i.e., row housing) was estimated to be high and therefore this effect is pronounced.

2. In the Southern Interior, the saturation of air conditioners is highest and is expected to

rise further in the Reference Case. The saturation of air conditioners in apartment units rose to 97%, while the saturation in detached and duplex units reached 78%. The constraints on land availability, as a result of the Agricultural Land Reserve and terrain limitations, and the desirability of lakefront lifestyles in the Southern Interior gave rise to significant increases in apartment units in that service region, resulting in a significant increase in the incidence of air conditioner units relative to the Reference Case.



Exhibit 4.28: Comparison of Projected Growth in Housing Types for Reference Case and 2026 Vision to F2026

Reference Vision Reference Vision Reference Vision Reference Vision Reference Vision Percent Change

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating

20,440 24,385 6,883 6,051 57,759 18,890 18,890 22,006 20,796 6,258 5,779 5,431 4,924 52,585 50,388 -4.2%

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating

46,883 80,053 13,506 11,699 152,141 72,920 52,440 93,098 83,823 15,924 14,295 13,215 11,981 195,158 162,540 -16.7%

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating

116,928 35,508 30,062 24,323 206,821 106,607 82,826 32,394 32,394 27,464 27,464 21,906 20,844 188,372 163,528 -13.2%

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating

258,440 58,502 57,134 46,136 420,212 328,083 254,897 82,153 71,719 72,284 62,804 54,998 48,880 537,518 438,300 -18.5%

Single/Duplex, Total Electric 67,323 104,438 20,389 17,750 209,900 91,810 71,330 115,104 104,619 22,182 20,074 18,646 16,905 247,742 212,928 -14.1%Single/Duplex, Total 442,690 198,448 107,586 88,209 836,933 526,500 409,054 229,651 208,732 121,930 110,342 95,551 86,629 973,632 814,757 -16.3%Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 5,065 2,763 1,685 729 10,242 4,807 4,807 2,485 2,485 1,542 1,542 659 659 9,494 9,494 0.0%Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 55,819 11,951 5,185 907 73,862 102,338 113,792 13,379 25,740 6,584 14,025 1,208 4,203 123,509 157,759 27.7%Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 6,569 826 1,127 556 9,078 6,212 6,212 765 765 1,040 1,040 509 509 8,527 8,527 0.0%Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 29,142 3,815 3,661 1,417 38,035 50,754 56,843 6,206 11,637 5,178 10,872 2,141 6,394 64,279 85,747 33.4%Row, Total Electric 60,884 14,714 6,870 1,636 84,104 107,145 118,599 15,864 28,225 8,126 15,567 1,866 4,862 133,002 167,253 25.8%Row Total 96,595 19,355 11,658 3,609 131,217 164,111 181,654 22,835 40,628 14,345 27,480 4,516 11,764 205,808 261,527 27.1%Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite

41,311 23,066 7,608 7,526 79,511 73,686 95,814 32,098 36,202 10,466 16,190 8,995 17,246 125,244 165,451 32.1%

Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas

6,379 2,822 1,006 1,223 11,430 11,142 14,488 3,903 4,402 1,385 2,143 1,463 2,804 17,894 23,838 33.2%

Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite

62,266 11,242 4,332 4,349 82,189 69,618 90,524 12,441 14,031 4,868 7,530 4,640 8,896 91,565 120,980 32.1%

Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas

5,355 1,316 552 730 7,953 5,995 7,796 1,465 1,652 620 959 779 1,493 8,859 11,900 34.3%

Low-Rise, Total Electric 47,690 25,888 8,614 8,749 90,941 84,828 110,302 36,001 40,604 11,851 18,333 10,458 20,051 143,138 189,290 32.2%Low-Rise, Total 115,311 38,446 13,498 13,828 181,083 160,441 208,621 49,907 56,287 17,339 26,823 15,876 30,439 243,563 322,170 32.3%High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite

86,518 16,991 5,543 2,694 111,746 150,432 187,069 25,015 28,270 7,201 11,331 3,117 6,017 185,765 232,686 25.3%

High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas

1,211 315 105 55 1,686 2,190 2,723 431 487 143 224 65 126 2,828 3,560 25.9%

High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite

88,532 12,985 2,151 889 104,557 98,659 122,687 13,822 15,620 2,513 3,954 969 1,871 115,963 144,132 24.3%

High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas

1,262 190 42 20 1,514 1,403 1,745 209 237 49 77 22 42 1,683 2,100 24.8%

High-Rise, Total Electric 87,729 17,306 5,648 2,749 113,432 152,621 189,792 25,445 28,757 7,344 11,555 3,183 6,143 188,593 236,247 25.3%High-Rise, Total 177,523 30,481 7,841 3,658 219,503 252,684 314,224 39,476 44,614 9,906 15,586 4,173 8,056 306,239 382,479 24.9%Mobile, Electric Heating 12,723 13,681 9,816 5,094 41,314 21,259 19,181 21,985 18,056 14,303 9,284 7,422 4,315 64,968 50,836 -21.8%Mobile, Non-Electric Heating 12,597 15,056 21,155 20,483 69,291 16,310 14,593 20,682 16,988 29,637 19,151 28,695 17,168 95,324 67,899 -28.8%First Nations, Electric Heat 305 662 707 524 2,198 450 450 710 710 774 774 542 542 2,475 2,475 0.0%First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 1,363 499 1,584 780 4,226 1,631 1,631 652 652 1,866 1,866 854 854 5,003 5,003 0.0%Other, Electric 13,028 14,343 10,523 5,618 43,512 21,709 19,631 22,694 18,765 15,076 10,058 7,964 4,857 67,443 53,311 -21.0%Other, Total 26,988 29,898 33,262 26,881 117,029 39,650 35,855 44,028 36,405 46,579 31,075 37,514 22,879 167,771 126,214 -24.8%Subtotal, Electric 276,654 176,689 52,044 36,502 541,889 458,114 509,653 215,109 220,971 64,579 75,587 42,117 52,818 779,919 859,029 10.1%Subtotal, Non-Electric 575,836 138,433 121,207 98,933 934,409 677,874 630,214 169,113 163,807 144,851 134,682 114,713 105,414 1,078,350 999,241 -7.3%Subtotal 843,232 310,824 169,849 132,853 1,456,758 1,120,575 1,120,575 378,527 378,527 205,262 205,262 153,906 153,906 1,858,269 1,858,269 0.0%

Vancouver Island Southern Interior Northern RegionF2026

TotalLower MainlandDwelling Type

F2006

Lower Mainland

Vancouver Island

Southern Interior

Northern Region Total



Exhibit 4.29: Estimated Electricity Savings in F2026 for the Three Scenarios Relative to Reference Case

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ACApp

lianc

esDHW

Electro

nics

HeatLigh

ting

Other

Ventila

tion

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

yr

Housing ScenarioLifestyle ScenarioHousing & Lifestyle



Exhibit 4.30: Savings by End Use and Service Region for the Housing Scenario

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

AC

Appliances

DHW

Electro

nics

Heat

Lightin

g

OtherVen

tilatio

n

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

yr)

Lower MainlandVancouver IslandSouthern InteriorNorthern Region



Exhibit 4.31: Savings by Service Region by Housing Type for the Housing Scenario

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026

Lower Mainland Vancouver Island Southern Interior Northern Region

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

year

)

Mobile/OtherLowriseHighriseRow/TownDet/Dupl



4.6.1.2 Appliances The energy savings in appliances in the Housing Scenario is intuitive. As one would expect, smaller housing units have less room for appliances that are, by some, considered optional: second refrigerators, stand-alone freezers and dishwashers. As shown in Exhibit 2.9 and Appendix E, the saturation of these appliances is considerably lower in row housing and apartments than it is in detached and duplex houses and therefore the shift to more compact housing results in significantly lower numbers of these appliances. Since refrigeration (refrigerators and freezers) accounted for 13% of all Residential energy use in F2006, savings in this area as a result of shifts in housing can be significant. To a lesser extent, clothes washers and dryers fall into this category but since most apartment buildings have clothes washers and dryers the energy use simply shifts to common areas in those buildings and no real savings are achieved. 4.6.1.3 Domestic Hot Water The result of the Housing Scenario on DHW is complex. Firstly, one would expect that DHW use would not change considerably with changes to housing types since the primary uses of hot water (showers, baths) are most closely related to the numbers of people and not the housing type. The fact, therefore, that only very modest savings were shown in Vancouver Island, Southern Interior and the Northern Region is not surprising. The significant increase in energy use in the Lower Mainland for DHW in the Housing Scenario is due to the following factors: 1. Across all regions, the share of new housing units that are built using electricity as a

primary source for heating goes up considerably with the more compact forms of housing, as shown in Exhibit 4.5. In the Lower Mainland, less than 30% of new detached and duplex houses use electric heat as a primary source, while the share for new apartments is over 80%. The result is a steeper increase in the number of housing units using electricity as a primary source for heating relative to the Reference Case and, since the population growth is projected to be the largest in the Lower Mainland, this shift is largest in that region. Exhibit 4.28 shows the growth in electrically-heated housing units to be 10.1% higher in the Housing Scenario than in the Reference Case.

2. Exhibit 2.11 shows that housing units not heated by electricity rarely use electricity as

a source for DHW, as the majority of these units use gas for heating water. The result is a dramatic decrease in the numbers of housing units using electricity as a source for DHW.

4.6.1.4 Electronics The energy savings in electronics in the Housing Scenario is also intuitive. As one would expect, smaller housing units have, in general, less room for electronics. Exhibit 2.9 illustrates that the saturation of televisions, peripherals, computers and other electronics is significantly lower in the more compact forms of housing. For example, detached and duplex houses are projected to have an average of slightly less than two televisions per



house while the average for apartments is 1.29 televisions per suite. The shift to more compact housing results in significantly lower numbers of electronics. Home electronics accounted for approximately 9% of all residential energy use in F2006 and that share is projected to increase over the study period as shown by the increases in the saturation of these devices. Due to these factors, savings in this area as a result of shifts in housing can be significant. 4.6.1.5 Heat The result of the Housing Scenario on heating, like some of the other categories, is somewhat underwhelming due to the interplay between various countervailing factors. One would expect that, due to the reductions in the total residential floor space area and therefore the total area requiring heating, the savings associated with heating would be significant. The Housing Scenario yielded only very modest savings in heating given the fact that heat is such a large share of total electricity used in homes (24% in F2006). The reason for the modest savings, and even the slight increase in the Southern Interior and Northern Regions, is due to the factors described below. 1. Across all regions, the growth of new housing units that are built using electricity as a

primary source for heating is considerably higher than the growth in non-electrically heated units particularly, in the Lower Mainland as shown in Exhibit 4.5. The result is an increasing share of housing units heated by electricity.

2. The growth rate of apartments using electricity as a primary heating source is much

higher than the growth rate of apartments not using electricity as a primary source. In the Lower Mainland apartments are growing at a rate of over 3.0% for electrically heated units while non-electrically heated units are growing at about 0.5% to 0.6%. Less than 30% of new detached and duplex houses use electric heat as a primary source, while the share for new apartments is over 80%. The result is a steeper increase in the number of housing units using electricity as a primary source for heating relative to the Reference Case, and since the population growth is projected to be the largest in the Lower Mainland, this shift is largest in that region. Exhibit 4.28 shows the growth in electrically-heated housing units to be 10.1% higher in the Housing Scenario than in the Reference Case.

3. Further increases in electricity used for space heating is a result of the fact that row

houses and apartments that are not heated using electricity as a primary source use considerably more electricity as a secondary source to complement their primary source of heat as shown in Exhibit 2.10. Among new non-electrically heated homes, row houses use electricity to generate 11% of their heat, low-rise apartments use it for 16% and high-rise apartments use it for 42%; the figure for detached and duplex houses is only 3%. The result is that, with a shift towards more compact housing, there is a further increase in the percentage of heat that is generated by electricity.

4.6.1.6 Lighting With the decrease in the amount of floor space in the Residential sector in the Housing Scenario relative to the Reference Case, it would be reasonable to expect corresponding



decreases in lighting. As shown in Exhibit 4.29, lighting showed the most dramatic increase (negative savings) of any of the end-use categories, accounting for an increase of 56 GWh/yr by F2026. The reason for this lies in the large share of lighting used in common areas in apartment buildings. Apartment buildings typically leave lights on 24 hours per day throughout all common areas including hallways, stairways, parking, lobby and outdoor areas. This electricity use results in higher lighting use on a per unit basis in apartments than in detached and duplex housing. Exhibit 2.11 illustrates that the total average lighting energy use per unit is lowest for row housing (1,400 KWh/yr in the Lower Mainland) and detached and duplex (1,847 KWh/yr in the Lower Mainland); next highest is low-rise apartments (approximately 1,900 KWh/yr in the Lower Mainland); and high-rise units use the most electricity for lighting on a per unit basis (approximately 2,500 KWh/yr in the Lower Mainland). As a result of the shift toward more apartment units in the Housing Scenario relative to the Reference Case, lighting use increases significantly. 4.6.1.7 Other Residential End Uses The most significant savings in electricity use in the Housing Scenario came from the “other” end-use category that combines two end-use categories, both of which are strongly affected by the downsizing of housing. 1. Swimming Pools and Hot Tubs. The majority of swimming pools in B.C. are heated

by gas, while the majority of hot tubs are heated with electricity. It is, therefore, the hot tub that is of greatest significance when seeking to conserve electricity. As illustrated in Exhibit 2.9, in the Lower Mainland 12% of detached and duplex houses operate pools or hot tubs compared to only 2% of row houses. In apartments, 10% of apartments operate pools or hot tubs but they are typically in common areas and are shared among the tenants in the building so the amount of electricity per unit is far less than in detached and duplex homes. Exhibit 4.32 shows the average number of suites per building. While the average size of pools or hot tubs in apartments is significantly larger than in detached and duplex homes, as shown in Exhibit 2.8, the extra size is more than offset by the fact that several units share the hot tubs. Exhibit 2.11 presents the average electricity use per unit factoring in the saturation levels of these appliances. In the Lower Mainland, for example, in apartments the electricity use per unit is less than 20 KWh/yr for high-rise units and 81 KWh/yr for low-rise units; in detached and duplex homes, the average electricity use is 387 KWh/yr. The result of a shift away from detached and duplex homes, therefore, yields considerable savings in electricity use as a result of fewer pools or hot tubs per capita. Exhibit 4.27 show a total of 75 GWh/yr saved in this category alone accounting for approximately 10% of the total savings of the Housing Scenario.



Exhibit 4.32: Average Suites per Building Type by Service Region

Lower Mainland

Vancouver Island

Southern Interior

Northern Region

BC Hydro Service Region

AverageLowrise <=4 fl, Suites, Elec heat 6.5 8.2 7.6 6.2 7.0Lowrise <=4 fl, Suites, Non-elec heat 11.6 8.5 7.8 6.0 10.3Highrise >4 fl, Suites, Elec heat 71.4 53.9 52.8 49.0 66.3Highrise >4 fl, Suites, Non-elec heat 70.2 68.3 51.2 44.5 69.1

Dwelling Type

Average Suites per BuildingRegion

2. Small Appliances and Other. Larger homes have more rooms and areas that allow for additional use of small appliances and other electrical devices relative to smaller units. Exhibit 2.8 shows the relatively large amount of electricity used in this category in detached and duplex homes relative to any other form of housing. The result of a shift away from detached and duplex homes is a dramatic decline in electricity use in this category. Exhibit 4.27 illustrates that 261 GWh/yr of savings can be attributed to this category alone, accounting for 33% of the savings achieved in the Housing Scenario.

4.6.1.8 Ventilation The energy savings in ventilation in the Housing Scenario is intuitive. As one would expect, smaller housing units, particularly the rapidly growing row and low-rise apartment units, have less area to be ventilated, even when common areas are included, and therefore electricity use for ventilation per unit decreases with the shift to these more compact forms of housing. Exhibit 4.27 presents the savings associated with the Housing Scenario for ventilation. The vast majority of the savings comes from less ventilation energy used in detached and duplex homes and in total 96 GWh/yr of savings are attributed to changing needs for ventilation. This accounts for 12% of the savings achieved by the Housing Scenario.

4.6.2 Model Results for the Lifestyle Scenario

The Lifestyle Scenario employs the assumptions for saturation and consumption reduction specified in the discussion of lifestyle choices measures and strategies above. This section summarizes the modeling results for this scenario, considered separately from the Housing Scenario.

4.6.2.1 Energy Savings for the Lifestyle Scenario Exhibits 4.33, 4.34 and 4.35 summarize savings by end use in F2026 for the Lifestyle Scenario as compared to the Reference Case. The relative contribution of savings from each end use is roughly similar to Base Year consumption levels for the end use. However, lighting contributes only 7% of savings as compared to a 16% share of energy consumption in the Residential sector Base Year, and appliances contribute only 18% of savings compared to a 26% share of energy consumption in the Residential sector Base



Year. Three categories – heating, appliances and other – together contribute 75% of total modeled savings. The “other” category is dominated by the small appliance and other subcategory (70% of other category savings), with swimming pools and hot tubs contributing the remaining 30% of category savings. The Lifestyle Scenario assumed a modest 5% saturation reduction and, depending on building type, 10% to 15% consumption reduction for small appliances and other. The higher expected growth in the small appliance and other category (from 7% of total Residential electricity use in F2006 to 11% in the F2026 Reference Case) creates opportunities for savings from lifestyle choices.

Details are given in Exhibit 4.36, which shows the modeled savings by building type for F2026 and all milestone years, by detailed end-use category.81 Savings by end use over all residential building types and the contribution of each category to total savings for the BC Hydro service area are shown in the bottom section. To the extent that the modelling assumptions are correct, the results indicate the potential importance of “miscellaneous” rather than classic end uses to total growth and thus potential savings. The relatively aggressive lifestyle choice assumptions made for reductions in saturations of hot tubs, for which saturation is low but average UEC is high, also contribute notably to total savings (5% of total savings in F2026). This result suggests the potential importance of uncommon but high-consuming end uses to savings in comparison to very common but moderate-use end uses. For example, savings in the cooking end use contribute only 3%.

Exhibit 4.33: Summary of Modeled Electricity Savings in F2026 by End Use for Lifestyle

Choices compared to Reference Case

End Use

Savings Compared to Reference Case (%GWh)

% of Lifestyle Scenario Savings

Space Heating 495 21% Space Cooling 67 4% Ventilation 62 6% Domestic Hot Water 159 5% Lighting 266 7% Appliances 333 18% Electronics 301 15% Other 335 23%

Total Savings (GWh in F2026)

2018 100%

81 The Elevator end use is not shown as no Lifestyle Choices were considered.



Exhibit 4.34: Savings by End Use and Service Region for the Lifestyle Scenario

0

50

100

150

200

250

AC

Appliances

DHW

Electro

nics

Heat

Lightin

gOther

Ventila

tion

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

yr)

Lower MainlandNorthern RegionSouthern InteriorVancouver Island



Exhibit 4.35: Savings by Service Region by Housing Type for the Lifestyle Scenario

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026

Lower Mainland Northern Region Southern Interior Vancouver Island

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

year

)




Exhibit 4.36: Modeled Electricity Savings by Dwelling Type and Detailed End Use for Lifestyle Scenario compared to Reference Case, all Milestone Years

Residential

Dw

ellin

g T

ype

Mile

ston

e Y

ear

Tot

al

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

Was

her

Clo

thes

Dry

er

Lig

htin

g an

d C

ontr

ols

Com

pute

r an

d pe

riph

eral

s

Tel

evis

ion

Tel

evis

ion

Peri

pher

als

Oth

er E

lect

roni

cs

Swim

min

g Po

ols a

nd H

ot

Tub

s

Smal

l App

lianc

es a

nd

Oth

er

F2011 369 24 7 10 57 13 4 10 2 4 62 94 2 3 3 1 16 59 F2016 868 148 19 22 99 27 25 21 3 7 110 166 20 20 20 5 38 120 F2021 1,367 333 34 35 116 41 54 26 3 8 130 196 52 48 49 11 65 166 F2026 1,620 401 53 49 120 55 61 27 3 9 134 203 73 64 60 14 94 200

Det/Dupl

F2011 21 2 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 F2016 58 12 1 1 7 2 0 1 0 1 6 9 2 3 2 1 1 9 F2021 105 29 3 2 9 4 0 1 0 1 8 12 7 8 4 1 1 14 F2026 134 36 5 3 10 5 0 1 0 1 9 13 10 12 6 2 1 19

Row/Town

F2011 22 1 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 F2016 53 6 1 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 21 2 2 2 1 0 2 F2021 86 16 2 3 11 3 0 0 0 0 3 26 6 7 4 1 0 4 F2026 106 20 4 4 12 4 0 0 0 0 3 28 9 10 5 2 0 5

Highrise

F2011 15 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 F2016 36 6 1 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 12 2 2 1 0 0 2 F2021 61 14 2 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 15 5 5 3 1 0 2 F2026 75 18 2 3 8 3 0 0 0 0 3 16 7 7 4 1 0 3

Lowrise

F2011 14 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 F2016 37 6 1 1 7 1 0 1 0 0 4 4 2 2 1 0 1 5 F2021 63 15 2 2 9 2 0 1 0 1 5 5 4 5 3 1 2 7 F2026 82 19 4 3 10 3 0 1 0 1 6 6 6 7 4 1 3 9

Mobile/Other

F2011 442 29 8 12 72 16 4 12 2 5 68 119 3 4 4 1 17 66

F2016 1,052 178 24 27 128 34 25 23 4 9 124 212 28 28 26 6 40 138

F2021 1,682 406 43 44 152 52 54 29 4 11 148 254 73 73 63 15 68 193 Grand Total

F2026 2,018 495 67 62 159 71 61 31 5 11 155 266 104 99 78 20 99 236

F2011 100% 7% 2% 3% 16% 4% 1% 3% 0% 1% 15% 27% 1% 1% 1% 0% 4% 15%

F2016 100% 17% 2% 3% 12% 3% 2% 2% 0% 1% 12% 20% 3% 3% 2% 1% 4% 13%

F2021 100% 24% 3% 3% 9% 3% 3% 2% 0% 1% 9% 15% 4% 4% 4% 1% 4% 11%

Grand Total, Shown as %

of Year's Savings

F2026 100% 25% 3% 3% 8% 4% 3% 2% 0% 1% 8% 13% 5% 5% 4% 1% 5% 12%

Exhibit 4.37 shows the savings from the Lifestyle Scenario relative to the Reference Case. Total savings in the BC Hydro service area from the Lifestyle Scenario relative to



the Reference Case are 9%. Scenario savings are proportional across all service regions and are to be expected since Lifestyle Scenario assumptions relative to Reference Case assumptions varied little among regions. The 9% savings estimated might seem unimpressive relative to the level of lifestyle changes envisioned in the Lifestyle Scenario; however, the Reference Case represents a 37% increase in the consumption relative to the Base Year, whereas the Lifestyle Scenario represents only a 25% growth relative to the Base Year. Viewed relative to energy use growth in the sector, the Lifestyle Scenario reduces the growth of Residential sector electricity use over the Base Year to only two-thirds of the expected level modeled in the Reference Case.

Exhibit 4.37: Summary of Modeled Electricity Savings in F2026 by Service Area for

Lifestyle Scenario compared to Reference Case

Data Base Year (GWh/F2006)

Reference Case (GWh/F2026)

Lifestyle Scenario (GWh/F2026)

Percentage Savings versus Reference Case

Lower Mainland 8463 12492 11414 9%Vancouver Island 4258 5415 4868 10%Southern Interior 1952 2541 2299 10%Northern Region 1433 1708 1558 9%BC Hydro Service Area 16106 22156 20138 9%

4.6.2.2 Peak Demand Savings from Lifestyle Scenario This section discusses the modeled peak demand load savings from the Lifestyle Scenario. Load profiles remain as specified in the original Reference Case. In reality, measures and strategies proposed above as lifestyle choices would likely affect end-use load profiles as well as energy consumption. The nature of these load profile shifts is speculative beyond the scope of the analysis.

Exhibit 4.38 shows peak demand savings for the Lifestyle Scenario. The scenario produces a marked slowing of growth for the peak loads analyzed, with F2026 levels under the Scenario close to levels seen for F2011 and F2016 in the Reference Case.



Exhibit 4.38: Reduction in Peak Loads, by Milestone Year, Peak Period and Service Region (MW)

Peak Period

Service Region Milestone Year Period 1 Peak Hour

Period 2 Critical Peak Day

Period 3 Winter Peak Day

Period 4 Winter Peak Energy

F2006 0 0 0 0 F2011 117 107 87 81 F2016 294 587 482 414 F2021 489 424 348 296 F2026 587 973 788 673

Total BC Hydro

F2006 0 0 0 0 F2011 64 59 45 42 F2016 157 346 276 238 F2021 258 231 184 158 F2026 313 663 526 451

Lower Mainland

F2006 0 0 0 0 F2011 30 29 26 24 F2016 83 155 133 113 F2021 144 129 111 92 F2026 171 208 177 148

Vancouver Island

F2006 0 0 0 0 F2011 12 11 9 9 F2016 30 42 36 31 F2021 48 34 28 25 F2026 57 58 48 42

Southern Interior

F2006 0 0 0 0 F2011 10 9 7 7 F2016 24 44 37 32 F2021 39 30 25 21 F2026 46 44 37 31

Northern Region



Exhibit 4.39 shows the percentage reductions of peak load relative to the Reference Case by milestone year for the total BC Hydro service area. The modeled savings for F2026 indicate a 9% reduction for Peak Period 1 Peak Hour, a 16% reduction for Peak Period 2 Critical Peak Day, and 15% reductions for Peak Period 3 Critical Winter Peak Day and Peak Period 4 Winter Peak Energy over the total BC Hydro service area. The reductions for Periods 2, 3 and 4 surpass the modeled degree of energy use reduction (9%). For Periods 2, 3 and 4, the Peak Reductions increase sharply between F2011 and F2016, and then decrease again between F2016 and F2021. This pattern is concurrent with a flattening of peak load between F2011 and F2016 in the Reference Case.

Exhibit 4.39: Reduction in Peak Loads, by Milestone Year and Peak Period for Total BC Hydro Service Area (% Reduction from Reference Case)

Peak Period

Milestone Year Period 1

Peak Hour

Period 2Critical

Peak Day


Period 4Winter Peak

Energy

F2006 0% 0% 0% 0% F2011 2% 2% 2% 2% F2016 5% 11% 11% 11% F2021 8% 8% 8% 8% F2026 9% 16% 15% 15%

4.6.3 Model Results for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

The Housing and Lifestyle Scenario combines both the housing mix changes incorporated into the Housing Scenario and the changes to energy use in the home incorporated into the Lifestyle Scenario. 4.6.3.1 Energy Use Exhibit 4.26 presents the total energy use of the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario relative to each of the other scenarios including the Reference Case. The graph shows a significant savings over the Reference Case totalling 2,545 GWh/yr by F2026. Exhibits 4.40 to 4.42 present the savings achieved by the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario by end use, service region and housing type. The savings are close to an addition of the savings achieved by each of the Housing and Lifestyle Scenarios separately. There is not a perfect additive correlation as revealed in the more detailed results shown in Exhibits 4.43 through 4.45. As described above, the measures employed in the Lifestyle Scenario, in many cases, were applied more aggressively to residents in detached and duplex homes, as it was determined that there was more opportunity for lifestyle-based conservation in those forms of dwellings. The decline in detached and duplex housing in both the Housing and Housing and Lifestyle Scenarios resulted in a corresponding decline in savings.



Exhibit 4.40: Savings by End Use and Service Region for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

AC

Appliances

DHW

Electro

nics

Heat

Lightin

gOther

Ventila

tion

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

yr)

Lower MainlandNorthern RegionSouthern InteriorVancouver Island



Exhibit 4.41: Savings by Service Region by Housing Type for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026 2011 2016 2021 2026

Lower Mainland Vancouver Island Southern Interior Northern Region

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (G

Wh/

year

)




Exhibit 4.42: Total Electricity Use by Service Region by Scenario Compared to the Reference Case and Base Year (GWh/yr)

Lower Mainland

Vancouver Island

Southern Interior

Northern Region Base Year

Reference Case

Housing Scenario

Lifestyle Scenario

Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

(GWh/yr)



Exhibit 4.43: Projected Electricity Savings for the Housing Scenario (GWh/yr)

Tot

al

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

Was

her

Clo

thes

Dry

er

Lig

htin

g an

d C

ontr

ols

Com

pute

r an

d pe

riph

eral

s

Tel

evis

ion

Tel

evis

ion

Peri

pher

als

Oth

er

Ele

ctro

nics

Swim

min

g Po

ols

and

Hot

Tub

sSm

all

App

lianc

es &

O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

F2011 607 125 10 43 35 28 43 21 3 3 37 82 30 23 26 9 24 64 0F2016 1,250 252 22 86 68 57 79 39 6 7 73 166 74 47 60 19 46 149 0F2021 1,739 351 35 117 94 75 95 49 8 9 95 222 118 66 85 27 63 230 0F2026 2,161 431 48 142 113 90 102 55 10 10 111 266 166 84 105 34 76 319 0

F2011 -151 -50 0 -5 -16 -7 -9 -4 -1 -1 -8 -17 -7 -6 -6 -2 -1 -11 0F2016 -319 -98 -4 -11 -32 -14 -17 -8 -1 -1 -16 -35 -19 -13 -17 -5 -3 -25 0F2021 -475 -141 -10 -17 -46 -20 -21 -11 -2 -2 -22 -50 -34 -20 -25 -8 -5 -41 0F2026 -613 -175 -15 -22 -57 -25 -24 -14 -2 -2 -27 -63 -51 -27 -33 -11 -7 -58 0

F2011 -102 -21 -2 -4 -12 -5 -6 -1 0 0 -3 -30 -5 -4 -3 -2 0 -2 -2F2016 -276 -52 -4 -10 -31 -12 -15 -3 -1 -1 -8 -79 -18 -11 -14 -4 -1 -7 -5F2021 -493 -93 -6 -18 -54 -21 -26 -4 -2 -1 -13 -139 -37 -20 -25 -8 -1 -15 -9F2026 -640 -120 -9 -23 -70 -27 -32 -5 -2 -1 -16 -175 -54 -27 -33 -10 -1 -21 -12

F2011 -190 -49 -3 -7 -22 -9 -12 -3 -1 0 -5 -44 -10 -8 -6 -3 -1 -5 -1F2016 -344 -86 -5 -13 -37 -16 -21 -4 -1 -1 -9 -77 -23 -14 -18 -6 -2 -9 -2F2021 -356 -91 -7 -13 -39 -16 -20 -4 -1 -1 -9 -76 -26 -15 -19 -6 -2 -10 -2F2026 -570 -145 -10 -21 -62 -24 -29 -6 -2 -1 -14 -120 -48 -24 -30 -10 -3 -18 -4

F2011 84 16 4 4 11 4 6 4 0 0 5 7 3 3 4 1 2 7 0F2016 206 45 11 10 28 9 13 8 1 1 11 17 10 9 10 3 5 16 0F2021 313 69 18 15 41 13 16 11 1 1 15 25 18 13 17 5 8 26 0F2026 449 100 27 21 57 18 20 15 1 2 21 35 31 20 24 7 11 40 0

F2011 247 21 9 31 -3 11 22 18 2 2 26 -1 10 8 15 3 24 53 -3F2016 517 61 20 61 -4 23 39 33 4 5 51 -8 25 17 21 7 46 123 -7F2021 727 96 31 83 -5 31 44 41 5 6 67 -18 39 25 32 10 63 191 -11F2026 786 91 40 96 -19 31 37 46 5 7 75 -56 43 26 32 10 75 261 -15

Mile

ston

e Y

ear Residential

Mobile/Other

Grand Total

Det/Dupl

Row/Town

Dw

ellin

g T

ype

Highrise

Lowrise

Notes: Any differences in totals are due to rounding. This is the same as Exhibit 4.27 and is included here to allow for side-by-side comparison



Exhibit 4.44: Projected Electricity Savings for the Lifestyle Scenario (GWh/yr)

Tot

al

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

Was

her

Clo

thes

Dry

er

Lig

htin

g an

d C

ontr

ols

Com

pute

r an

d pe

riph

eral

s

Tel

evis

ion

Tel

evis

ion

Peri

pher

als

Oth

er

Ele

ctro

nics

Swim

min

g Po

ols

and

Hot

Tub

sSm

all

App

lianc

es &

O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

F2011 369 24 7 10 57 13 4 10 2 4 62 94 2 3 3 1 16 59 0F2016 868 148 19 22 99 27 25 21 3 7 110 166 20 20 20 5 38 120 0F2021 1,367 333 34 35 116 41 54 26 3 8 130 196 52 48 49 11 65 166 0F2026 1,620 401 53 49 120 55 61 27 3 9 134 203 73 64 60 14 94 200 0

F2011 21 2 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0F2016 58 12 1 1 7 2 0 1 0 1 6 9 2 3 2 1 1 9 0F2021 105 29 3 2 9 4 0 1 0 1 8 12 7 8 4 1 1 14 0F2026 134 36 5 3 10 5 0 1 0 1 9 13 10 12 6 2 1 19 0

F2011 22 1 0 1 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0F2016 53 6 1 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 21 2 2 2 1 0 2 0F2021 86 16 2 3 11 3 0 0 0 0 3 26 6 7 4 1 0 4 0F2026 106 20 4 4 12 4 0 0 0 0 3 28 9 10 5 2 0 5 0

F2011 15 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 0F2016 36 6 1 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 2 12 2 2 1 0 0 2 0F2021 61 14 2 2 8 2 0 0 0 0 2 15 5 5 3 1 0 2 0F2026 75 18 2 3 8 3 0 0 0 0 3 16 7 7 4 1 0 3 0

F2011 14 1 0 0 4 1 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0F2016 37 6 1 1 7 1 0 1 0 0 4 4 2 2 1 0 1 5 0F2021 63 15 2 2 9 2 0 1 0 1 5 5 4 5 3 1 2 7 0F2026 82 19 4 3 10 3 0 1 0 1 6 6 6 7 4 1 3 9 0

F2011 442 29 8 12 72 16 4 12 2 5 68 119 3 4 4 1 17 66 0F2016 1,052 178 24 27 128 34 25 23 4 9 124 212 28 28 26 6 40 138 0F2021 1,682 406 43 44 152 52 54 29 4 11 148 254 73 73 63 15 68 193 0F2026 2,018 495 67 62 159 71 61 31 5 11 155 266 104 99 78 20 99 236 0

Highrise

Lowrise

Mobile/Other

Grand Total

Residential

Det/Dupl

Dw

ellin

g T

ype

Mile

ston

e Y

ear

Row/Town

Note: Any differences in totals are due to rounding.



Exhibit 4.45: Projected Electricity Savings for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario (GWh/yr)

Tot

al

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

Was

her

Clo

thes

Dry

er

Lig

htin

g an

d C

ontr

ols

Com

pute

r an

d pe

riph

eral

s

Tel

evis

ion

Tel

evis

ion

Peri

pher

als

Oth

er

Ele

ctro

nics

Swim

min

g Po

ols

and

Hot

Tub

sSm

all

App

lianc

es &

O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

F2011 948 148 16 52 90 41 46 29 5 7 93 171 32 25 29 10 36 118 0F2016 1,994 387 37 104 160 81 96 53 9 13 164 313 91 62 78 23 73 252 0F2021 2,857 644 59 144 198 111 129 65 11 16 197 389 162 100 126 36 105 365 0F2026 3,436 775 83 178 217 137 139 70 12 18 212 435 225 126 155 45 134 475 0

F2011 -79 -48 0 -4 -12 -6 -9 -3 0 0 -4 -12 -7 -6 -5 -2 0 -7 0F2016 -214 -84 -2 -10 -23 -11 -17 -7 -1 -1 -8 -24 -16 -9 -15 -5 -2 -14 0F2021 -383 -106 -4 -14 -35 -16 -21 -10 -1 -1 -11 -36 -25 -8 -20 -6 -4 -22 0F2026 -499 -129 -5 -17 -44 -19 -24 -12 -2 -1 -14 -47 -37 -9 -26 -8 -5 -33 0

F2011 -173 -20 -2 -3 -8 -4 -6 -1 0 0 -1 -18 -5 -4 -3 -1 0 -1 -2F2016 -296 -45 -2 -9 -22 -10 -15 -2 -1 0 -5 -55 -15 -8 -12 -4 -1 -4 -5F2021 -278 -74 -2 -15 -41 -17 -26 -4 -1 -1 -9 -108 -29 -9 -20 -6 -1 -10 -9F2026 -463 -96 -2 -18 -56 -21 -32 -5 -1 -1 -12 -139 -43 -11 -27 -8 -1 -15 -12

F2011 97 -48 -3 -7 -18 -9 -12 -2 -1 0 -4 -36 -10 -8 -6 -3 -1 -4 -1F2016 235 -79 -3 -11 -30 -14 -21 -4 -1 0 -7 -62 -20 -11 -17 -5 -2 -7 -2F2021 359 -73 -3 -10 -30 -13 -20 -4 -1 0 -6 -58 -20 -7 -16 -5 -2 -7 -2F2026 503 -120 -4 -17 -51 -20 -29 -5 -1 -1 -10 -99 -39 -12 -26 -8 -3 -13 -4

F2011 -127 17 4 5 15 4 6 5 0 1 6 9 3 3 4 1 3 9 0F2016 -248 51 11 11 34 10 13 9 1 1 13 20 11 10 10 3 6 20 0F2021 -338 81 18 16 48 14 16 12 1 2 19 29 21 16 19 5 9 31 0F2026 -432 115 27 23 65 20 20 16 1 2 24 39 34 23 27 8 13 46 0

F2011 666 49 16 43 67 27 25 28 4 7 89 114 13 11 18 4 38 115 -3F2016 1,471 230 41 86 118 55 56 49 7 13 158 192 51 44 45 13 75 247 -7F2021 2,216 473 68 121 139 79 78 60 9 16 190 217 108 92 89 24 107 357 -11F2026 2,545 545 98 150 131 96 74 64 10 17 201 189 141 118 103 28 137 460 -15

Grand Total

Row/Town

Highrise

Lowrise

Mobile/Other

Dw

ellin

g T

ype

Mile

ston

e Y

ear Residential

Det/Dupl

Note: Any differences in totals are due to rounding.



4.6.3.2 Peak Load The results of the peak analysis present a similar picture to the energy results. Exhibits 4.46 through 4.50 present the results of the peak analysis of the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario relative to the other scenarios. A total savings of 717 MW is estimated by F2026 relative to the Reference Case with the majority of the savings being achieved in the later years of the analysis period. The lagging effect is the result of the time that is estimated to be required to implement changes to the housing stock and the lifestyles of B.C. residents.

Exhibit 4.46: Comparison of Projected Electricity Peak Load Reductions to F2026 from

the Reference Case and the Three Scenarios

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

F2006 F2011 F2016 F2021 F2026

MW

Reference Case Housing Scenario Lifestyle Scenario Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

Reference Scenario

Housing Only

Lifestyle Only




Exhibit 4.47: Projected Capacity Summary for the Reference Scenario Capacity Summary

Period 1Peak Hour




F2006 4,812 4,360 3,638 3,055F2011 5,244 4,778 3,975 3,348F2016 5,632 5,464 4,541 3,829F2021 6,007 5,479 4,554 3,843F2026 6,335 6,258 5,184 4,386

F2006 2,542 2,280 1,845 1,566F2011 2,825 2,554 2,065 1,758F2016 3,094 3,012 2,440 2,077F2021 3,359 3,055 2,479 2,111F2026 3,591 3,662 2,966 2,529

F2006 1,352 1,250 1,092 891F2011 1,441 1,337 1,163 953F2016 1,516 1,486 1,287 1,057F2021 1,585 1,469 1,272 1,046F2026 1,644 1,582 1,366 1,127

F2006 489 440 373 322F2011 527 477 402 348F2016 554 518 436 378F2021 579 518 435 378F2026 600 554 465 404

F2006 429 389 329 275F2011 450 410 345 290F2016 467 448 378 316F2021 484 437 367 308F2026 500 461 388 326

Service Region

Milestone Year

Peak Period

Total BCH

Lower Mainland

Vancouver Island

Southern Interior

Northern Region



Exhibit 4.48: Projected Capacity Summary and Reductions for the Housing Scenario Capacity Summary

Period 1Peak Hour




F2006 4,812 4,360 3,638 3,054F2011 5,181 4,722 3,931 3,309F2016 5,498 5,029 4,186 3,527F2021 5,819 5,339 4,443 3,746F2026 6,140 5,651 4,701 3,967

F2006 2,542 2,280 1,844 1,566F2011 2,790 2,523 2,042 1,737F2016 3,009 2,735 2,219 1,888F2021 3,232 2,950 2,397 2,040F2026 3,459 3,169 2,579 2,195

F2006 1,352 1,250 1,092 891F2011 1,428 1,325 1,153 944F2016 1,488 1,383 1,200 985F2021 1,545 1,438 1,246 1,024F2026 1,600 1,492 1,290 1,062

F2006 489 440 373 322F2011 517 468 394 342F2016 541 492 414 358F2021 566 516 434 375F2026 591 540 453 393

F2006 429 389 329 275F2011 446 406 342 287F2016 460 420 353 296F2021 476 435 366 307F2026 491 450 378 317

Service Region

Total BCH

Milestone Year

Peak Period

Lower Mainland

Northern Region

Vancouver Island

Southern Interior

Reductions

Period 1Peak Hour




F2011 63 56 44 39F2016 134 435 355 302F2021 188 140 111 97F2026 195 608 483 420

Peak Period

Total BCH

Service Region

Milestone Year



Exhibit 4.49: Projected Capacity Summary and Reductions for the Lifestyle Scenario Capacity Summary

Period 1Peak Hour




F2006 4,812 4,360 3,638 3,054F2011 5,127 4,671 3,889 3,268F2016 5,338 4,877 4,059 3,415F2021 5,518 5,055 4,206 3,547F2026 5,749 5,285 4,396 3,714

F2006 2,542 2,280 1,844 1,566F2011 2,761 2,495 2,021 1,716F2016 2,938 2,666 2,164 1,839F2021 3,101 2,824 2,296 1,953F2026 3,278 2,999 2,440 2,078

F2006 1,352 1,250 1,092 891F2011 1,410 1,308 1,137 929F2016 1,433 1,331 1,154 945F2021 1,440 1,340 1,161 954F2026 1,473 1,374 1,189 979

F2006 489 440 373 322F2011 515 466 393 340F2016 524 476 401 346F2021 532 484 407 353F2026 543 496 417 362

F2006 429 389 329 275F2011 441 401 338 283F2016 443 404 340 285F2021 445 407 343 287F2026 455 416 350 294

Service Region

Milestone Year

Peak Period

Total BCH

Lower Mainland

Vancouver Island

Southern Interior

Northern Region

Reductions

Period 1Peak Hour




F2011 117 107 87 81F2016 294 587 482 414F2021 489 424 348 296F2026 587 973 788 673

Total BCH

Service Region

Milestone Year

Peak Period



Exhibit 4.50: Projected Capacity Summary and Reductions for the Housing and Lifestyle Scenario

Capacity Summary

Period 1Peak Hour




F2006 4,812 4,360 3,638 3,054F2011 5,070 4,620 3,849 3,233F2016 5,228 4,779 3,982 3,348F2021 5,378 4,930 4,106 3,462F2026 5,618 5,170 4,305 3,635

F2006 2,542 2,280 1,844 1,566F2011 2,729 2,468 2,000 1,698F2016 2,868 2,606 2,118 1,799F2021 3,007 2,743 2,233 1,899F2026 3,191 2,924 2,383 2,029

F2006 1,352 1,250 1,092 891F2011 1,399 1,297 1,128 921F2016 1,408 1,308 1,135 929F2021 1,409 1,310 1,135 933F2026 1,441 1,343 1,162 958

F2006 489 440 373 322F2011 505 457 386 333F2016 513 466 392 339F2021 522 475 400 346F2026 538 492 414 358

F2006 429 389 329 275F2011 437 398 335 280F2016 438 399 336 281F2021 439 402 338 283F2026 448 411 346 290

Milestone Year

Peak Period

Lower Mainland

Service Region

Vancouver Island

Southern Interior

Northern Region

Total BCH

Reductions

Period 1Peak Hour




F2011 174 158 126 116F2016 404 685 560 481F2021 629 549 447 381F2026 717 1,088 879 752

Service Region

Milestone Year

Peak Period

Total BCH



5. MECHANISMS OF LIFESTYLE CHANGE This report presents three feasible alternative scenarios for lifestyle change of B.C. residents. Each of these scenarios results in significant savings in electricity consumption in the BC Hydro service region. Given the desirability of these electricity savings from BC Hydro’s point of view, this study concludes with an investigation into the challenges, opportunities and mechanisms associated with the lifestyle choices of B.C. residents. Workshops with the External Review Panel were held on July 10 and July 31, 2007 to begin to address this complex area. This chapter summarizes the findings of those discussions and offers concluding ideas. 5.1 INFLUENCING FACTORS FOR LIFESTYLE CHOICES At the July 10 workshop and again at the July 31 workshop, participants were asked to discuss the most significant influencing factors that affect lifestyle choices of B.C. residents. The results of those discussions are summarized below. Details from the workshops are presented in Appendix K. Participants discussed a wide and diverse range of factors confirming the complexity of the lifestyles analysis area. The most detailed discussion occurred on the topic of cultural factors and social norms. Participants felt that B.C. residents’ desires and pressures to conform to various groups was a critical factor in determining lifestyle choices. What is considered “cool,” popular, or acceptable was felt to influence residents’ acceptance for conservation choices and purchasing decisions. There was significant discussion about the underlying beliefs that exist among B.C. residents and how these beliefs influence energy consumption and acceptance of conservation behaviours. These included the prevalence of beliefs such as: resources are unlimited, endless economic growth is positive, and market-based mechanisms are “good” and government interference in the market is “bad”. These beliefs were felt not only to affect the willingness for B.C. residents to make conservation choices, they were also felt to influence the public’s acceptance of programs designed to affect residents’ lifestyles. The discussion also included factors that might be most influential in motivating residents to make changes to their lifestyles. Participants felt that a sense of urgency was a primary motivating factor that could affect residents’ willingness to adopt conservation practices. It was discussed that B.C. residents might be most willing to change if they perceived a risk to their personal safety, to their future well-being, or to the well-being of future generations. This observation suggests that conservation programs should help residents connect conservation behaviour with personal well-being or the well-being of future generations. Since most benefits of conservation come only when many participate, the group cautioned that what is required is individual action with faith that others will change their lifestyles as well. Participants discussed the need for conservation programs to reinforce a sense of inclusively – those residents committed to conservation behaviour are not alone in their beliefs and priorities.



Participants discussed the limited extent to which B.C. residents realized the connection between their individual actions and lifestyle choices and the issues that polls indicate they are concerned about (e.g. environment, climate change). The need to reinforce these connections through a wide variety of educational programs was cited as one important step toward this end. Workshop participants also discussed some of the more physical barriers to the adoption of lifestyle choices discussed in this study. Central to this discussion was the role that the urban form plays in the kind of choices that B.C. residents make. The physical design of neighbourhoods was felt to be an important determining factor in transportation decisions as well as in the acceptability of more compact housing forms. Another important and deeply rooted belief was discussed in this context: that the car is an essential part of every activity. This belief affects not only people’s lifestyle choices but also relates directly to the physical design of communities. Changes to these kinds of beliefs are required to affect the kinds of lifestyle changes suggested in this study. A general theme of the individual versus the collective permeated much of the discussion. Individual action is needed yet action by a great number of individuals is required to realize significant benefits on a provincial scale. It was discussed that the move toward more isolated lower-density suburban living since the 1950s may be a limiting factor itself as this may foster an environment in which people feel less connected to each other and possibly less willing to make individual choices towards a collective benefit. This summary of the diverse discussion on factors influencing lifestyle choices suggests that this area is highly complex and that further study is needed to adequately understand lifestyle decisions or inform the development of programs to influence lifestyle choices. 5.2 SPHERES OF INFLUENCE ON LIFESTYLE CHOICES The discussion at the July 10 workshop was continued at the July 31 workshop, extending the discussion from influencing factors to key decision-makers and influencing groups that impact the lifestyle choices of B.C. residents. The dialog focused on the six end use areas that yielded the highest savings in electricity use in the lifestyle analysis scenarios described in Chapter 4. In order of highest to lowest conservation potential those areas are:

1. Housing choices 2. Space heating and cooling 3. Hot tubs 4. Appliances 5. Electronics 6. Lighting

For each end use category, workshop participants listed key decision-makers and influencers that impact B.C. residents’ lifestyle decisions. Participants also discussed and listed a variety of influencing mechanisms that each group controls. For example for housing choices, municipal



planners were listed as a key influencer. Influencing mechanisms included Official Community Plans and zoning. The results were entered into a spreadsheet during the workshop. Following the workshop participants were supplied with the spreadsheet results from the workshop and were invited to rank the list of decision-makers and influencers on a scale from 1 to 3 where:

1 = high influence in lifestyle decisions 2 = medium influence 3 = low influence

Five completed ranking forms were received. Exhibit 5.1 is a summary of the findings from those discussions and the follow-up ranking exercise. The table presents the key decision-makers and influencers for each category that received an average ranking of 2.0 or better (indicating medium to high influence in lifestyle choices). They are presented in descending order according to their ranking (1.0 to 2.0). The table also lists any influencing mechanisms that were discussed at the workshop. It is important to note that the influencing mechanisms could have either a positive or negative affect on conservation. They are listed here to inform a possible next step in which BC Hydro’s programs and partnerships are aligned to influence these mechanisms positively. Exhibit 5.1. Examples of Key Influencers and Mechanisms

End Use Key Decision-Makers /

Influencers AverageRanking Influence Mechanisms

1 – Housing Choices Developers 1.0

-Cost per square foot -Perception of status -Development proposals -Saleable features -Intra-developer competition (design awards) -New award categories at a higher level (e.g. provincial award) -Co-housing

82

Marketers 1.2 -Information on what sells

Marketing consultants 1.2 -Marketing studies and analyses

Municipal planners 1.6

-Official Community Plan -Zoning -Comprehensive development permit ("Vancouverism")

83

-Development cost charges -Business licensing in residential area -Municipal legislation

82 Co-Housing is a community in which residents usually own their individual homes, which are clustered around a "common house" with shared amenities. These amenities may include a kitchen and dining room, children's playroom, workshops, guest rooms, home office support, arts and crafts area, laundry, etc. 83 For the purposes of this report, the term "Vancouverism" is used to describe an urban planning practice, pioneered in Vancouver, in which cities negotiate with developers trading off increases in building height and density in exchange for investment in public amenities – also known a “social bonus zoning”. For a broader definition of "Vancouverism", see http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature177.htm.





Municipal politicians 1.6

-Municipal Legislation -Public hearings -Zoning

Mortgage lenders 1.8 -Evaluations of long term resale value -Variable interest rates based on energy consumption

Media 1.8 -Programming focused on energy conservation

Real estate agents 1.8

-Perception of status in neighbourhood -Promoting individual lifestyle and community lifestyle -Promoting particular benefits

Transportation ministry / city engineering 2.0

-Transportation planning -Road widths -Design of street networks -Access points to arterial roads -Crosswalks and traffic lights

2 – Space Heating and Cooling Comfort seekers 1.0

-Barrier: small financial impact to the consumer -Social norms -Barrier: Perception that one person doesn't make a difference -Health concerns -Quality of life -Alternatives (e.g. insulation vs. air conditioners) -Moving bedrooms seasonally

Domestic energy cop 1.6

-Passing out sweaters -Guilt -Values -Information -Financial incentives (e.g. children's allowances) -Environmental impacts

Developers 1.8

-Accurate information on efficient alternatives -Contact with suppliers -Co-housing (shared space) -Shared heating and cooling

Builders and contractors 1.8 -Accurate information on efficient alternatives -Contact with suppliers

Electricity rate setters 2.0 -Set costs

3 – Hot Tubs Comfort seekers 1.2 -Health -Small financial impact to the consumer

Salespeople 1.6

Suppliers 1.8

Advertisers 1.8

Injured (medical conditions) 1.8

4 – Appliances Domestic home manager 1.4

-Information setting timer on dryer, water temperature setting, using shorter drying cycles, impact on costs, alternatives to automatic dryer and microwaves, efficient ways to use dishwasher, etc. - Barriers associated with extra time required with conservation habits -Small financial impact to the consumer

Interior designers 1.4

Domestic energy cop 1.6 -See above

Developers 1.6

-Size and number of appliances -Type of appliances installed (e.g., a hot tub, features of appliances)

Architects 1.6 -Space available for appliances

Manufacturers 1.6 -Fridge design





BC Hydro 1.8 -Buy-back programs

5 – Electronics Market change 1.2 -New technologies -Small financial impact to the consumer

Manufacturers 1.4

-Size of electronics (extremely big or extremely small) -Reinforcing trend towards smaller hand-held devices -Design of equipment for lower power consumption

BC Hydro / NGOs / industry 2.0

-Education -Advertising -Small financial impact to the consumer

Suppliers 2.0 -Popularity of Energy Star brand

6 – Lighting Interior designers 1.2

-Use of decorative lighting -Design of task lighting -Contact with suppliers and manufacturers

Household members 1.6

-Perception of adequate lighting -Task lighting -Small financial impact to the consumer

Architects 1.8 -Better lighting education -Contact with suppliers and manufacturers

Developers 1.8 -Contact with suppliers and manufacturers

Builders 1.8 -Stock plans -Contact with suppliers and manufacturers

As shown in Exhibit 5.1 there are a wide range of influencers and decision-makers for each end-use area affecting the lifestyle choices of B.C. residents. See Appendix K for the notes of the workshop discussion. There are several notable examples of influencers that appear in several end-use areas and therefore merit special attention when considering the development of any program for influencing lifestyle change for electricity conservation. Developers – Real estate developers were mentioned several times as they have direct and indirect influence over building design and development, as well as a strong influencing role on community development and neighbourhood design. Developers often employ or have strong partnerships with architects, interior designers and builders, thereby having direct or indirect control over many aspects of the future of the residential housing stock and B.C. neighbourhoods. Suppliers – Private company suppliers were cited several times as having strong influencing roles through what they choose to stock as well as their development and marketing programs for electricity-consuming products. Governments – Municipal, provincial and federal governments were cited repeatedly due to their key roles in funding, regulation and legislation of standards, codes and programs that impact the lifestyle choices of B.C. residents both directly and indirectly.



Family or Household Members – Family members were cited repeatedly under various titles including: Domestic Energy Cop, indicating household members supporting conservation

behaviours in the home Comfort Seekers, indicating household members seeking to maximize their personal

comfort levels Domestic Home Managers, indicating household members responsible for key household

operations that affect energy consumption While this analysis is not presented as an exhaustive study, early indications indicate that conservation programs seeking to influence lifestyle choices of B.C. residents should include an investigation of these groups carefully to understand: The roles that each of these groups play in influencing lifestyle The underlying motivations for their decisions The opportunity for partnership and influence towards increased electricity conservation

5.3 POTENTIAL ROLES FOR BC HYDRO Participants spent the latter part of the July 31 workshop in a detailed discussion about the most appropriate role that BC Hydro could play in encouraging lifestyle changes to reduce electricity demand in B.C. This segment was designed to recognize several realities of lifestyle decisions of B.C. residents including factors such as:

1. Changing residents’ lifestyles is a sensitive area and could damage BC Hydro’s reputation if it not approached carefully.

2. The numbers of influencers and influencing mechanisms is great and the area of lifestyle decision-making is complex. Misguided or simplistic programs may yield unsatisfactory or counterintuitive results.

3. The potential benefits of lifestyle changes designed to conserve electricity also may yield significant benefits in other areas (e.g. transportation, climate change).

There was general agreement that BC Hydro’s direct leadership of any lifestyle-related programs would need to be limited to specific conservation programs such as the Refrigerator Buy-Back program. It was recognized that many of the measures described in this study went beyond such programs and therefore would require partnership with other agencies or groups with synergistic mandates. Participants quickly centered on a discussion of one participant’s proposal that BC Hydro be a part of a partnership with a wide ranging set of groups including NGOs, governments and others. The proposed partnership would have a broad mandate beyond but including electricity conservation (e.g. sustainability). There was considerable discussion and debate on the most appropriate role for BC Hydro in this sort of partnership. Some felt that a leadership role would be appropriate, while others felt that



such a role would be inappropriate. A government versus NGO leadership was discussed with pros and cons being offered for each. The difference between playing an instigating role versus an ongoing leadership role was discussed. Some favoured BC Hydro playing an instigating role only, while others felt that more of an ongoing leadership role could be considered. No clear consensus was reached on these questions. The following points about the proposal did seem to win general agreement:

1. Encourage a very broad set of partners. 2. Establish a common mandate that goes beyond electricity conservation (e.g., the

improvement of the common good) and agree to a high-level set of goals and objectives. 3. Allow each organization to focus on the areas that their mandate and expertise dictate 4. Agree that the benefit of the partnership would be to enjoy common branding and to

establish the necessary critical mass needed to effect wide-scale change. These discussions indicate one possible future path for BC Hydro’s role in facilitating lifestyle changes to conserve electricity. The rapid agreement among the participants on several key aspects of this proposal does indicate that it warrants further investigation. See Attachment 2 in Appendix K for more information on this proposal.



6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Lifestyle Analysis in CPR 2007 is experimental and breaks new ground. It represents an initial and innovative attempt to incorporate community sustainability and Smart Growth initiatives into the estimation of the conservation potential for electricity in B.C. This study also breaks new ground in its attempt to quantitatively estimate residents’ willingness to change their lifestyles in their homes. The task of estimating the willingness of present and future residents to change lifestyles is difficult to quantify with any degree of certainty. It is inherently judgment-based due to the lack of empirical data supporting the analysis. As a result, the scenarios created in this study should be considered to be initial estimates based on the professional judgment of the study team. While evidence is mounting that attitudes toward sustainability and conservation are changing rapidly, it is unclear to what extent those changes will continue and to what extent they will translate into willingness to change lifestyles. From the point of view of the study team, the estimates used in these scenarios are conservative (i.e. more aggressive lifestyle changes are possible). More aggressive changes may be possible but they will likely depend on the establishment of significant programs in the next five to ten years to educate residents to help them connect their values to their actions. 6.1 CONCLUSIONS This study leads to several important conclusions: The conservation potential from lifestyle change is significant although many of the

decision-making and influencing factors in the most promising areas are outside the control and mandate BC Hydro. Partnerships or synergies with other organizations may be the most effective strategy for realizing the potential for electricity conservation through lifestyle changes.

While these scenarios do result in significant net saving in electricity, the shift towards

sustainable communities and Smart Growth may increase electricity use for certain end uses. For example, the increase in apartment units as a result of an assumed movement towards sustainable communities led to far less electricity conservation in space heating than anticipated due to fuel switching effects. Since apartments are far more likely to use electricity as a primary heating source than single-family dwellings, the result was an increase in the number of dwellings using electricity for heating purposes. It is useful to note that despite these factors, space heating still showed significant net savings due to the reduction in the size of dwellings as a result of the shift towards Smart Growth.

The effects of fuel switching are also evident in the domestic hot water (DHW) end use

since units using electricity as a primary heating source are far more likely to also use electricity to heat water. Since DHW use does not vary as greatly by dwelling type as space heating, the result was an increase in total DHW electricity use as a result of more residents using electricity as a source for water heating.



Lighting also showed some counterintuitive effects. The shift towards apartments in the housing scenario resulted in net increases in total electricity used for lighting relative to the Reference Case. The reason for this was determined to be the significant use of lighting in common areas of apartments. Most apartments leave lights on 24 hours per day in hallways, stairwells, lobby and parking areas. As a result, the total electricity use for lighting per resident is higher in apartments than in typical single-family dwellings.

The most promising end uses for electricity saving through lifestyle changes were

determined to be hot tubs, space heating, appliances and electronics. It is noteworthy that, since hot tubs in apartments are shared by residents, the electricity use per capita is far lower than in single-family houses with hot tubs.

Shifts towards sustainable communities and Smart Growth lead to significant electricity

savings, as well as a wide variety of other community and sustainability benefits including:

o Reduced urban sprawl, leading to lower infrastructure costs and a reduction in costs to the tax payer

o More efficient transportation systems in general, leading to reduced traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution

o Conservation of open space and agricultural land o Reduced ecological footprint

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT CPR

6.2.1 Reorder or Restructure The CPR Analysis To Allow For Better Integration The CPR 2007 recognized the complexities of integrating the lifestyle analysis area with the other analysis areas. For example, the methodology used in the estimation of the Technical Potential relies on a common housing mix between the Reference Case and the alternative scenarios. This allows the study team to isolate the saving associated with specific measures (e.g. the increased penetration of more efficient window technology). If the housing stock and, by association, the number of windows in the province changed, it would be difficult or impossible to isolate the impact of the technology improvements. The lifestyle scenarios propose changes to the housing mix as a measure to conserve electricity. Combining the two analysis areas is, therefore, difficult or impossible. Moreover the housing mix is one of a number of areas where such incompatibility occurs. One solution to this integration issue may be to conduct the lifestyle analysis first to allow the study teams working on the other analysis areas to begin their analysis with multiple baselines based on the alternatives proposed in the lifestyle analysis. This would allow for a comprehensive evaluation of the conservation potential combining the measures from both the technical and lifestyle analysis areas to understand potential conflicts or synergies. Another approach would be to develop an integrated model capable of exploring both technical and lifestyle measures simultaneously. The advantage of this approach would be the flexibility to



evaluate a broader set of scenarios allowing for the testing of different combinations of measures or alternative socio-economic and technological development paths. Integrated approaches such as the two alternatives proposed above recognize the interdependencies and synergies between the analysis areas. Many of the influencers and decision-makers described in this study are also in a position to affect the development or adoption of new technologies. While this lifestyle analysis recognizes the impact of changing attitudes and priorities of B.C. residents in its estimation of the potential for lifestyle changes, the same factors affect the Technical Potential and other analysis areas of the CPR. For example, the development and adoption of energy-efficient technologies will depend, at least in part, on the world views of future residents and decision-makers. In other words, if awareness around sustainability or climate change continues to grow, it will impact every aspect of the CPR from behaviour and lifestyle to technology and fuel switching. Evaluating alternative futures from this high-level perspective early in the process would allow the impacts of these alternative future world views to impact the conservation potential across the entire CPR. It is recommended, therefore, that future evaluations of the conservation potential allow for integrated socio-economic and technological scenarios to be evaluated in an integrated manner.

6.2.2 Evaluate Scenarios Through a Sustainability Lens This study did not evaluate the sustainability implications of the scenarios as comprehensively as would be recommended. For example, the sustainability implications of the fuel switching implied in the scenarios were not evaluated. In the Housing Scenario, when changes in the housing stock led to more dwellings using electricity for a primary heating source for space heating and domestic hot water, the analysis did not evaluate, for example, the greenhouse gas implications of the shift away from natural gas towards electricity. Such fuel switching may look negative from the perspective of electricity conservation; however, from a sustainability perspective, this shift may be desirable if it is determined that the overall effect is a reduction in total greenhouse gas emissions. It is recommended that the next analysis of this kind evaluate the implications of the scenarios on electricity conservation as well as other sustainability goals.

6.2.3 Broaden Scope to Include Alternative Supply Opportunities Opportunities for innovative supply options such as district energy plants that arise with more compact and innovative community designs were not evaluated, since alternative supply opportunities were outside the scope of this study. It is recommended that future studies integrate such opportunities for alternative supply opportunities such as community-scale supply options as these may become a significant component in the future of energy in B.C.



6.3 IMMEDIATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BC HYDRO This study has highlighted a number of interesting opportunities that BC Hydro may choose to initiate now to enable the lifestyle-related savings described in this report or prepare for the next CPR. They include: Province-wide research on community visions Multi-stakeholder sustainability partnership

6.3.1 Conduct Province-Wide Research on Community Visions This study drew on case studies of community and regional planning from the Lower Mainland and the Okanagan region to estimate the potential for neighbourhood design and housing changes. While this was the best information available, it would improve the reliability of this analysis area to have a more comprehensive set of data to draw upon. These case studies were focused on urban and regional planning and not energy use and, therefore, they did not address many of the more detailed questions on energy-related lifestyle choices. Furthermore, the estimation of residents’ willingness to adopt lifestyle changes requires broad community engagement to accurately represent the diversity of communities, lifestyles, attitudes and opportunities throughout the province. It is recommended that BC Hydro conduct community visioning exercises focused on energy-related choices in 10 or more regions throughout the province. The data from this community engagement process should be designed to feed directly into the lifestyle component of the next CPR study. If BC Hydro chooses to adopt a more integrated approach to the next CPR as recommended above, the results of the province-wide community engagement could be incorporated into the development of multiple baselines for use in all analysis areas of the CPR.

6.3.2 Initiate a Multi-Stakeholder Sustainability Partnership In discussions about the most appropriate role for BC Hydro in helping to enable lifestyle changes leading to electricity conservation, ERP members recommended that BC Hydro be a part of a partnership with a wide-ranging set of groups including NGOs, governments and others. The proposed partnership would have a broad mandate beyond but including electricity conservation (e.g. sustainability). It was proposed that the partnership would: Encourage a very broad set of partners

Establish a common mandate that goes beyond electricity conservation (e.g., the

improvement of the common good) and agree to a high-level set of goals and objectives Allow each organization to focus on the areas that their mandate and expertise dictate

Agree that the benefit of the partnership would be to enjoy common branding and to

establish the necessary critical mass needed to effect wide-scale change



7. REFERENCES Baxter, David. Personal Communication. 2007. BC Hydro. 2006 Residential End-Use Study. BC Hydro Power Smart Evaluation. Aug. 2006. BC Hydro. CPR 2007 Behaviour Area Analysis Report. 2007. BC Hydro. CPR 2007 Panel Survey. 2007. BC Hydro. CPR 2007 Economic Area Report. 2007. BC Hydro. Revenue Requirement Application. 2004/04 and 2005/06. BC Hydro. DSM Evaluation Summary and Plan. 2006. BC Ministry of Community Services. “The Integrated Community Sustainability Planning

(ICSP) Initiative.” B.C. Ministry of Community Services Web site. http://www.cserv.gov.bc.ca/LGD/intergov_relations/library/ICSP_Backgrounder.pdf. Accessed June, 2007.

B.C. Ministry of Community Services. “Regional Growth Strategies: An Explanatory Guide.”

B.C. Ministry of Community Services Web site. http://www.cserv.gov.bc.ca/lgd/intergov_relations/library/RGS_Explanatory_Guide_2005.pdf. Accessed June, 2007.

Bernstein, Scott. “Moving from Split Incentives to Joint Stakes in Energy Technology and

Climate Research Initiatives.” House Science Committee Hearing on New Directions for Climate Research and Technology Initiatives. 17 April 17 2002.

Berlin, Ryan, Andrew Ramlo, and David Baxter. “Seniors’ Housing Demand in British

Columbia over the Next Thirty Years.” 2006 Urban Futures Report Number 65, Urban Futures. 2006.

Bin, Shui. and Hadi Dowlatabadi. “Consumer lifestyle approach to US energy use and the related

CO2 emissions.” Energy Policy 33. 2005. Bruntland, G. “Our Common Future.” World Commission on Environment and Development,

Oxford University Press. 1987. Bush, Eric and Jürg Nipkow, “Tests and promotion of energy-efficient heat pump dryers.”, 2006

Proceedings of the International Energy Efficiency in Domestic Appliances and Lighting Conference (EEDAL). 2006.

Campbell, Colin J. and Jean H. Laherrère, “The End of Cheap Oil.” Scientific American. March 1998.



Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika and Anna-Lisa Lindén. “Energy efficiency in residences – challenges for men and women in the North.” Energy Policy 35. 2007.

Carroll, Allan L., Steve W. Taylor and Jacques Régnière. “Effects of Climate Change on Range

Expansion by the Mountain Pine Beetle in British Columbia.” Canadian Forest Service. 2003.

Connors, Jeff and Brian Fisher (BC Hydro), “Dead Trees Threaten BC Hydro Power Lines.”

Transmission and Distribution World. 2007. Dockside Green. “Explore Sustainability.” Dockside Green Web site.

http://docksidegreen.com/sustainability/overview/overview.html. Accessed June, 2007. Eder, Klaus. “Societies learn and yet the world is hard to change,” European Journal of Social

Theory 2. 1998. Energy Information Administration. “Appliance Market-Share Trends, U.S. Households.” U.S.

Department of Energy 2006 Web site. http:://www.die.doe.gov/emeu/reps/appli/all_tables.html. Accessed June, 2007.

Energy Information Administration (EIA). “Cooking trends in the United States: Are we really

becoming a fast food country?” U.S. Department of Energy. 2002. European Commission. “Saving 20% by 2020: European Commission unveils its Action Plan on

Energy Efficiency.” Press Release IP/06/1434, Brussels. 19 October 2006. Global Footprint Network. “Ecological Footprint: Overview.” Global Footprint Network Web

site. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=footprint_overview. Accessed June 2007.

Greater Vancouver Regional District. “Liveable Region Strategic Plan” GVRD Web site.

http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/growth/lrsp/LRSP.pdf. Accessed June, 2007. Infrastructure Canada. “Integrated Community Sustainability Planning, A Background Paper.”

Infrastructure Canada Web site. http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/communities-collectivites/conf/documents/icsp-discussion_e.shtml. Accessed June, 2007.

Infrastructure Canada. “Gas Tax Agreement.” Infrastructure Canada Web site.

http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/communities-collectivites/agreements-ententes/gas-essence_tax/gt_can_bc_e.shtml. Accessed June, 2007.

Jeroen van der Veer. “Jeroen Van der Veer outlines his vision for ‘Green Fossil Fuels’”.

Financial Times. London. 25 Jan 2006.



Johnston, Mark. “Impacts and Adaptation for Climate Change in Urban Forests.” Saskatchewan Research Council, presented at the 6th Canadian Urban Forest Conference, October 19 -23, 2004, Kelowna, B.C. 2004.

Kelly, Joe, Ken Tiedemann. May 29, 2006. Conditional Demand Analysis of Residential Energy

Consumption: Final Report. Prepared for BC Hydro. Lindén, Anna-Lisa, Annika Carlsson-Kanyama and Bjorn Eriksson. “Efficient and inefficient

aspects of residential energy behaviour: What are the policy instruments for change?” Energy Policy 34. 2006.

Lutzenhiser, Loren and Marcia Hill Gossard. “Lifestyle, status, and energy consumption.” 2000

ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 2000. International Energy Agency. Saving electricity in a hurry: dealing with temporary shortfalls in

electricity supply. Paris, France: International Energy Agency, OECD, 2005. McAllister Opinion Research, The Sustainability Poll Canada 2006 Final Report – Quantitative

analysis of interviews with 560 Canadian thought leaders and 2,500 members of the public, August 2006.

Natural Resources Canada. Survey of household energy use summary report (SHEU) 2003.

Ottawa, Ontario: Natural Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency, 2006. Natural Resources Canada. Trends in Residential Energy Efficiency. Ottawa, Ontario: Natural

Resources Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency. 2005. Parker, Danny, Maria Mazzara and John R. Sherwin. “Monitored energy-use patterns low-

income housing in a hot and humid climate.” Florida Solar Energy Center. 1996. Pomeranz, Stan. Lighting Design for Aging Eyes. 2007. Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. “South Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy.”

Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen Web site. http://www.rdos.bc.ca/index.php?id=108. Accessed June, 2007.

Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. “South Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy.”

Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen Web site. http://www.rdosmaps.bc.ca/min_bylaws/contract_reports/CorpBd/2007/May/RGSDRAFTBYLAW240507.pdf. Accessed June, 2007.

Shove, Elizabeth. Comfort, cleanliness, and convenience. Oxford: Berg Publishers, 2003. Sidler, Olivier, Paul Waide and Benoit Lebot. “An experimental investigation of cooking,

refrigeration, and drying end-uses in 100 households.” 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings. 2000.



Smart Growth BC. “Smart Growth Principles”. Smart Growth BC Web site. http://66.51.172.116/AboutUs/SGPrinciples/tabid/133/Default.aspx. Accessed June, 2007.

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller

(eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 2007.

Sonderegger, Robert C. “Movers and stayers: the resident's contribution to variation across

houses in energy conservation for space heating.” Energy and Buildings 1. 1978. Summit Blue Canada, Inc. Quick-hit DR programs: A case study of California’s 20-20 program.

Ontario Power Authority, Conservation Bureau, 2005. Toronto Public Health. 20/20 The Way to Clean Air. 2005. Vancouver Parks Board. Stanley Park Restoration Recommended Plan. 2007. Wachtman, Edward. Discovering the Sustainability Story 2005-2006. 2006.



8. GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS LIST Achievable Potential The portion of savings identified in the Economic Potential that could realistically be achieved within the study period through government and utility-led interventions and programs given institutional, economic and market barriers. all rate payers (ARP) test Formerly known as the Total Resource Cost Test (TRC), it is a test that compares the total costs of electricity investments, including electricity conservation programs, to the social cost of electricity. Un-priced environmental and social costs may be accounted for by changing the cost of either the investment under consideration or the total cost of electricity in such a way that relative un-priced impacts are reflected. It is used in designing and evaluating programs that are developed from the CPR study’s results. avoided cost The unit cost of acquiring the next resource to meet demand, which is used as a measure for evaluating individual demand-side and supply-side options. “Avoided cost” is the capital expenditure offset by BC Hydro DSM activities (i.e., the cost of having to buy energy on the open market, contract for long-term supply, and/or build and run new generation facilities). Base Year The Base Year is the year to which all potentials will be compared. For this study, it is BC Hydro’s’ F2006 (April 2005 to March 2006). The model will be calibrated against BC Hydro’s actual sales for F2006. BC Hydro service area The portion of the Province of B.C. that receives retail electricity service from BC Hydro. The service area excludes the portion of the Province of B.C. served by Aquila Networks Canada (previously known as West Kootenay Power and Utilicorp Networks Canada), Fortis BC, and certain factories or communities that are not customers of BC Hydro. For the purpose of this study, it includes the City of New Westminster. Approximately 75% to 80% of B.C.’s demand for electricity is in the BC Hydro service area and is supplied by BC Hydro. BC Hydro service region For the purposes of this study, the total BC Hydro service area is divided into four service regions. They are: Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island, Southern Interior and Northern Region. benchmark for economic analysis For the purpose of this study, the electricity price, based on a long run marginal cost provided by BC Hydro, of $130/MWh for electric energy savings and $170/kW-yr for capacity savings. capacity The measure of the rate of energy use at a specific time. [kW]



capacity savings The savings that result from technologies or activities that save only capacity, and do not include any energy savings (or where energy savings are proportionally small). capacity shed The act of interrupting all or part of the customer load for a period of time. co-generation The simultaneous production of electric or mechanical energy and useful heat energy from a single fuel source. Conservation Potentials The 2007 CPR will look at the Technology Based Potential, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Potential, Behavioural Potential, Lifestyle Potential, and Fuel Switching. Definitions and examples are provided below. (Note: Shaded cells mean examples are either not available or not applicable).

2007 Conservation Potential Review O and M Potential

Technology

Potential Operations Maintenance Behavioural

Potential Lifestyle Potential

Fuel Switching Potential

Def

initi

ons

Energy savings realised through the implementation of energy efficiency technologies

Energy savings realized through the monitoring and adjustment of system controls to optimise the operation of energy-using systems

Energy savings realised through the regular cleaning and adjustment to optimize the performance of energy-using systems

Energy savings realised through the actions of personnel to habitually save energy within their daily routine

Energy savings resulting from lifestyle or corporate culture changes

Electricity savings resulting from changing fuels from electricity to natural gas

Energy Saving Examples

Res

iden

tial

Replace single-paned windows with double-glazed low E

Adjust programmable thermostat for reduced energy use (Multi-family only)

Repair weatherstripping on openings along the window seam to prevent heat loss (Multi-family only)

Close blinds at night to reduce heat loss

Choose natural ventilation over air condition–ing

Choosing gas-fired space heating over electric

Com

mer

cial

Replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs

Adjust the timer to optimise the CFLs operating hours

Clean the fixtures to allow for maximum light output

Turn off the light when you leave the room

Lower light levels

Choosing gas-fired space heating over electric

Indu

stri

al Install high

efficiency compressor (or VSD for compressor)

Regularly check compressed air sequencing is correct

Fix compressed air leaks



2007 Conservation Potential Review O and M Potential

Technology

Potential Operations Maintenance Behavioural

Potential Lifestyle Potential

Fuel Switching Potential

Capacity Saving Examples

Res

iden

tial

Install a water heater with a timer that is programmed to shut off during peak hours

Run your dishwasher, clothes washer and other energy-using appliance during off peak hours

Com

mer

cial

Install a batch process –e.g.: radiant slab

Decrease temperature set point during peak time using BAS

Indu

stri

al

Install a batch process – e.g.: pulp storage

Shut down equipment and move to storage

cost of conserved energy (CCE) The annualized unit energy cost of a DSM measure used to determine its cost effectiveness compared to additional electricity supply (as part of the total resource cost test). It is calculated as the annualized incremental cost (including annual operating and maintenance) of the DSM upgrade measure divided by the annual savings achieved, excluding any administrative or program costs to achieve full use of the technology or measure. cost of capacity The cost of capacity, set at $160/kW-yr in the CPR to evaluate the economic potential of capacity-saving measures. Representatives from BC Hydro and the BCTC collaborated to develop a methodology to calculate and associate value for the cost of capacity based on Generation, Bulk Incremental Transmission, Regional Incremental Transmission, Distribution Substations and Distribution costs. demand-side management (DSM) Actions that modify customer demand for electricity and that can defer the need for new energy and capacity additions. discount rate The interest rate used in calculating the present value of expected yearly benefits and costs. diversity A relative measure of the likelihood that a series of connected loads will reach peak demand at the same time. A high diversity implies that individual connected loads will reach their peak



demand at different times whereas a low diversity implies that they will reach peak demand at the same time. economic efficiency Allocation of human and natural resources in a way that results in the greatest net economic benefit, regardless of how benefits and costs are distributed within society. Economic Potential An estimate of the reduction of electricity consumption, relative to the reference case, that would occur if all electricity-consuming equipment were upgraded to the efficiency level that is cost effective as calculated using the cost of conserved energy (CCE). effective measure life (EML) The estimate median number of years that the measures installed under a program are still in place and operable. EML incorporates field conditions, obsolescence, building remodelling, renovation, demolition and occupancy changes. electric capacity The maximum electric power that a device or system is capable of producing or transferring. Electric capacity is measured in watts, kilowatts, megawatts, etc. electric energy The cumulative amount of electricity produced or consumed over a period of time. Electric energy is measured in kilowatt hours or gigawatt hours. electric power The instantaneous rate that electric energy is produced, transmitted or consumed. Electric power is measured in watts, kilowatts, megawatts, etc. electrical efficiency The ratio of the useful energy delivered by a system or end use to the amount of electric energy supplied to it. This ratio measures how well electric energy is translated into another useful form of energy. electrical intensity The ratio of electric energy consumed per application or end use. For example, kilowatt hours per square metre of lit office space per day, or kilowatt hours per tonne of aluminum produced. All else being equal, electrical intensity increases as electrical efficiency decreases. electricity audit An on site inspection and cataloguing of electricity using equipment/buildings, electricity consumption and the related end uses. The purpose is to provide information to the customer and the utility. Audits are useful for load research, for DSM program design and for identification of specific energy savings projects.



electricity conservation Activities by electricity users that result in a reduction of the electric energy used to provide electric energy services. Electricity conservation can include a wide variety of behavioural or operational changes that result in energy savings. For the purpose of this study only, energy savings achieved through hard-wired or hardware installations are included. electricity conservation Activities by utilities or electricity users that result in a reduction of electric energy use without adversely affecting the level or quality of energy service provided. Electricity conservation measures include substitution of high efficiency motors for standard efficiency ones, occupancy sensors in office buildings, insulation in residences, etc. Load management activities are not considered by BC Hydro to be electricity conservation measures if they do not reduce annual consumption of electric energy. However, a rate designed to encourage reduction in electricity consumption being implemented by BC Hydro is considered to be electricity conservation. emerging technologies New energy-conserving technologies that are expected to be market-ready in any of the years up to and including 2026. This category includes technologies that could be accelerated into the market during that period through targeted financial or technical support. end use The final application or final use to which energy is applied. Recognition of the fact that electric energy is of no value to a user without first being transformed by a piece of equipment into a service of economic value. For example, office lighting is an end use, whereas electricity sold to the office tenant is of no value without the equipment (light fixtures, wiring, etc.) needed to convert the electricity into visible light. End use is often used interchangeably with energy service. energy savings The savings that result from technologies or activities that save energy and, therefore, save capacity. In this document, the term “energy” refers specifically to “electricity” unless otherwise noted. energy service An amenity or service supplied jointly by energy and other components/equipment such as buildings, motors and lights. Examples of energy services include residential space heating, commercial refrigeration, aluminium smelting and public transit. The same energy service can frequently be supplied with different mixes of equipment and energy. energy-use index (EUI) End use energy consumption divided by a specific parameter of production (e.g. KWh/sq.ft., KWh/unit). environmental credit/environmental penalty An increment or decrement to the cost of a resource or set of resources, to reflect the overall level of its/their environmental impact, relative to another resource or set of resources.



financial incentive Certain financial features in the utility’s DSM programs designed to motivate customer participation. They may include features designed to reduce a customer’s net cash outlay, pay-back period or cost of finance to participate. flexible load shape Utility action to present customers with options to choose variation in service quality in exchange for incentives. Programs involved may consist of variations of interruptible or curtailable load; concepts of pooled, integrated energy management systems or individual customer load control devices offering service constraints. fuel substitution The use of a different fuel to produce the same energy service. For example, natural gas can be used for space heating instead of electricity. gigawatt hour (GWh) One million kilowatt hours. independent power producer (IPP) A privately owned electricity-generating facility that is usually connected to a utility’s transmission system to sell electricity. Industrial/Commercial self generation Generation of electricity by an industry or a commercial enterprise whose principal product is not electricity. In almost every case, the industry is a customer of a utility, in which case the electricity generated is used to reduce the utility’s sales and generation or purchase requirements. Utility action to reduce sales through industrial/commercial self generation is sometimes considered a form of demand side management, for although overall supply is increased, demand on the utility is decreased. In a case where industrial/commercial self generation allows a customer to be in a position to sell electricity to the utility (perhaps only some of the year or some of the day), that portion of electricity sold to the utility is considered independent power production. (See Independent Power Producer.) At BC Hydro, industrial/commercial self generation used for on site load displacement is included in DSM, while output utilized for electricity sales is categorized outside of DSM. integrated planning See Resource Planning. integrated electricity planning (IEP) See Resource Planning. kilowatt (kW) One thousand watts; a basic unit of measurement of electric power. (The amount of energy transferred at a rate of one kilowatt for one hour is a kilowatt hour.)



kilowatt hour (KWh) The basic unit of measurement of electric energy. One kilowatt hour represents the power of one thousand watts for a period of one hour. (A typical non-electrically heated home in B.C. uses about 10,000 KWh per year.) lifestyle potential Energy savings resulting from lifestyle or corporate culture changes. It is different from behaviours, operations, or maintenance in that they refer to how consumers use the energy-consuming systems they already have, whereas lifestyle considers the choices they make regarding what energy-consuming systems they purchase/use. See examples under Lifestyle Potential in the definition of Conservation Potentials (above). load The amount of electricity required by a device, customer or group of customers as measured by an electricity meter. load displacement The reduction of electricity requirements from existing utility customers through electricity conservation or through customer self-generation. load factor The ratio of the average load supplied during a given period to the maximum load occurring during the same period. load forecast An estimate of expected electricity requirements that have to be met by the electrical system in future years. load research Research to disaggregate and analyze patterns of electricity consumption by various subsectors and end uses. Load Research supports the development of the load forecast and the design of demand side management programs. load shape The variation in electrical load over time, usually hour-by-hour. A load shape can be for the system, a customer or an end-use load over a set period such as a day or a year. load shifting Utility DSM program to move electricity consumption from one period to another, most often from periods of high consumption to periods of low consumption (i.e., from on- to off-peak). measure TRC The Measure TRC is the net present value of energy savings that result from an investment in a fuel switching measure. The Measure TRC is equal to its full or incremental capital cost (depending on application) plus any change (positive or negative) in the combined annual energy and operating costs. This calculation includes among others, the following inputs: the avoided



natural gas and electricity supply costs; the life of the measure; and the selected discount rate, which in this analysis has been set at 6%. megawatt (MW) One thousand kilowatts. natural change in electrical intensity The future change in electrical intensity that is expected to occur in the absence of utility DSM programs. In developing an estimate of natural change in electrical intensity, it is necessary to make an explicit assumption about the future prices of electricity and competing fuels. non-participant test (NPT) A test measuring what happens to rates due to changes in utility revenues and operating costs caused by a program. Rates will go down if the avoided cost is greater than the sum of the revenue lost plus the program costs. This test indicates the direction and magnitude of the expected change in rate levels. peak clipping A utility DSM program used to reduce peak demand, without reducing demand at other times of the day or year. peak demand The maximum electric power required by a customer, device or system during a specified period (e.g., day, month, year). peak period The periods when the BC Hydro electricity system experiences particularly large demand for electricity from its customers. The four peak periods used in the CPR 2007 are defined as: Peak Period 1: Annual System Peak Hour – For BC Hydro, this has traditionally been the

hour ending at 6 pm on a day in December or January; it is highly correlated with the coldest day of the year.

Peak Period 2: System Critical Peak Days – The 4to 9 pm period on the four highest System Peak Days; totals 20 hours.

Peak Period 3: Typical Winter Peak Day – This adds the morning peak 8 am to 1 pm to the System Critical Peak Day definition; totals 40 hours per year.

Peak Period 4: Winter Peak Energy – This uses the Typical Winter Peak Day definition (8 am to 1 pm and 4 to 9 pm) for all winter weekdays when minimum daily temperature is below 0ºC. Typically, this consists of 45 days, or about the number of weekdays in December and January (not counting holidays), or 450 hours per year.

Power Smart BC Hydro’s DSM initiative, originally launched in 1989. Power Smart includes a full range of DSM programs aimed at BC Hydro’s Residential, Commercial and Industrial customers.



rate Generically refers to a utility’s rate structure. Average rate specifically refers here to the overall average revenue per kilowatt hour that the utility receives from a given class of customers (e.g., residential) covered by one or more tariffs. rate structure The formulae used by a utility to calculate charges for the use of electricity. For example, the present BC Hydro rate structure for residential customers consists of a basic monthly charge plus charges for the amount of electric energy used (i.e., cents/KWh). Other BC Hydro rate structures charge for energy at a rate per kilowatt hour that depends on the level of consumption, whereas others may include charges for peak demand. Reference Case An estimate of the expected level of electricity consumption that would occur over the study period in the absence of any new DSM initiatives subsequent to F2006. region The following regions are used for the purpose of the 2007 CPR: Lower Mainland (LM), Vancouver Island (VI), Southern Interior (SI) and Northern Region (NR). resource planning The process of long-term planning of electricity generation and transmission facilities to reliably meet the forecast requirements of BC Hydro’s domestic customers. It addresses regional supply requirements and can utilize both supply-side and demand-side resources while recognizing economic, environmental and social impacts and risks. Resource Smart The name given to BC Hydro's strategy of improvements to existing power generation and transmission facilities to achieve supply-side efficiency through physical and operational modifications. sector A group of customers having a common type of economic activity. BC Hydro divides its customers into three principal sectors: Residential, Commercial and Industrial. sectors are further divided into subsectors. For example, “Offices” is a subsector of the Commercial sector. self-generation Generation of electricity by an industry or commercial enterprise whose principal product is not electricity. Self-generation can either reduce the amount of electricity purchased from the utility or it may be sold to the utility as a supply-side resource. social cost of electricity The total cost of electricity plus an allowance for environmental or social costs associated with the resource set producing that electricity. One way to estimate the social cost of electricity is with an environmental credit or penalty applied to the total cost of electricity.



strategic conservation Utility action to reduce the total electric energy demand. Strategic conservation is electricity conservation induced by utility programs. Strategic conservation differs from load management in that load management is concerned primarily with the time profile of demand, where strategic conservation is concerned with the total consumption. strategic load growth Utility action to modify the load curve by increasing (annual) total electric energy demand. Strategic load growth differs from load management in that load management is concerned primarily with the time profile of demand, where strategic load growth is concerned with total consumption. subsectors A classification of customers within a sector by common features. Residential subsectors are by type of home (SFD, duplex, apartment, etc.). Commercial subsectors are generally by type of commercial service (office, retail, warehouse, etc.). Industrial subsectors are by product type (pulp and paper, solid wood products, chemicals, etc.). supply curves Volume of energy at the appropriate screened price in ascending order of cost. (E.g., the figure below illustrates a supply curve with the addition of program, option, or technology A to D.)

tariff The rate and the terms and conditions of sale for electric power and energy between utility and customer. It includes the type of service, delivery point(s), limitations of obligations to serve, minimum charges, etc. technical efficiency The efficiency of a system, process or device in achieving a certain purpose, measured in terms of the physical inputs required to produce a given output. utility cost The total financial cost incurred by the utility to acquire energy resources. For DSM, the costs include all utility program costs, including incentive costs.



Unbundled Potential The gross savings potential for individual measures when calculated in isolation of possible interactive effects or double counting that would occur if implemented concurrently with other measures. valley filling Utility program activity to increase off peak demand. watt The basic unit of measurement of electric power. Abbreviation List

ASHP Air Source Heat Pump BCH .. BC Hydro BCTC BC Transmission Corporation BCUC BC Utilities Commission CAV .. Constant Air Volume CCE... Cost of Conserved Energy CFL ... Compact Fluorescent CPR... Conservation Potential Review CSRE. Customer-supplied Renewable EnergiesCT ..... Consultant Team DSM.. Demand Side Management DX..... Direct Expansion EE...... Energy Efficient ERP ... External Review Panel EUI.... Energy-use Index GHG.. Green House Gas GWh.. Gigawatt Hour HE ..... High Efficiency HID ... High Intensity Discharge HPS ... High Pressure Sodium IEP..... Integrated Electricity Plan

IPP .....Independent Power Producer KWh...Kilowatt Hour LPD....Lighting Power Density LTAP .Long-Term Acquisition Plan MH.....Metal Halide MW....Megawatt N/A ....Not Applicable PMT...Project Management Team RFP ....Request for Proposal SC ......Shading Coefficient TBA ...To Be Announced TBD ...To Be Determined TOR ...Terms of Reference TRC ...Total Resource Cost UC......Utility Cost VAV...Variable Air Volume VP ......Vice President WSHP Water Source Heat Pump



APPENDIX A: 2026 VISION WORKSHOP AGENDA

Conservation Potential Review 2007 – Workshop #22026 Vision for More Sustainable Communities:

Opportunities for Lifestyle Changes in Electricity Conservation

Thursday, February 22, 2007 Location: SFU Segal Centre (500 Granville Street) Event Rooms 1300-1500

8:00 am – Continental breakfast available Breaks – occur at approximately 10:15 am and 2:45 pm Lunch – is provided, starting at approximately 12:30 pm

Workshop Agenda 1. Welcome 8:30 – 8:50 am a. Workshop Overview

Safety Procedures Introductions Agenda Overview

Dave Biggs, Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. Consultant Team - Team Leader (Lifestyle), Workshop Facilitator

8:50 – 9:00 am b. CPR 2007 Overview with emphasis on Lifestyles Component and its fit with other components

Paul Robillard, Marbek Resource Consultants, Consultant Team – Project Manager

9:00 – 9:20 am 2. Introduction to Sustainability Dave Biggs, Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. Consultant Team - Team Leader, Lifestyle

9:20 – 9:30 am Table Dialog Table Groups

9:30 – 9:55 am 3. Current Conditions and Our Changing Province

Dave Biggs, Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. Consultant Team - Team Leader (Lifestyle)

9:55 – 10:15 am Table Dialog Table Groups

10:15 – 10:30 am Break

10:30 – 11:00 am 4. Examples of Sustainable Visions Dave Biggs, Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. Consultant Team - Team Leader, Lifestyle

11:00 – 11:25 am Case Study: Dawson Creek Mayor Calvin Kruk, Invited Guest

11:25 – 11:30 am 5. Group Visioning Exercises Dave Biggs, Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. Consultant Team - Team Leader, Lifestyle

11:30 – 12:30 pm 5a. Envisioning Changes to Neighborhood and Housing Choices

Table Exercises, Consultant Team Resource Staff Circulating to Assist

12:30 – 1:15 pm Lunch



Workshop Agenda (continued) 1:15 – 1:45 pm 5b. Envisioning Changes to Household

Heating and Cooling Table Exercises, Consultant Team Resource Staff Circulating to Assist

1:45 – 2:15 pm 5c. Envisioning Changes to Household Appliance Use


2:15 – 2:45 pm 5d. Envisioning Changes to Household Lighting


2:45 – 3:00 pm Break

3:00 – 3:30 pm 5e. Envisioning Changes to Leisure Time


3:30 – 4:15 pm 6. Plenary Discussion Coordinated by Facilitator

4:15 – 4:30 pm 7. Wrap-up and Next Steps Dave Biggs, Envision Sustainability Tools Inc. Consultant Team - Team Leader, Lifestyle



APPENDIX B: 2026 VISION WORKSHOP SUMMARY NOTES

MEETING CALLED BY Project Management Team

TYPE OF MEETING CPR 2007 – Vision 2026 Workshop

ATTENDEES

1. ERP Members: Robert Barry, Colleen Brown, David Craig, Steven Earle, Tom Hackney, Nicholas Heap, Len Horvath, Tom Knox, Dan Potts, Don Scarlett, Sarah Smith, Keith Veerman

2. ERP Facilitator: Nancy Cooley 3. BC Hydro/BCTC Staff: Murray Bond, Christine Gustafson, Gary Hamer (substituting Graham Henderson),

Steve Hobson, Jennifer Hrankowski, Altaf Hussain, Zechy Khoo, Cynthia Lee, Dennis Nelson, Iris Sulyma (substituting Ken Tiedemann)

4. Consultant Team: Dave Biggs, Jack Habart, Loren Lutzenhiser, Mithra Moezzi, Paul Robillard 5. Facilitator: Dave Biggs 6. External Experts: Lenore Harwood, Calvin Kruk

ABSENT

1. ERP Members: Mansell Griffin, Dave Humber, David Isaac, Casey Jarvis, David Kiess, Kevin Pegg 2. BC Hydro/BCTC Staff: Jennifer Gin, Kristin Hanlon, David Ince, Jim Nelson, Ron Sanderson, Cindy

Verschoor 3. Consultant Team: Jeff Carmichael

AGENDA

1. Welcome 2. Introduction to Sustainability 3. Current Conditions and How is the Region Changing? 4. Examples of Sustainable Visions within B.C. 5. Group Visioning Exercises 6. Plenary Report Back 7. Wrap-Up & Next Steps

OBJECTIVES Create sustainable visions for B.C. communities for the year 2026 with particular emphasis on the elements of community design and residential lifestyles choices that could have the greatest impact on electricity consumption.

MEETING SUMMARY NOTES

ABBREVIATIONS

A/C...........Air Conditioning BCH .........BC Hydro BCUC.......BC Utilities Commission CCE..........Cost of Conserved Energy CFL ..........Compact Fluorescent Lighting CPR..........Conservation Potential Review CPUC .......California Public Utilities Commission CSA..........Canadian Standards Association CSE ..........Cost of Saved Energy CSAE .......Customer-supplied Alternative Energies CT ............Consultant Team DSM.........Demand-Side Management EE.............Energy Efficiency/Energy Efficient ERP ..........External Review Panel ET.............Emerging Technology EUI...........Energy-use Index GHG.........Greenhouse Gas GWh.........Gigawatt Hour HVAC ......Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ICSP .........Integrated Community Sustainability Planning

IEP........... Integrated Electricity Plan IPP ........... Independent Power Producer ISO .......... International Standards Organization KWh ........ Kilowatt Hour LED ......... Light Emitting Diode LM........... Lower Mainland LTAP....... Long Term Acquisition Plan MWh ....... Megawatt Hour N/A.......... Not applicable O&M ....... Operations & Management PMT......... Project Management Team PS ............ Power Smart RFP.......... Request for Proposal TBA......... To Be Announced TBD......... To Be Determined TOR......... Terms of Reference VP............ Vice President W ............. Watt ZEH ......... Zero Energy Home

DISCLAIMER This is a recording of the meeting proceedings at the CPR 2007 Vision 2026 Workshop. The views expressed contain personal opinions, which are not necessarily endorsed by BC Hydro or any other organization in attendance.



1. Welcome SUMMARY 1a. Workshop Overview Dave Biggs, Lifestyle Team Leader, welcomed all participants and thanked BC Hydro (BCH) and the consultant team (CT) for organizing the workshop. He also thanked Mithra Moezzi for conducting the background research and gathering much of the supporting information. The agenda had been revised since it was distributed to the participants via email on February 19, 2007. The morning’s focus was on providing background information on the different housing options and neighbourhood types, and answering the question, “What is sustainability from a community’s perspective?” Case studies from Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland and Southern Interior were to be presented to provide context for what sustainability visions other communities have created. Mayor Lenore Harwood from Hudson’s Hope and Mayor Calvin Kruk from Dawson Creek were also in attendance to act as external experts for the Northern Region and contribute first hand experience on the initiatives their cities have taken. Table discussions were to be facilitated by a workbook that each participant was provided with and the discussions were to be focused on the particular region assigned to each table. (Participants had the freedom to choose the table and thus, the region that they wanted to discuss for the day.) A feedback period at the end of the day would allow each table to comment on interesting findings for the day. Various members of the CT were available to answer any questions that the participants may have had throughout the workshop. The purpose of the workshop was to think about a vision for B.C. communities in the year 2026 and to look at the specific lifestyle choices and their tradeoffs. 1b. CPR 2007 Overview with Emphasis on Lifestyles Component and Its Fit with Other Components Paul Robillard reinforced to the participants that the workshop was focused on the Lifestyle portion of the study. He encouraged participants to think outside the box and stretch their imagination. The Lifestyle analysis is purposely kept separate from the other analysis areas so that the relative certainty in the technical analysis is retained.

2. Introduction to Sustainability SUMMARY Sustainability is a confusing topic and there are many ways to look at it. It is widely felt that the sustainability movement began with a series of books in the 1960s. “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson was the first to recognize ecosystem impacts of human activity. It made the connection between decreasing bird population and the use of the pesticide DDT (Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane). The 1972 Stockholm Conference was the first to initiative in the global community to look at environmentalism. In 1973, the World Oil Crisis created global concern over the ability of resources to sustain human activity. Next in 1983, the World Community on Environment and Development became the first to identify local actions that could be taken. In 1987, the Bruntland Report coined the term “sustainable development” and identified how it could be implemented at the ground level. Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 were created from the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. They laid out 21 principles and how to apply them. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol focused on ways to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions primarily from the burning of fossil fuels and led to formal government documents committing to the cause. It was suggested that youth is one of the best barometers of what the future will hold in the long term and musical trends tend to indicate what the youth is thinking. Music has gone from peaceful (Beatles) to being more dissociated with adult culture (Pink Floyd) to even further and further from adult culture (disco, new wave). By the early 1990s, there was “new hope” and music was more appealing to all ages. However, the emergence of grunge and rap indicated a growing disconnect between children and adults. Sustainable development can be defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. It should be noted that the definition uses the word “needs” and not “desires”. The concept of “ecological footprint”, developed at the University of British Columbia, identifies all the global resources that are needed to help sustain the lifestyles and activities of the local population. For example, the ecological footprint of bananas at the local grocery store may include fuel for transport, the banana tree itself, the rainforest that is required to sequester the carbon dioxide emissions, and more. It has been suggested that all human activity today would require two Earths for it to be sustained. In essence, we are eating into our natural capital. A workshop participant raised an objection: C = comment C: To say that the majority of “life systems” today are being degraded is not accurate to my life experience. The harbour, for



example, is much cleaner than it use to be when I was growing up. It is highly irresponsible to make such a comment. Economic and technological improvements have brought about significant positive changes to our lifestyles.

C: It is true that urban air quality in western cities is likely better now than it has been at any other time since the Industrial Revolution, but this is because we have exported local wastes into the global environment. Consequently, life systems are degrading at a global scale (overall pollution).

C: Could it be that there are different of opinions because we are looking at different parts of life? There are lots of things that have improved in my lifetime, but looking into the future, what has happened in the last few years is not good. The question should be what future generations will have to deal with.

C: It is OK to have different opinions and one of the challenges is to manage these differences. C: Most visioning exercises have a host of different viewpoints, but when we look at all the different viewpoints en mass,

there is a convergence towards the opinion that current activities cannot be sustained. There are eight principles of smart growth that impact activities at the micro-scale. Surrey’s City Council adopted six of these principles in 1999 and employed them in the development of its East Clayton community, which won the Community Energy Association’s “The Best of B.C. – B.C. Energy Aware Award”. The impetus for adopting these principles were to address the following issues that were plaguing Surrey:

1. Urban sprawl 2. Reducing automobile dependence 3. .....Reducing gridlock – There was recognition that there is a strong relationship between the density of development

and the amount of vehicle kilometres traveled by automobiles (i.e., fewer automobiles with denser developments). 4. Big, segregated single-use zones 5. Homogenized development – availability of a range of living choices 6. Auto-oriented designs – as opposed to design for pedestrians and activity on the street 7. Street accessibility 8. .....Auto-dependant street networks – moved away from the traditional grid design to more convoluted designs; thus,

increasing dependence on automobiles. For example, one may need to drive 2.5km to go from one house to another even though the houses may physically be only 200m apart.

9. .....Costly grey infrastructure – roads are generally in good shape for the first 20 years, but they deteriorate over time and local governments eventually cannot support the maintenance of the infrastructure. This leads to federal bail out programs.

3. Current Conditions and How is the Region Changing? SUMMARY Condition #1: Demographic shift Housing type preferences vary by age. A growing proportion of the population prefers larger ground-oriented dwellings until they reach their 60s, at which time they begin to look to downsize. B.C.’s largest population by group has an average age of 42 and this large group of the population will be over 65 by 2035. Furthermore, the fastest rate of increase in senior population growth is at the end of the CPR study period around 2026. There will be a challenge in generating a sufficient supply of higher density housing required by an older population. Condition #2: Empty-nesters In B.C., there are more bedrooms than there are residents. One of the causes is the significant number of empty-nesters. In the Lower Mainland, Port Coquitlam is the most “bedroom-efficient” with 40% more bedrooms than people indicating a high level of under used capacity. Condition #3: Global change There are many ways in which one can measure global climate change, one of which is by measuring the Earth’s mean annual temperature. Eleven of the last twelve years are the warmest on record. The number of days over 30°C in the twenty years between 1991 and 2010 will greatly increase over that which was seen between 1961 and 1990. Victoria, for example, is expected to see a seven-fold increase. There is also a trend towards increasing number and severity of weather related disasters. For example, the pine beetle population can only be controlled by the number of days that fall below a certain temperature threshold. Participant comment: One of the causes of the pine beetle infestation problem is anti-logging initiatives. This is an example of

how poor management by the government can have a negative impact and how a sustainability initiative actually did more harm than good.

Condition #4: Shifting public opinion Between 1992 and 2006, the number of people believing (“a fair amount”) the statement that “environmental problems will negatively affect the health of future generations” increased from 51% to 68%. Around 90% of those surveyed in 2006 believe



this statement “a fair amount” or greater. Condition #5: Shifting policies Shifting public opinion has also led to a shift in policies. After the United States federal government abandoned the Kyoto Treaty, 300 U.S. mayors chose to adopt the Kyoto Protocol for their own cities. The U.S. Transportation Bill now states that transportation planning has to be done in conjunction with land use planning. It is recognizing the difficulty in sustaining the current transportation policies, and it is looking for alternative and sustainable options. Other indicators of the shifting public opinion include the emergence of Canada’s Integrated Community Sustainability Planning (ICSP) and the Canadian Business for Social Responsibility (CBSR).

4. Examples of Sustainable Visions within B.C. SUMMARY One of the common principles in sustainable planning is to allow residential areas access to alternative transportation modes. However, locating residential developments close to transportation modes is not sufficient. There is a movement towards locating job development opportunities close to transportation modes as well. Residential communities are often not the same communities where the residents work. Since businesses pay a much larger amount of taxes, this leads to taxes being skewed to communities where the majority of commerce takes place. Thus, residential communities suffer budget shortfalls. Another common pitfall in residential communities is the focus on short-term gains. Developers are often required to pay the initial cost for building the roads and other infrastructure that is necessary in a residential development. However, poor community planning and market demand has allowed many suburban neighbourhoods to develop as automobile-centric neighbourhoods. Twenty years later, the initial windfall of significant developer investment becomes an immense burden on the municipality to maintain the roads and infrastructure. Many communities require government bailouts because of this issue. In trying to rectify the situation, the government now requires the communities to develop an ICSP in order for them to receive financial support. Dockside Green is a sustainable development in Victoria with 1000 residential units and 190,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. It is an ambitious project that offers a range of housing options from residential towers to townhouses and is intended to be an inclusive, walkable community. It includes sustainable concepts such as reusing materials (e.g., discarded city curbs for landscaping), low flow fixtures (e.g., dual flush toilets), green roof, and rainwater harvest. Mayor Calvin Kruk of Dawson Creek gave a brief presentation of the initiatives his city has undertaken as part of their sustainability plan. People living in the Northern Region are generally aware of the environment and sustainability issues because there is an abundance of industrial businesses in the Northern Region and their environmental impacts are readily visible. The community went through relatively lengthy visioning exercises and developed a long-term sustainability plan. Some of the initiatives are already underway. For example, photovoltaic cells have been installed on the roof of the community’s RCMP building and more will be installed above city hall and the fire department in the coming year. The floor was then opened for the workshop participants to question Mayor Calvin Kruk. Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment The question and discussion periods are summarized and presented in the chronological order as it was discussed at the workshops. Q: What allowed the sustainability movement to take off? A: Elected officials, keen staff and support from different levels of government all working together. Governance, in a lot of

ways, leads initiatives that sometimes are necessary. Q: What was the biggest obstacle? A: The two largest obstacles were that the awareness of the available programs was low and the need to ensure that practices

are practical. Q: Were the government cutbacks in 2003 a catalyst? A: Yes, but oil and gas wells in the region were also a big reason. There is some sensitivity to what the industries in the area

are doing. Q: Is Dawson Creek becoming more attractive or liveable as a result of the sustainability initiatives? A: Some may see our initiatives as contradictory to the oil and logging industries in the area, but the community sees that as



more of a need to ensure that their living practices are sustainable. Sustainability is a tool used to attract and retain family health care professionals and skilled trade people.

Q: Is this a vote getter? Are these initiatives ahead or behind what the community wants? A: We are leading the community. The wind park project is a problem in that it is costing votes, but that is a smaller group of

vocals. Q: How do you keep the community involved? Any plans to conduct the visioning exercise periodically? A: We have not talked about redoing the entire exercise yet, but city does conduct surveys periodically. Also, the municipal

government is always available to answer questions that citizens may have. Q: Does Dawson Creek have a transportation system? A: Yes, there are three buses mainly used by school children. C: Talk to everyone that can possibly help. For example, participating with community colleges to establish courses around

sustainability issues. C: A significant amount of potential future energy generation is in the Northern Region and it is the responsibility of these

community leaders to think about sustainability issues as residents are becoming more and more opposed to having the large energy projects in their areas because they impact lifestyles.

C: One of the issues with promoting sustainability (e.g., densification in city centres) in the smaller communities is that the people that move into our communities are typically those that are looking for the lifestyle that these communities are know for. That is, people move there for the uncrowded living and are not looking for dense living in the downtown core.

C: It’s not just the communities in the north find it difficult to introduce more sustainable housing forms. For example, the Lower Mainland has only one fee-simple row housing development, whereas these are very common in central Canada and eastern U.S. cities.

Q: Governments are typically elected for three to four years, but the issues we are considering are long term (i.e., 40 years).

How does the government get around short-term planning? A: It is the responsibility of politicians to do what is right, not necessarily what is demanded at the moment or what is best for

acquiring votes. A: A possible solution is to create institutions that are advisories to the governments. Members of these advisory groups

should be given longer terms (e.g., seven years) so that there is more continuity from government to government.



5. Group Visioning Exercises SUMMARY A brief introduction was given prior to each of the five topics:

Envisioning Changes to Neighbourhood and Housing Changes Envisioning Changes to Household Heating and Cooling Envisioning Changes to Appliance Use Envisioning Changes to Household Lighting Envisioning Changes to Leisure Time

Participants were then asked to discuss the topics amongst themselves at the tables. Each of the five tables focused on one of the four regions – Vancouver Island, Lower Mainland, Southern Interior and Northern Region – with two tables discussing the Lower Mainland. Questions in the workbook helped guide the discussions. NOTE: The details of the discussion at each table are not reported here because the CT will be generating a report identifying the key findings of the discussions as indicated by the participants’ responses in the workbooks. Also, more resources than are available would have been required to capture the five simultaneous discussions.

ITEM PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

5.1 Action: CT to write report on the findings from the discussions of the breakout tables at the Vision 2026 Workshop. BCH to distribute report to workshop participants once available.

CT, BCH Mar 23, 2007

6. Plenary Report Back SUMMARY Each table presented at least one interesting finding that they had talked about during the workshop. The following are some of the ideas that were brought forth:

Try implementing a “family night” once a week where the entire family do something together. The activities of the night (e.g., playing games) are planned together. This addresses some of the issues in our society with dependence on electronic entertainment (e.g., TVs and video games).

Challenge our communities to turn lights off for one night or other similar initiatives.

Encourage people out of their homes and build a stronger community feel. Engage in activities that involve more participation.

Redefining common activities considered low-income (e.g., laundromats) and make them into something that the general public would want to participate in (e.g., laundromats as the “modern day saloon”).

There are two paths: consumerism (current) vs. “doing the right thing”. Consumerism is much more prevalent, so how do you make “doing the right thing” cool? Ultimately, we need more regulation and the government needs to show more leadership; however, that requires public support. So, it is up to each individual, and that starts with personal awareness and commitment.

Things don’t happen by accident, they happen by design. We need a dedicated group of people who will push for what we want to achieve.

Conspicuous leisure and conspicuous consumption drive all societies, according to Veblen. Our culture clearly relies almost entirely on conspicuous consumption as an indicator of status. This approach is far more resource and energy intensive than the traditional emphasis on achieving conspicuous leisure (e.g., the idle aristocracies of pre World War I Europe). However, a society focused on conspicuous leisure has it own drawbacks.

Use the power of social marketing. Great success can be achieved (e.g., ParticipAction).

Consider other tactical ideas that may change our lifestyles: bring back the milkman and home-delivered groceries (“just-in-time”), downsizing for empty-nesters, bring to the home similar applications to hotel keys turning on lights.

One of our common assumptions is that people have bad habits, but where does this come from? They are often marketed to us by those who can profit from it. Know who these adversaries are and set a path to compete against them. This is much like cigarette advertising and show that these consumption focused ads are anti-social and not sustainable in the long run.



A lot of the discussion seems to be around moving from consumptive to minimalist flavour. Our society is like the hiker with a 90 kg backpack and 3 km into the hike they are struggling, whereas someone with a 30 kg pack would be OK.

Redesign work patterns. For example, consider changing the pattern of five days of work and two days of rest. Moving to a 4:3 ratio would reduce energy consumption and solve a lot of social problems too (e.g., lack of daycare, growing distance in parent-child relationships). It would also address people’s desire for more leisure time. Thus, it is important to sell energy efficiency as what we can gain, not we have to give up.

Around the time of World War II people felt good to be a part of a total mobilization effort to protect their society from a serious external threat. Most people now realize that climate change poses a serious threat to our civilization in our own time, and this comes at a time when many people are looking for something bigger than themselves that can provide meaning to their lives.

Focus on the positive; sell the positives (e.g., more community, more time, better lifestyle).

Give a sense that it is not too late to change our lifestyles and make a positive impact. Maybe we need to work more on how we can tackle this issue before it is too late.

There needs to be a sense of equality and that the costs each individual assumes is taken on by everybody equally.

We need to have a way to deal with conflicting messages from advertising.

People need to be aided with resources, the right products that people require. Our current economy is not always sufficient at getting the right products to the right people at the right time.

To elaborate further on the topic of trust and confidence in the messages, it is important for BCH to have partners. BCH is a driver and leader, but it needs partners. One of the main reasons that climate change is becoming accepted as fact is because there are so many sources that are saying the same thing.

Energy prices need to be higher.

People need to be aware of how much energy they are using. Some kind of visible metering at homes would be ideal. Right now, these meters are invisible in the home.

Ministry of Health and Education are saying similar things with respect to encouraging kids to be healthier.

Indeed higher energy prices are needed, but the aim should be for the price to reflect the real cost of providing that energy (e.g., accounting for distribution, generation, and building additional capacity).

7. Wrap-Up & Next Steps SUMMARY Following the workshop, the CT will generate a report that captures the responses in the workbooks. This report will primarily be intended to guide the Lifestyle analysis as opposed to reporting the activities of the day (i.e., summary notes). Nonetheless, it will be made available to the ERP for their reference. The next significant step in the Lifestyle analysis is a web survey of 2500 B.C. residents. The results of this workshop will guide the creation of the survey and the questions being asked. Once the survey is completed, the results will be compiled and analysed with various modeling scenarios. The results will then be documented and presented.



APPENDIX C: RESULTS FROM THE 2026 VISION FOR MORE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES WORKSHOP

Introduction Workshop #2 of the CPR 2007 entitled “2026 Vision for More Sustainable Communities: Opportunities for Lifestyle Changes in Electricity Conservation” was held 22 February 2007 at the SFU Segal Centre in Vancouver. This document is a summary report of the written outputs of the workshop. A workshop summary that describes the verbal discussion at the workshop compliments this report is available on the CPR Extranet site (under “Workshops”). The purpose of this document is primarily to assist the Consultant Team in the development of a Sustainable Vision for B.C. communities for 2026. It also serves as an overview of the outputs of the workshop for those unable to attend.

The workshop included members of the External Review Panel, BC Hydro employees, and members of the Consultant Team. Since Northern communities were not well represented on the ERP, two special guests (both mayors of Northern communities) were invited to ensure a broad regional representation. Workshop participants were divided into tables according to geographic region represented, with the tables serving as breakout groups throughout the day. Two Lower Mainland tables were formed with one table representing each of the three other regions. While some participants did not live in the region that they chose to represent, most were familiar enough with the region to consider the unique needs and character of the region.

Each participant was given a Workbook containing breakout questions and space to record responses. These collected at the end of the meeting and those responses are summarized in this report. Consultant staff also recorded discussion from each table. This document summarizes the Workbook responses and table summaries.

Twenty seven workbooks were received: ten from External Review Panel members, six from BC Hydro staff, five from the consultant team participants, and six with no affiliation marked. The workshop participants are not considered statistically representative of British Columbia as a whole. Rather they are considered to be a subset of the population that is particularly well-informed about electricity, more environmentally engaged, generally better off, and better educated as compared to British Columbians as a whole. We thank each participant for their responses and their engagement during the workshop.

Overview of results Results collected from the workbooks are of two main types: those addressing systems issues (e.g., housing design, sustainability education, quality of life, government regulation, economic development, transportation, energy prices, barriers and motivations to change, attitudes, etc.) and those suggesting particular technologies, end uses, or behaviours to investigate (feedback metering, lighting control technologies, clothes drying, standby use, etc.). These results are presented primarily in participant’s own words to capture the complex and varied set of discussions that took place and the diversity of viewpoints that were expressed. Thus the bulk of workshop results are presented in the next section. This material is complimented by the record of plenary discussions and ideas reported as breakout table summaries at the end of the meeting, which are available in the workshop minutes available on the CPR Extranet.

In overview, we make a few observations on the workshop and its results:

• The general tone of responses implied that most (but not all) participants thought lifestyle change was needed to move towards sustainability

• However technological improvements also figured importantly in participants’ answers

• A key challenge in investigating potential lifestyle change is balancing infrastructural and large-scale changes (transit systems, food acquisition, socially negotiated definitions of quality of life, materialism, pricing systems) with individual action and desires (living frugally, line drying, low automobile use). As to the latter, to the extent that potential changes in individual behaviours are identified, it is legitimate to ask why the changes haven’t already been made (e.g., to make speculation more realistic, as well as to identify “changeable” lifestyle choices).



Question-by-Question Summary of Workbook Responses This section provides a summary of answers, along with a selection of individual responses, for most questions in the workbook. Responses for questions that provided context (e.g., type and size of housing) are not summarized. The full workbook is available on the CPR Extranet site.

Sustainability Overall Question: What do you think are the most substantial challenges for achieving a more sustainable future for B.C.?

As fundamental challenges, many mentioned market and market-focused political pressures as trumping environmental concerns, for example, “political challenge – developer’s mentality that bigger is better”, “sacred cows, i.e., growth is good for the economy,” “economic tradition of achieving growth and development through exploitation of natural resources, rather than through redevelopment and replacement of capital, innovation and efficiency gains,” “people are more concerned with the economy than the environment; society’s addiction to acquiring more,” “economic optimism,” and “focus on lowest cost first.” “Smart communities would need to be cool (with Whistler as an example),” one participant wrote. Regional development choices, such as oil & gas development or dams, were noted as having major impact. Lack of awareness about sustainability – whether in economic analyses or in public attitudes in general – was also often mentioned as a challenge, as was funding sustainability (e.g., infrastructural changes).

Better and more local transit was one of the most common responses, with many noting challenges to improving this (e.g., population density relative to infrastructural requirements, with community designed around automobile). Lack of local produce was also identified as a challenge. Also mentioned was accessibility to education, cultural, entertainment services. Balanced and open communication, one respondent said: “really listening to each other (naysayers and believers); achieving balance of power (youth and adults).” One challenged densification as a solution: “densification – the assumption that this will solve a problem. The Resource Utilization Index may go down (per person) but the number of people will ultimately double or triple our resource use. Densification is a good band-aid, but the bleeding is still occurring. We need radical sutures first, then the band-aid.”

One participant stressed cultural norms:

“While cultural norms can be overstated, it is often noted that Canadians are generally uncomfortable with new approaches. Acting in business-as-usual fashion, and doing as is commonly done is commended as prudent, sensible and meritorious. This contrasts with the approbation that the stereotypical “American” mindset places on risk-taking, pioneering, innovation, competition, and individualism.”

Another commented that he thought past efforts were good and that this should continue, “I would suggest that B.C. already has a sustainable future – the challenge is to manage our resources well, as has been done in the past. The biggest challenge is to develop additional sources of power.”

Question: What factors do you think would be the most influential factors in motivating you and your community toward achieving these goals & priorities?

Naturally, the responses to this question were complex. Many mentioned that the changes would have to be seen to provide social and quality of life on an individual and community level (i.e., rather than more abstract goals of sustainability), and that peer pressure and word of mouth could help, as might fear of climate change. For example:

• “On an individual level, social values and support can be motivated by social benefits, enabled by word of mouth, with rules and financial return helping; on a community level, a change of the marketplace, with social and political commitment to change”

Government should have an important role, several mentioned, through incentives, regulation, and commitment, and that education would be an important motivating factor. Several mentioned the importance of attention to architectural structure. The price of gas and other constraints on car use were also mentioned, as were energy security concerns and energy prices in general – for example, that energy prices should reflect external costs (two mentions). One mentioned time as an important constraint in his/her own ability and motivation. Canada’s climate change commitments were also mentioned as a potential motivation for community: “meeting Canada’s Kyoto obligation is both a requirement under international law, and a matter of national pride.”



Neighbourhood and Housing Choices The Session 5 workbook section began with a series of questions about current housing situation to provide context for subsequent answers. Thus they are not summarized, other than noting:

• 70% of respondents had at least one bedroom not used as such. These rooms were most often used as offices/libraries, guest bedrooms, and storage, and sometimes as hobby rooms or for other uses.

• Only one considered their dwelling too small (member of a 4-person household in a 1000 square foot household); 20% said their dwelling was too big and the rest said it was the right size.

In short, participants generally find use for the space they have, and are content with it, with a relatively small proportion considering their home too big.

Question: Thinking about the material presented this morning, what features or amenities could be added to your neighbourhood that would allow you to reduce your energy use?

The answers here naturally depend on whether the respondent lived in urban or rural area. Frequent answers:

• Better public transportation

• Stores closer (markets, hardware stores, restaurants specifically mentioned)

• Job opportunities closer

• Government-sponsored or other programs to encourage energy efficiency

• Zoning to encourage compact development

Other answers mentioned more rarely:

• Connecting paths for pedestrians and bikes, covered where winters are severe

• High-speed internet

• Distributed generation; solar energy; incentives for solar DHW

• District heating

• Better coordination of public health services

• Home delivery of milk and groceries

• That they didn’t know of anything (two)

Question: Of the New Urbanist neighbourhoods that you have seen in the presentations, what are the most appealing features to you? What excites you about them? What might motivate you to live in one?

Most people found a number of appealing features about these neighbourhoods. Frequent answers:

• More personal exchanges, social connection, assistance when needed, community atmosphere

• Less reliance on vehicle/ability to walk or bike where I want to go

• Easy access to recreational amenities



• Less responsibility for maintenance

• Green spaces

• Less imprint on environment

Others answers mentioned more rarely:

• Smaller living space

• Need for only one car

• That they found nothing appealing about them (3)

Question: What are least appealing features of those neighbourhoods? What frightens you about them? What would keep you from moving to one?

Nearly everybody noted some strong potential shortcomings as well. Frequent answers:

• Too many people:

o What kind of people?

o Will there be enough green space to share?

o Disruption due to proximity: noise, cooking odours

o Lack of privacy

• Not enough places or activities for kids

• Lack of access to outdoors; distance to natural spaces

• Communal decisions, strata councils (e.g., restricting ability to make dwelling modifications, to have a piano studio, etc.)

• No garden, no private outdoor space

• Possible crime, homeless

Also mentioned:

• High prices; not an option for poor people/poor families

o Too expensive for “normal” wage earners to live in (in Vancouver)

• Architectural quality as a potential problem – that new developments are often tacky; “sterility”

• Proscriptive design; no ability to innovate or express individuality

• Social network and choice of schools or educational opportunities for children

• Will these neighbourhoods live up to their promises?

• This is just a temporary solution that will not overcome population pressures



A few quotes:

• “I want to own my own home and not have a strata council having control of my life, i.e., I want a more compact fee simple home”

• “Prefer workshops/open space, freedom to make noise/mess – projects”

Question: When (at what stage of life), if ever, could you see yourself living in such a neighbourhood?

Almost everyone said “empty nester”, and especially older, e.g., “after retirement”, or age 70-75 and beyond/when physical capabilities diminish. Few mentioned anything else: “any stage (except perhaps early adulthood)” (one), ages 18-30, before kids (one), or as interim housing (one).

Question: Do you think the Smart Growth/New Urbanist community designs would be appropriate for the communities in your region? Why/why not?

Some implied no:

• “it’s rural!”, with its rural nature key to the region’s personality (Vancouver Island)

• “space, economic aspects” (North)

• “appropriate for West Vancouver – not in my neighbourhood (NIMBY)” (North)

Some implied limited applicability or yes with reservations:

• “should be a blend – not everybody wants to live in a multifamily dwelling”

• “lower need for these than in the city”

• “yes – but modified to suit in terms of height, density, and with limitation on number of rental units”

• “yes – already actively implemented in Vancouver (where I live), but more difficult in other areas as current development patterns preclude significantly urban form revisions”

• “some might be – but our community has a strong NIMBY attitude”

• “the density might not sell to anyone under 60” (North)

And many said they thought it might work or already was working:

• “yes – as the population ages, the smart growth designs will become more appealing” (Southern Interior)

• “yes – because space is at a premium; islands want to keep ‘their’ island from changing too much”

• “yes – the OCP a strong call for this kind of community (e.g., urban containment boundary), but there is still significant desire for a suburban lifestyle

• “yes – areas need more green space and liveability at street level”

• “yes – slowly over time; biggest first step is getting business/amenities close to homes”

• “less traveling, less energy consumption, mix communities”



• “these are being developed and are clearly important for those trying to get into home ownership (affordability issues) and those who are older, downsizing, and wanting a simpler, less cluttered lifestyle” (Vancouver Island)

• “yes -- most of these housing forms are already here, to greater or lesser extents. One mid-density form of housing common elsewhere but almost unknown in the Lower Mainland is the fee-simple row house. This form of housing should be encouraged here, and would fit in well within existing SFR streetcar suburb areas, or mid-density areas.”

Question: Any other comments about housing, community, and their relationship to energy use?

Comments included:

• “big box stores are the bad guys.”

• “transit important to density – need larger communities to provide economies of scale”

• “bigger – tends to use much more power; also however allows homeowner to customize with efficiency measures and electricity generation technologies”

• “distributed generation needs to be factored into housing design”

• “leaky condo issue underlines the unreliability of building trades and government regulation –this needs to be fixed in order to achieve good energy efficiency improvements”

• “My observation is that folks in the Vancouver area love being in an urban area, provided that they can prevent any social interaction with those surrounding them at will. Being tuned into an iPod while walking down Robson is a very effective way of doing this. At home, people place a high value on privacy – they don’t want to hear the neighbours, and they don’t want the neighbours to see them – both in their house and their yard. While it is not the only factor, I’d suggest that the more successful architects and planners are in providing high-density privacy (and security), the more successful they will be at selling densification to people. Denser populations should make district heating and public transit more viable, even as it reduces the desirability of personal transportation (traffic congestion) and individual combustion sources (AQ concerns for some fuels).”

Heating & Cooling Question: How has how you use your heating changed over the past 5-10 years?

There was no strong pattern and no evidence of wholesale change: ten said no particular change; seven said they heated less; and five said they heated more. The remainder did not answer or said no change, they didn’t know.

Question: If heating were free, would you heat more?

Only five said “of course”; eight said “no” and nine said “maybe.” One mentioned that their heat was included in the rent. The lack of strong envisioned price responsiveness is interesting, even if undoubtedly linked to the presumably generally higher than average income and ecologic orientation of most of the participants.

Cooling equipment: Many had none; few had anything other than portable or ceiling fans. Two mentioned low-e windows.

Question: Under what conditions could you see using less heating? What would motivate such a change and what could facilitate it?

Many respondents mentioned zoning technologies, such as zoned (rooms) or focused (i.e., part of a room, perhaps with occupancy sensors) heating as potentially enabling them to use less heating. Some mentioned the cost of



zoning as prohibitive. Better windows (especially if there were financial assistance for installing them) and better building envelope were also often mentioned. Among the other responses were: “if I were home more”, “when no longer needed to accommodate a sick/frail person”, and “if temperatures get warmer.” A few mentioned higher prices; and one mentioned feedback/metering to make the cost of heating clearer.

Question: Compared to now, how many degrees cooler could you keep your home in the winter without interfering with your activities?

Whatever their current temperature, most said they could not or would change it other than during the night and when away. Eight said they could reduce it further, most by one or two degrees Celsius, but several by 3 degrees C or more. Some mentioned that others in the house (a temperature-sensitive wife, a sick person) restricted their ability to lower temperature.

Question: If you don’t already have one, under what conditions might you install a central or wall air conditioner? Please specify whether you’re talking more about a central air conditioner or a wall air conditioner.

The most common views expressed here was a dislike of air conditioning and assurances that central or wall air conditioner would never be put in, or that cooling was not necessary for them. For example,

• “I would never buy an A/C – the climate in Southwestern Canada does not require it!! (and my husband is an HVAC technician!)”

• “Don’t need or want it – am happy taking off clothes!”

• “Don’t want one. Don’t like the feel, especially at home”

• “In pretty good health, so don’t feel much discomfort from warm weather”

Several said they might install one (usually a wall air conditioner) if a heat wave were severe enough --especially if it were so hot they were unable to sleep -- or if temperatures got much warmer in general, for example, “a wall air conditioner, if there were a second year of more than three weeks of >= 95oF with high humidity>=90%”. One mentioned they would add a wall or air central air conditioner only if all other options (fans, windows, shading, passive cooling) failed to provide relief. Three mentioned that they might add one as either part of a heat pump or HVAC circulation upgrade. Two mentioned the possibility of a swamp (evaporative) cooler rather than a wall or central air conditioner, and one mentioned shades as a preferable option. Several who would consider installing a wall or central air conditioner said they would do so if it were cheap enough.

Question: If you do have an air conditioner, can you see giving it up or using it less? Under what conditions, and what might facilitate such a change?

There was little response here, since few participants have air conditioners other than fans. One commented that zone cooling would help.

Question: Do you have other comments about heating, cooling, or ventilation, and the potential for change in the future? If so please brief us here.

There were many suggestions, most focusing on technologies and building design:

• Better building codes and standards

• Better homes; energy efficient buildings

• More zoning

• Waste heat recovery (three mentions)

• “Visible metering should get people to think more about their energy use”



• “Cooling load/desire for cooling/perceived need for cooling; Public education: We live in a temperate climate in the Lower Mainland and cooling (with some exceptions) is unnecessary”.

• “Increased cooling load at increased temperature extremes”

• “I am contemplating an ASHP but am reluctant because of increased electrical consumption and increased noise for neighbours”

• “The older house I occupy has inadequate ventilation – needs better circulation”

• “Better insulation, more efficient heating systems are better options than suffering discomfort”

• “A great deal of heating/cooling control is determined by building design”

• “Poor house design for natural cooling/heating/ventilation; no manual option : curtains, fans, solar daytime heating, convective “heating” (e.g., ceiling fans), waste heat recovery, no floor insulation, etc.”

• “How do we deal with multi-unit residential buildings – no incentives to winterize/weatherize, and common fees for gas heat”

• “What about geothermal heat pumps?”; “Encourage use of heat pumps”

• “Emphasize district energy systems”

• “Make the heating trade a certified one such as electrical or plumbing to help with level of accurate sizing/installation”

• “Initiate minimum efficiency standards for appliances”

• “Better design for windows solar gains and summer solar shading”

• “Building codes should be changed to reflect energy efficiency, including restricting air conditioning” (emphasis added)

• “We already zone our house – the questions above do not cover this point.

• “Geoexchange seems very promising as an integrated heating and cooling tech. We may want to investigate vernacular architecture (and styles of dress, come to think of it) in warmer climates (i.e. analogs for our own future climate) to get ideas on passive building heating and cooling approaches.”

Two comments were more firmly directed to behavioural/social aspects, respectively suggesting that heating and cooling decisions generally are a result of household dynamics rather than individual decisions, and that “comfort” is to some extent a tradition:

• “My wife would not consider changing comfortable indoor temperatures she currently enjoys”

• “Most people keep their homes too warm in winter. This may be simply because this is what they are used to.”



Appliances Question: Do you have a freezer separate from the one with your refrigerator(s)?

Consistent with the high penetration of freezers found in surveys, over half of those responding said they had a separate freezer.

Question: This freezer is more of (a necessity, a luxury, a tradition, other)?

Eighty percent of those with a freezer said it was a necessity. Just two said it was a tradition, and nobody called it a luxury.

Question: Do you have more than one refrigerator? If so, is the second refrigerator more of (a necessity, a luxury, a tradition, other)?

Of the relatively few (six respondents) who had a second refrigerator, four considered a necessity (for example, located in rental suite) and two considered it a luxury (for example, a cheer & party refrigerator).

Question: If you have a separate freezer, under what conditions do you think you would get rid of your freezer? If you don’t have one, under what conditions might you buy one?

Among who have already have a freezer, it is clear that freezers were intimately tied into a social system of food acquisition, and most wouldn’t get rid of one. For example:

• “We buy meat in bulk and freeze it, along with seasonal items such as fruit, mushrooms, etc.”

• “If we didn’t have raspberry patch and the desire to freeze berries to eat over the winter season”

• “If we changed to preserving with dehydration or a root cellar”

• “Drying or canning are poor substitutes for freezing in our case”

Conditions under which those with freezers might get rid of them were few:

• “We wouldn’t get rid of it, though we might get along with a smaller one”

• “With a larger refrigerator (that has a larger freezer component) we might get rid of separate freezer”

• If storage requirements were reduced (e.g., kids move out)

Three who didn’t have a freezer suggested conditions under which they might buy one:

• “Buying in bulk – cheaper! Issues of food security … emergency preparedness assuming no power loss”

• Maybe for a growing family

• “Would only buy one if I had a generator to keep it running during power outages (or solar powered)”

• “If we had a lot more produce to store”

Question: If you have a second refrigerator, under what conditions do you think you would get rid of it?

There were few second refrigerators. One owner said they would consider turning it off outside of party needs.

Question: Could you see reducing the size of your primary refrigerator? Under what conditions might you do so?

Some said they could reduce the size of their primary refrigerator as things stand, but most said they would not other than if household size was reduced or access to/time to shop for food was increased, e.g., if one could shop



on a daily basis or if home delivery of groceries was instituted. One mentioned that they used to have an apartment-size refrigerator but “broke down and bought a bigger fridge because it was such a hassle to us the small one.”

Two mentioned that buying a smaller efficient refrigerator was a challenge (i.e., refrigerators proclaimed as efficient were generally big refrigerators), and another that they had just bought a bigger but more efficient refrigerator. Not everybody had control over the size (e.g., refrigerator furnished by others).

Question: Other comments:

Many mentioned line drying as opposed to machine drying of clothes and what might facilitate its use, e.g., drying closet, removal of bylaws prohibiting line drying, if moisture were not a problem in the home. Some mentioned clothes drying as a cultural habit, and that households in some countries rarely used dryers. One mentioned washing clothes and dishes less. One facilitator mentioned that the questions were too personal for some participants and that people at his table discussed institutional and policy ideas that were not accommodated. Also mentioned:

• Timers on showers

• Smaller hot water heaters

• Use cold water showers for health benefits

• Stoves – encourage microwaves for smaller meals and reheating

• Front loading washing machines

• Dish- and clothes-washing: habits of over-washing dishes, over-sanitization and energy implications thereof (table discussion item recorded by facilitator)

Lighting Question: Which of these are true about how you light your house? (multiple answers ok)

• We light only to see, and for nothing else.

• We tend to use task lighting for specific tasks

• rather than general lighting.

• in addition to general lighting

• We light because it provides a nice atmosphere inside

• We light because others in our neighbourhood do it; it makes the house look nice from the outside

• We light for safety and security

• There are very different opinions in my household about what lighting is for and how it should be used

• Other. What ________________________________?

Most said they lit both to see and especially (almost everyone) because it provided a nice atmosphere inside. The answers confirm that lighting is rarely just about seeing. Naturally many also mentioned safety and security and many used task lighting in addition to general lighting. A few checked that there were very different opinions in their household about what light was for. Other reasons mentioned for using lighting were “carport light – to welcome us home”, and for comfort.



Question: Turning off lights or installing energy-efficient bulbs is the first thing that most people say they do when asked about their energy conservation practices, yet except for during Energy Crises, things are often quite lit up. What do you think is the potential for long-term change in lighting practices, and what might motivate such a change?

A few suggested that there was substantial potential for reducing lighting. Among the answers suggesting possible lifestyle changes:

• “Start with commercial space! Why are office towers and shopping malls lit up at night”

• “Education and possible cost increases or incentives for residential”; a lighting properly CD

• Limit the trend toward perimeter soffit vanity lights • “Could be a cultural shift to spot lighting from general lighting (because it looks more “classy”)” • Many discussed links between darkness/light and safety or sense thereof:

o “Sense of safety/security is basic. Light=safety. Not much reduction is possible, unless lights off for safety programs prevail, or motion detectors were mandated”

• Several explicitly mentioned that darkness may provide safety – “lighting is a giveaway”; it was also mentioned that the RCMP recommends dark outside for safety; one suggested that the public could be made aware that night lighting for security may be counterproductive

• “It is possible that a reduction in the intensity of outdoor lighting might reduce the perceived need for indoor lighting (this might be the case if people make some relation between light levels outside and light levels inside – I have no idea if this is actually the case.)”

•

Quite a few mentioned that they thought there was little potential for change outside of technological changes such as LEDs, motion detectors, or technological changes facilitating daylighting (design, lighting pipes):

• Occupancy sensors for residential

• Motion sensors for outdoor lighting – and the potential added security they provide by signalling anyone’s approach

Question: Readily available electric lighting has allowed household residents to disperse and do different things in different part of the house in the evening. Given the close link between lighting -- along with televisions, computers, etc. -- and what individuals can be doing at any time in the household at night, what kind of lifestyle changes do you think might realistically reduce energy use?

Answers covered house size, technological efficiency (more efficiency appliances), more shared or outdoor activities (shared family activities, more outside activity, more active lifestyle, more community, better communal spaces), and less work or less focus on work (stress consumption). One concrete suggestion was to consider putting TV and computers in the same part of house (e.g., rather than running three televisions separately). Some questioned whether we wanted such increased communality.

Several mentioned cost/consumption responsiveness and incentives:

• Indoor metering so immediate feedback; smart metering

• Increased price of energy

• Time of use tariffs



Leisure and Electronics Question: Thinking about the current assortment of leisure and electronic products in your home, please use the table to indicate how many of each you have and how much of the time they are on (full power).

Participants were asked to fill out a table for televisions, computers, printers, entertainment systems, stereo systems, hot tubs, and swimming pools. Obviously no statistical conclusions can be made. The most interesting result is that a number of people leave their computers on 24 hours per day; most said about 6-10 hours per day actively on for their primary computer.

Question: As the technological trend moves away from CRT televisions to LCD and plasma screens (etc.), screen sizes have been getting bigger. Under what conditions do you see limiting the screen size of your future televisions?

This question was intended to approach opinions about the potential role of voluntary “restraint” (i.e., a moral framework) in modifying a strong anticipated trend to bigger TVs, as compared to other reasons for increasing or not increasing television screen size. A number of respondents volunteered that government should not interfere with such a choice, even if they didn’t want a big TV themselves. Price was often mentioned as a limiting factor in getting a bigger TV, as was room size. Others said they just didn’t find big screen TVs attractive, but a few mentioned they had one and liked it. One mentioned that there may be a natural limit to the trend and that other technologies (e.g., video goggles) could become an attractive alternative.

Question: Given that electronics technology is changing rapidly and nobody knows exactly what will happen, what lifestyle changes do you think might limit the electricity use of these new products? What should sustainability researchers be thinking about on this topic?

• Fuel cells rather than batteries

• Controls on energy when not in use

• Making Energy Star software mandatory to be activated right out of the box (standby power)

• Laptops rather than desktops

• “Advances in energy efficiency (and battery life) driven by demand for better handheld devices should be deliberately introduced into grid-tied devices to boost the efficiency of these devices”

Among the more behavioural or mixed rather than strictly technological measures:

• Lifestyle shift to higher technology/lower use products

• Trend toward more portable, lower-energy consuming devices – individualized carried or worn devices could replace use of televisions, etc.

• Community activities/pub, coffee-house, etc.

• Change friends or their location

• “Encouraging meaning in relationships – community not ‘things’”

• “Where the kids/youth; what are their ideas on the subject?”

• Smaller dwelling

• Grassroots education about sustainability



And some gave more extended analysis of fundamental sociological issues:

• “Overall, a cultural change to focus less on materialism and self-indulgence would lead to permanent changes – what about moving toward building more communities. Urbanism seems to drive people to confine their leisure activities to their homes or personal space. That is, there is very little community pride/community cafes and courtyards in North America like they do in Europe”

Last Words When it comes to lifestyle and electricity use, what questions do you think we should be investigating?

Several general questions and issues about consumption were raised that bear investigation:

• Why do we (1) Canada and (2) B.C. use so much (is it building size, hot tubs, etc.?)”

• “I think a key problem with lifestyle is that a very well-financed advertising industry is promoting many products and lifestyle changes that are contradictory to sustainability and energy efficiency. This is a social harm, just as cigarette advertising has been in the past. It needs to be recognized now and efforts begun to curb it. Just as was done with cigarettes. BC Hydro’s efforts to promote sustainable lifestyles will never be able to compete with a multi-million dollar industry that has finely-honed skills that are known to be effective”

o On the subject of advertising and commerce, one noted that “green” products (proclaimed greenness as a selling point) also promotes /rationalizes consumption

• “What is it about the high energy consumption, suburban, car-friendly, lifestyle that people find appealing?”

• “Why is it that people like “the plug”, and what would it take to get people to “unplug”

• “Why (if) people prefer to be plugged in/online to relating in person”

• “How can we target 15-25 year olds and those over 50 with messages about lifestyle (and other) benefits of densification?”

• “Would you limit your TV use to reduce electricity use and help the environment”

• “Can we connect SWB (ed. Social well-being?), which can improve our lifestyles, with energy conservation? It’s cool to be sufficient”

• “Connect social well being with types of activities”

• “How do you get people to connect the consequence of using electricity to the actual use”

• “Application of social marketing concepts to creating a change in the ethic”

• “Proper ways of promoting ‘sustainability’ (need scientifically informed and not just about selling stuff)”

• “What social marketing lessons can be taken from smoking, seat belt, participation, etc. programs…”

• “How to promote healthy/socially connected lifestyles that are low energy intensity”

A number mentioned the need to build awareness, for example:



• Consumption feedback, e.g., “Compare your use with others; compare your use with e.g., hospital, earth, etc.”

• Otherwise brining awareness to how electricity is used in the home

• And also awareness of how electricity is produced

Others mentioned particular trends or technological issues:

• I-Pod is displacing the stereo

• Furnace fan usage – many may run continuously

• “Change values about turning computers off when not in use”

• Future impacts of solar hot water/geoexchange systems

• (Be on top of) technology change; new inventions/appliances; climate change and associated needs changing

• “How can we amalgamate and operate a new construction energy efficiency program for al builders/home owners? (NAHC, R2000, PowerSmart, Energuide for new houses) that is easy to use and apply?

• Proper building design – not air conditioning

• Energy consciousness that will lead people to consider solar water heating

• Programs to minimize fridge and freezer use

• Miscellaneous electrical loads that people don’t think about

• “Obtain information on appliances and electronics equipment that is not used regularly but that still may be plugged in – guest room clock radios, seldom-used TVs and stereos, etc.”

And many mentioned investigating potential solutions covering housing type, workstyle, and general lifestyle, and infrastructure:

• “The declining occupancy of residential living units might be addressed by “cluster” housing – a pod of perhaps 4 bedrooms with common kitchen/living/den/laundry”

• ”Change work patterns to 4 and 3 (ed. as opposed to 5 and 2), with associated changes in the related infrastructure; make more use of the infrastructure, reducing energy use, travel, etc.”

• “Community design – including location of distributed generation, consideration of heat recovery”

• Public lighting is a very large load – street lighting, parking lighting, security lighting, etc. Given that cars have headlights, would the general public (i.e., each of us) accept the lighting being reduced or eliminated?”

• Lower floor space area for new construction

• Change working hours to fewer but longer work days

• Living density and communal facilities



• Community activity

Question: Any other comments? Please tell us here, or if you prefer, email Dave Biggs at [email protected].

Many thought it was the discussion was useful and that the work could be taken to other realms:

• “I hope the same amount of attention will also be devoted to the commercial sector” (ERP participant)

• “Go to school – go to teach and share. The kids need encouraging that life can be good and that an individual does make the difference”

One participant felt that the lifestyle study was outside the scope of BC Hydro:

• “Industrial customers do not support BC Hydro spending money on these types of exercises. We do not believe there is any value to customers and lifestyle choices are no business of BC Hydro” (ERP participant)

One mentioned that the breakout style restricted potentially important conversations.

Several mentioned challenges of a lifestyle orientation to reduced energy use:

• “This is a tough subject as it is difficult to envision circumstances wherein electrical consumers could be persuaded to voluntarily reduce or change their habits (TV watching or other)”

• “How do you aggregate all of the savings involved in these types of areas without replication, duplication, overlap?”

• “Make it real – where does it come from? who’s (or what’s) affected?, why should we care?”



APPENDIX D: METROQUEST SCENARIO RESULTS INTRODUCTION MetroQuest was developed over a 10-year period at the University of British Columbia. It includes integrated models able to simulate future scenarios of development for land use, including housing and employment areas as well as transportation and can evaluate the scenarios on many sustainability indicators. MetroQuest has been applied around B.C. to assist communities in creating long range plans. As a component of the CPR 2007 project, a version of MetroQuest was compiled enabling scenarios to be created for the four regions in the BC Hydro service region. The process builds on a version of MetroQuest calibrated for the GVRD and communities in the Okanagan Valley and was scaled to the BC Hydro service region using data from the CPR 2007 Reference Case. This appendix presents the results of the MetroQuest model scenarios. Two scenarios were created:

1. Current Trend – This scenario represents, as close as possible, a future for B.C. that matches the Reference Case. MetroQuest uses 2001 as its starting point as this is the most recent year that a full library of data for the province could be assembled, corresponding to the most recent major Statistics Canada survey. The Current Trend scenario, therefore was scaled to 2006 data from the Reference Case in order to provide a common starting point for each model.

2. 2026 Vision – As described in chapter 4, this scenario represent a future in which

communities throughout the province move towards the following polices: compact community, transit-oriented, development of complete, mixed use development, and an enhancement of urban space.

The model is able to calculate the implications of alternative scenarios on a wide range of sustainability indicators. Since the 2026 Vision included changes to where people live and work and how they travel, the indicators most relevant to those decisions are presented to compliment the detailed electricity results documented in Chapter 4. LAND USE The land use results are based on extrapolating the results from two different versions of MetroQuest. The Greater Vancouver version was used to represent the Lower Mainland service area. The Okanagan version was extrapolated to represent the Vancouver Island, Southern Interior and Northern Region service areas. Exhibit D.1 illustrates in impact of a more compact and transit oriented design of neighbourhoods on the Greater Vancouver area. On the top we see the Vision Scenario in 2031 compared with the Current Trend scenario on the bottom. The image show housing development



by neighbourhood type with the darker colours indicating more compact areas. We see large sections significant differences in throughout the suburban areas with the Vision scenario conserving significant amount of land and focusing new development around the existing town cores and transit hubs. Exhibit D.1: Projected Residential Development in the GVRD in 2031 in Vision Scenario

(top) and Current Trend (bottom)

Exhibit D.2 illustrates the differences in the impacts of the policies when applied to a smaller city. In this exhibit, Penticton in the Okanagan Valley is used as an example. Penticton with a population of about 40,000 is shown at the centre of the image. While we see very little differences between the two futures in the small towns to the north (Summerland and Naramata) and south of Penticton (Okanagan Falls), there are significant differences in Penticton as a result of the Vision. In 2031 the Current Trend shows large areas of low density suburban and rural residential development up the slopes of the hills to the east of the city while the Vision shows a preservation of this land in favor of a small area of medium density infill development near the centre of the city. This medium density area is made up primarily of row housing with some low-



rise and mixed use development along major corridors. Due to the higher density of these areas relative large amount of land can be preserved relative to the Current Trend scenario. Exhibit D.2: Projected Residential Development in the South Okanagan in 2031 in Vision

Scenario (left) and Current Trend (right)

In order to understand the land use implications across the BC Hydro service region, we use Land Lost to Development in square kilometres as an indicator. Exhibits D.3 and D.4 summarize the two scenarios. The data shows the amount of land lost to development in each region for the two scenarios. All scenarios report very little agricultural land being consumed for future development reflecting the provincial policy of protecting the Agricultural Land Reserve. The exception to this is the estimated 120 square kilometers of agricultural land lost to



development in the Lower Mainland as a result of the rapid growth in the suburban areas and the limited developable natural areas surrounding these suburban cities. In each region the Vision scenario consumes significantly less land than the Current Trend due to policies to seek out opportunities to develop housing in existing areas (unused or abandoned sites) and to favor a transition to more compact forms of housing. Indeed, MetroQuest was able to avoid development in natural and agricultural areas in the Lower Mainland. Other regions, with less of an appetite for apartment living, saw modest amount of natural land lost to new development adding up to a total of 38 square kilometers of land lost in the Vision compared with 334 square kilometers lost to development in the Current Trend scenario.



Exhibit D.3: Land Lost to Development by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios

Land Lost to Development (Square Kilometres) F2006 F2011 F2016 F2021 F2026 Service

Region Data Segment Current Trend Vision

Current Trend Vision




Agricultural 4.40 0.00 8.82 0.00 47.93 0.19 87.73 0.38 124.44 0.92 Natural 55.42 2.22 111.49 4.52 132.23 15.47 152.95 26.44 209.52 37.72 Total BCH

Total Land Lost 59.82 2.22 120.31 4.52 180.16 15.66 240.68 26.82 333.96 38.64 Agricultural 3.66 0.00 7.31 0.00 45.67 0.00 84.71 0.00 120.21 0.00

Natural 38.98 0.00 77.96 0.00 80.54 0.00 83.06 0.00 85.32 0.00 Lower

Mainland Total Land Lost 42.63 0.00 85.28 0.00 126.21 0.00 167.77 0.00 205.52 0.00

Agricultural 0.37 0.00 0.76 0.00 1.15 0.10 1.54 0.19 2.16 0.47 Natural 8.30 1.12 16.98 2.29 26.27 7.86 35.62 13.48 63.50 19.28

Vancouver Island


Natural 4.58 0.62 9.35 1.26 14.43 4.32 19.53 7.39 34.75 10.55 Southern Interior


Natural 3.57 0.48 7.20 0.97 10.99 3.29 14.73 5.57 25.96 7.88 Northern Region

Total Land Lost 3.73 0.48 7.52 0.97 11.47 3.33 15.36 5.65 26.84 8.08



Exhibit D.4: Land Lost to Development by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph)

Land Lost to Development, Lower Mainland

0

50

100

150

200

250

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Squa

re K

ilom

etre

s

Natural

Agricultural

Land Lost to Development, Vancouver Island

010203040506070

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Squa

re K

ilom

etre

s

Natural

Agricultural

Land Lost to Development, Southern Interior

05

10152025303540

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Squa

re K

ilom

etre

s

NaturalAgricultural

Land Lost to Development, Northern Region

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Squa

re K

ilom

etre

s

NaturalAgricultural



TRANSPORTATION Exhibits D.5 and D.6 below present the differences between the two scenarios in term of impact on modes and distances of travel. As a result of the polices to allow for more growth in housing and jobs near transit corridors and in neighbourhood designs that encourage walking and biking travel, the Vision scenario reports a significant shift towards alternatives to automobile trips. These impacts are more pronounced in the Lower Mainland, where transit service is more extensive and is expanding and where higher densities are more accepted. The results also show the total distance being traveled decreasing in the Vision scenario relative to the Current Trend. The reason for is twofold:

1. More compact development results in more people living closer to typical destinations (shopping, jobs).

2. Policies to develop more complete communities result in a more even balance of population, jobs, commercial areas and services in each city or town, thus minimizing the need to travel between cities or towns for work of shopping trips.

The result is a saving of approximately 17 million person kilometers traveled per year by 2026. Since most of the savings are in single occupant vehicle travel, the impact on traffic congestion, energy use and emissions is significant.



Exhibit D.5: Person Distance Traveled by Mode by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios Person Distance Traveled (Millions of Kilometres)

F2006 F2011 F2016 F2021 F2026 Service Region Data Segment






Single Occupant Cars 34.21 30.72 38.63 31.63 42.53 32.17 46.44 32.70 51.33 33.62 High Occupant Cars 3.12 3.19 3.51 3.66 3.85 4.19 4.18 4.72 4.59 5.42 Buses 3.58 4.62 4.55 6.64 5.37 8.51 6.19 10.41 6.97 12.24 Commuter Rail 1.19 2.20 1.66 3.67 2.01 4.98 2.36 6.31 2.60 7.57 Cycling and Walking 0.72 0.72 0.82 0.83 0.90 0.92 0.99 1.02 1.09 1.13

Total BCH

Total 37.33 33.91 42.15 35.28 46.37 36.36 50.62 37.42 55.92 39.04 Single Occupant Cars 22.19 19.29 25.64 19.85 28.87 20.48 32.13 21.09 36.33 22.12 High Occupant Cars 2.10 2.16 2.47 2.59 2.80 3.11 3.14 3.63 3.54 4.30 Buses 3.19 4.16 4.03 5.97 4.70 7.61 5.39 9.27 6.02 10.90 Commuter Rail 1.19 2.20 1.66 3.67 2.01 4.98 2.36 6.31 2.60 7.57 Cycling and Walking 0.44 0.45 0.52 0.54 0.59 0.62 0.66 0.71 0.75 0.81

Lower Mainland


Vancouver Island


Southern Interior


Northern Region

Total 2.83 2.70 3.01 2.76 3.12 2.72 3.24 2.68 3.35 2.64



Exhibit D.6: Person Distance Traveled by Mode by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph)

Person Distance Traveled, Lower Mainland

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Mill

ions

of K

ilom

etre

s

Cycling & Walking

Commuter Rail

Buses

High Occupant Cars

Single Occupant Cars

Person Distance Traveled, Vancouver Island

0

2

4

6

8

10

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Mill

ions

of K

ilom

etre

s

Cycling & Walking

Commuter Rail

Buses

High Occupant Cars


Person Distance Traveled, Southern Interior

0123456

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Mill

ions

of K

ilom

etre

s

Cycling & Walking

Commuter Rail

Buses

High Occupant Cars


Person Distance Traveled, Northern Region

0

1

2

3

4

2006 2026 CT 2026 VisionM

illio

ns o

f Kilo

met

res

Cycling & Walking

Commuter Rail

Buses

High Occupant Cars




ENERGY USE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Exhibits D.7 and D.8 present the amount of energy use in transportation for the two scenarios. While modest savings are achieved throughout the BC Hydro service region, significant saving are achieved in the Lower Mainland. In total, over 50 Petajoules of energy was estimated to be saved per year in the Vision relative to the Reference Case. Since the vast majority of these saving are in fossil fuels, the impacts on air quality and greenhouse gases are significant. MetroQuest estimated greenhouse gas emission savings of 3.79 million tonnes from changes in transportation alone.



Exhibit D.7: Energy Use for Transportation by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios

Transport Energy Use (Petajoules) F2006 F2011 F2016 F2021 F2026 Service

Region Current Trend Vision





Total BCH 227.35 214.94 244.84 219.89 261.07 226.42 277.36 232.91 290.34 238.09

Lower Mainland 104.39 95.16 114.99 96.52 128.04 103.48 141.16 110.43 152.22 116.80 Vancouver

Island 62.04 60.44 65.77 62.49 67.61 62.48 69.43 62.44 70.61 62.01 Southern Interior 34.23 33.35 36.20 34.40 37.14 34.32 38.07 34.23 38.64 33.94

Northern Region 26.68 25.99 27.88 26.49 28.29 26.14 28.70 25.81 28.87 25.35



Exhibit D.8: Energy Use for Transportation by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph)

Transport Energy Use - Lower Mainland

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Peta

joul

es

Transport Energy Use

Transport Energy Use - Vancouver Island

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Peta

joul

es


Transport Energy Use - Southern Interior

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Peta

joul

es


Transport Energy Use - Northern Region

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2006 2026 CT 2026 Vision

Peta

joul

es




ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT The Ecological Footprint is a concept developed by Dr. Bill Rees at the University of British Columbia. The Global Footprint Network defines the Ecological Footprint as “a resource management tool that measures how much land and water area a human population requires to produce the resources it consumes and to absorb its wastes under prevailing technology.”84 The Ecological Footprint therefore offers a useful way to summarize and quantify the ecological implications of human activity. Exhibit D.9, D.10, D.11 and D.12 present the results of the Ecological Footprint of the MetroQuest scenario runs. Exhibits D.9 and D.10 show Individual Ecological Footprint results while D.11 and D.12 show the Total Ecological Footprint for each service region. MetroQuest estimates both the direct energy use as well as the embodied energy associated with good and material consumption (i.e., the energy used to manufacture and transport goods). The Vision scenario shows improvements (decreased Ecological Footprint) in the categories of Housing, Transportation and Goods and Services for each of the BC Hydro service regions. The improvements in the Housing Component are a direct result of the decreased size of the average house in the Vision scenario, as MetroQuest estimates both the impacts of the energy used in housing as well as the embodied energy associated with the building materials in this component. The improvements in the Transportation Component are a result of the shift towards alternative transportation modes, as well as the decreases in distance traveled described above. The MetroQuest Vision scenario also results in a modest decrease in the average number of vehicles per household, which results in savings associated with the energy required to manufacture, market, maintain and dispose of vehicles. The improvements in the Goods and Services Component are a result of the decreased goods and services consumption due to the smaller average sizes of homes. Smaller homes require less carpeting, furnishings, cleaning, paints, etc. The result of these savings is an estimated reduction of 3.34 million hectares of ecologically productive land required to produce and absorb the waste from human activity in B.C. by F2026 on an annual basis. Transportation accounted for 1.45 million hectares of the savings, and housing and goods and services accounted for the remainder in approximately equal shares.

84 Global Footprint Network, extracted from http://www.footprintnetwork.org/gfn_sub.php?content=footprint_overview, June 2007.



Exhibit D.9: Individual Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios Ecological Footprint (Hectares) Milestone Year

F2006 F2011 F2016 F2021 F2026 Service Region

Data Segment Current Trend Vision





Housing 1.96 1.93 1.91 1.85 1.90 1.81 1.88 1.78 1.88 1.74 Transport 1.20 1.13 1.21 1.08 1.20 1.01 1.18 0.95 1.16 0.90 Food 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.83 1.82 1.82 1.81 1.81 Goods and Services 1.55 1.52 1.54 1.47 1.52 1.43 1.51 1.39 1.50 1.36 Waste 0.73 0.73 0.74 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

Average BCH

Total 7.28 7.15 7.23 6.97 7.19 6.83 7.15 6.69 7.10 6.56 Housing 1.91 1.84 1.75 1.60 1.77 1.57 1.80 1.55 1.84 1.54 Transport 1.27 1.16 1.31 1.09 1.37 1.10 1.43 1.10 1.46 1.11 Food 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 1.99 Goods and Services 1.59 1.52 1.54 1.41 1.58 1.41 1.62 1.42 1.65 1.43 Waste 0.77 0.77 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.82 0.82

Lower Mainland


Vancouver Island


Southern Interior


Northern Region

Total 7.19 7.10 7.18 7.00 7.08 6.81 6.98 6.62 6.87 6.45



Exhibit D.10: Individual Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph)

Ecological Footprint - Lower Mainland

0123456789

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Hec

tare

s

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing

Ecological Footprint - Vancouver Island

012345678

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Hec

tare

s

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing

Ecological Footprint - Southern Interior

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing

Ecological Footprint - Northern Region

012345678

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing



Exhibit D.11: Total Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios Total Ecological Footprint (Millions of Hectares)







Housing 7.12 6.93 7.23 6.84 7.73 7.13 8.23 7.42 8.79 7.75 Transport 4.55 4.20 4.96 4.27 5.39 4.43 5.82 4.59 6.20 4.75 Food 7.04 7.04 7.54 7.54 8.02 8.03 8.51 8.52 8.98 8.99 Goods and Services 5.78 5.59 6.07 5.67 6.53 5.97 6.99 6.27 7.45 6.58 Waste 2.76 2.76 3.02 3.02 3.24 3.24 3.46 3.47 3.71 3.71

Total BCH


Lower Mainland


Vancouver Island


Southern Interior


Northern Region

Total 2.30 2.27 2.39 2.33 2.44 2.35 2.50 2.37 2.55 2.39



Exhibit D.12: Total Ecological Footprint by Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph)

Ecological Footprint - Lower Mainland

0

5

10

15

20

25

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of H

ecta

res

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing

Ecological Footprint - Vancouver Island

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of H

ecta

res

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing

Ecological Footprint - Southern Interior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of H

ecta

res

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing

Ecological Footprint - Northern Region

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of H

ecta

res

Waste

Goods and Services

Food

Transport

Housing



FISCAL HEALTH The Fiscal Health output from MetroQuest estimates the total spending estimates to support municipal and regional services, including spending on roads and transport, parks and recreation, utilities and emergency services.85 As shown in Exhibits D.13 and D.14, as a result of the move toward more compact municipal areas the Vision scenario results in savings in each service region in the following spending categories:

• Road and Transport – resulting from the more efficient use of existing municipal infrastructure and savings associated with avoided road construction and maintenance

• Utilities – resulting from the more efficient use of existing infrastructure and savings associated with avoided utility construction and maintenance

• Emergency Services – resulting from a decrease in the amount of area of urban development, allowing for a reduction in the number of emergency facilities and staff required to effectively service each municipality

Spending increased moderately in Parks and Recreation in each service region as a result of increased activity developing and maintaining urban green spaces. Across the BC Hydro service region, a total savings of $127 million per year was estimated in the Vision scenario relative to the Current Trend.

85 Due to the complexity of the data, it was not possible to calibrate the MetroQuest model to evaluate the revenue impacts of the

scenarios to allow for feedback on the estimated level of taxation that would result from the scenario policies.



Exhibit D.13: Fiscal Health by Spending Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios Fiscal Health (Millions of Dollars)







Emergency Services 918.01 909.50 978.86 961.78 1,038.67 1,010.52 1,098.37 1,059.00 1,156.95 1,107.05 Roads and Transit 829.15 795.76 1,001.82 934.55 1,047.56 965.77 1,093.19 996.73 1,095.97 989.02 Parks and Recreation 834.49 830.55 888.76 880.89 936.35 941.00 983.89 1,001.04 1,028.83 1,048.08 Utilities 384.52 382.46 404.25 400.10 424.07 415.78 443.79 431.31 465.31 444.94 Other 1,777.85 1,785.19 1,901.35 1,916.21 2,015.46 2,034.17 2,129.50 2,152.11 2,242.38 2,273.61

Total BCH

Total 4,744.02 4,703.45 5,175.04 5,093.53 5,462.11 5,367.23 5,748.73 5,640.20 5,989.44 5,862.70 Emergency Services 641.18 633.76 687.22 672.37 733.90 710.04 780.48 747.47 826.46 786.17 Roads and Transit 370.47 349.42 424.25 382.15 451.21 399.08 478.07 415.78 505.28 433.30 Parks and Recreation 470.05 465.81 508.42 499.93 544.60 532.99 580.73 565.96 616.79 601.06 Utilities 234.65 233.25 248.13 245.33 261.38 256.26 274.53 267.04 287.65 278.54 Other 836.77 839.43 903.54 908.85 968.11 976.73 1,032.62 1,044.59 1,096.41 1,115.42

Lower Mainland

Total 2,553.13 2,521.67 2,771.56 2,708.64 2,959.20 2,875.09 3,146.42 3,040.84 3,332.59 3,214.49 Emergency Services 139.69 139.14 147.72 146.59 154.89 152.71 162.06 158.82 168.95 164.04 Roads and Transit 231.45 225.22 292.53 279.79 303.08 288.00 313.58 296.16 301.97 284.10 Parks and Recreation 183.89 184.05 192.64 192.95 199.10 207.36 205.52 221.80 210.65 228.53 Utilities 75.62 75.29 79.07 78.39 82.68 81.07 86.29 83.74 90.82 85.07 Other 474.87 477.23 505.39 510.22 532.28 537.41 559.17 564.60 585.85 592.10

Vancouver Island

Total 1,105.53 1,100.93 1,217.35 1,207.94 1,272.02 1,266.55 1,326.63 1,325.13 1,358.25 1,353.83 Emergency Services 77.07 76.77 81.31 80.69 85.08 83.88 88.85 87.07 92.46 89.77 Roads and Transit 127.71 124.27 161.03 154.01 166.48 158.20 171.92 162.37 165.26 155.48 Parks and Recreation 101.46 101.55 106.04 106.21 109.36 113.90 112.68 121.60 115.28 125.07 Utilities 41.73 41.54 43.53 43.15 45.42 44.53 47.31 45.91 49.71 46.55 Other 262.01 263.31 278.20 280.86 292.38 295.20 306.56 309.53 320.62 324.04

Southern Interior

Total 609.98 607.44 670.11 664.92 698.72 695.71 727.30 726.48 743.33 740.91 Emergency Services 60.07 59.83 62.62 62.14 64.80 63.89 66.99 65.65 69.07 67.06 Roads and Transit 99.53 96.85 124.00 118.60 126.80 120.49 129.62 122.42 123.45 116.14 Parks and Recreation 79.08 79.14 81.66 81.79 83.30 86.75 84.96 91.69 86.11 93.42 Utilities 32.52 32.37 33.52 33.23 34.59 33.92 35.67 34.62 37.13 34.78 Other 204.20 205.21 214.23 216.28 222.69 224.84 231.14 233.39 239.50 242.06

Northern Region

Total 475.39 473.41 516.02 512.03 532.18 529.89 548.38 547.76 555.27 553.46



Exhibit D.14: Fiscal Health by Spending Category by Service Region for Vision vs. Current Trend Scenarios (Graph)

Fiscal Health - Lower Mainland

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs Other

Utilities

Parks & Recreation

Roads & Transit

Emergency Services

Fiscal Health - Vancouver Island

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs Other

Utilities

Parks & Recreation

Roads & Transit

Emergency Services

Fiscal Health- Southern Interior

0100

200300

400500

600700

800

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs Other

Utilities

Parks & Recreation

Roads & Transit

Emergency Services

Fiscal Health- Northern Region

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2006 2026 CT 2026Vision

Mill

ions

of D

olla

rs Other

Utilities

Parks & Recreation

Roads & Transit

Emergency Services



APPENDIX E: REFERENCE CASE END USE SATURATION LEVELS

Exhibit E.1: Lower Mainland – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026

Det/Dupl, pre-1976, Electric heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 15% 22% 29% 36% 42% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 151% 151% 151% 151% 151%Row/Town, pre-1976, Electric hea 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 13% 18% 23% 28% 33% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 115% 115% 115% 115% 115%First Nations, Electric heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 15% 22% 29% 36% 42% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 151% 151% 151% 151% 151%Lowrise <=4 fl, Suites, Elec heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104%Lowrise <=4 fl, Common Areas, E 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Highrise >4 fl, Suites, Elec heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 104% 104% 104% 104% 104%Highrise >4 fl, Common Areas, El 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 13% 16% 18% 21% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Mobile/Other, Electric heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 48% 71% 83% 91% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 113% 113% 113% 113% 113%

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026


2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026


Computer and peripherals

Television peripherals Other electronics Swimming pools and spas ElevatorsSegment

Clothes dryer LightingSegment Dishwasher Clothes washerFreezer

Television Small appliances & other

DHW Cooking RefrigeratorSegment Space heating Space cooling Ventilation



Exhibit E.2: Vancouver Island – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026Det/Dupl, pre-1976, Electric heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 19% 28% 36% 44% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 133% 133% 133% 133% 133%Row/Town, pre-1976, Electric hea 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 19% 34% 50% 65% 81% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 116% 116% 116% 116% 116%First Nations, Electric heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 11% 19% 28% 36% 44% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 133% 133% 133% 133% 133%Lowrise <=4 fl, Suites, Elec heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5% 7% 10% 12% 14% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 103% 103% 103% 103% 103%Lowrise <=4 fl, Common Areas, E 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5% 7% 10% 12% 14% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Highrise >4 fl, Suites, Elec heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5% 7% 10% 12% 14% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 103% 103% 103% 103% 103%Highrise >4 fl, Common Areas, El 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5% 7% 10% 12% 14% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Mobile/Other, Electric heat 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 17% 32% 46% 60% 74% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 111% 111% 111% 111% 111%



Segment

Segment

Freezer Clothes washer Clothes dryerDishwasher


ElevatorsTelevision peripherals Other electronics Swimming pools and spas Small appliances & other

Lighting



Television



Exhibit E.3: Southern Interior – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels




Segment

Segment




Lighting



Television



Exhibit E.4: Northern Region – Reference Case End Use Saturation Levels




Segment

Segment




Lighting



Television



APPENDIX F: ENERGY CHOICES IN THE HOME VISION – END USE SATURATION LEVELS

Exhibit F.1: Lower Mainland – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation Levels

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026




Segment

Segment Space heating Space cooling

Freezer DishwasherSegment

Ventilation DHW Cooking Refrigerator

Clothes washer Clothes dryer Lighting Computer and peripherals

Small appliances & other ElevatorsOther electronics Swimming pools and spasTelevision Television peripherals



Exhibit F.2: Vancouver Island – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation Levels




Segment

Segment

Space cooling Ventilation DHW Cooking Refrigerator

Dishwasher

Television

Segment Space heating

Freezer

Elevators


Small appliances & otherTelevision peripherals Other electronics Swimming pools and spas



Exhibit F.3: Southern Interior – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation Levels




Segment

Segment


Dishwasher

Television


Freezer

Elevators





Exhibit F.4: Northern Region – Energy Choices in the Home – End Use Saturation Levels




Segment

Segment


Dishwasher

Television


Freezer

Elevators





APPENDIX G: ENERGY CHOICES IN THE HOME VISION – END USE CONSUMPTION REDUCTION

Exhibit G.1: Lower Mainland – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use Consumption Reduction

2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026




Segment

Segment

Segment Space heating Space cooling Ventilation DHW Cooking Refrigerator

Freezer Dishwasher Clothes washer Clothes dryer Lighting Computer and peripherals

Television Television peripherals Other electronics Swimming pools and spas Small appliances & other Elevators



Exhibit G.2: Vancouver Island – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use Consumption Reduction




Segment

Segment

Freezer

Television




Dishwasher



Exhibit G.3: Southern Interior – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use Consumption Reduction




Segment

Segment

Freezer

Television




Dishwasher



Exhibit G.4: Northern Region – Energy Choices in the Home Vision – End Use Consumption Reduction




Segment

Segment

Freezer

Television




Dishwasher



APPENDIX H: ELECTRICITY FUEL SHARES IN F2006

Exhibit H.1: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Lower Mainland in F2006

Dwelling Type

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 15% 100% 100% 100% 151% 77% 80% 99% 95% 100% 122% 198% 72% 115% 12% 100% 1%Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 15% 100% 100% 100% 151% 77% 80% 99% 95% 100% 122% 198% 72% 115% 12% 100% 1%Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 15% 100% 100% 100% 151% 77% 80% 99% 95% 100% 122% 198% 72% 115% 12% 100% 1%Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 15% 100% 100% 100% 151% 77% 80% 99% 95% 100% 122% 198% 72% 115% 12% 100% 1%Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 13% 100% 100% 100% 115% 50% 79% 93% 86% 100% 106% 175% 71% 102% 2% 100% 1%Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 13% 100% 100% 100% 115% 50% 79% 93% 86% 100% 106% 175% 71% 102% 2% 100% 1%Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 13% 100% 100% 100% 115% 50% 79% 93% 86% 100% 106% 175% 71% 102% 2% 100% 1%Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 13% 100% 100% 100% 115% 50% 79% 93% 86% 100% 106% 175% 71% 102% 2% 100% 1%First Nations, Electric Heat 15% 100% 100% 100% 151% 77% 80% 99% 95% 100% 122% 198% 72% 115% 12% 100% 1%First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 15% 100% 100% 100% 151% 77% 80% 99% 95% 100% 122% 198% 72% 115% 12% 100% 1%Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 11% 100% 100% 100% 104% 23% 62% 53% 51% 100% 88% 129% 31% 75% 0% 100% 0%Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 11% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 100% 50%Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 11% 100% 100% 100% 104% 23% 62% 53% 51% 100% 88% 129% 31% 75% 0% 100% 0%Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 11% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 100% 50%High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 11% 100% 100% 100% 104% 23% 62% 53% 51% 100% 88% 129% 31% 75% 0% 100% 0%High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 11% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 100% 100%High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 11% 100% 100% 100% 104% 23% 62% 53% 51% 100% 88% 129% 31% 75% 0% 100% 0%High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 11% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 100% 100%Mobile, Electric Heating 48% 100% 100% 100% 113% 82% 71% 85% 91% 100% 69% 175% 81% 102% 0% 100% 0%Mobile, Non-electric Heating 48% 100% 100% 100% 113% 82% 71% 85% 91% 100% 69% 175% 81% 102% 0% 100% 0%



Exhibit H.2: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Vancouver Island in F2006

Dwelling Type

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs




Exhibit H.3: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Southern Interior in F2006

Dwelling Type

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs




Exhibit H.4: Electricity Fuel Shares for the Northern Region in F2006

Dwelling Type

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs




APPENDIX I: ELECTRICITY USE BY END USE AND HOUSING TYPE

Exhibit I.1: Lower Mainland Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type

Dwelling Type

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

w

ashe

r

Clo

thes

dr

yer

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

pe

riph

eral

s

Oth

er

elec

tron

ics

Pool

s and

ho

t tub

s

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs

Tot

al

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 9,174 87 294 3,267 657 1,252 499 74 77 937 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 20,970Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 8,674 70 306 3,267 657 1,252 499 74 77 937 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 20,466Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 931 83 600 46 634 1,252 499 74 77 889 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 9,738Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 931 83 800 46 634 1,252 499 74 77 889 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 9,938Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 4,033 33 189 1,507 581 956 323 56 54 664 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 11,730Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 3,576 27 189 1,507 581 956 323 56 54 664 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 11,266Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,915 40 400 0 496 956 323 56 54 630 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 8,204Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,962 40 400 0 496 956 323 56 54 630 1,400 419 312 160 163 41 837 0 8,251First Nations, Electric Heat 9,174 87 294 3,267 657 1,252 499 74 77 937 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 20,970First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 472 83 600 46 634 1,252 499 74 77 889 1,847 479 353 163 184 387 1,242 0 9,280Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 2,991 13 31 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 693 347 230 70 120 0 173 0 7,535Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 267 11 293 1,284 0 0 0 0 11 143 1,213 0 0 0 0 81 0 60 3,363Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 3,257 24 324 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 1,906 347 230 70 120 81 173 60 9,460


High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 1,863 13 28 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 693 347 230 70 120 0 173 0 6,403High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 280 19 309 1,284 0 0 0 0 11 143 1,786 0 0 0 0 18 0 150 4,000High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 2,143 31 337 1,469 392 581 86 32 23 286 2,479 347 230 70 120 18 173 150 8,966


Mobile, Electric Heating 4,728 147 196 2,538 585 936 533 54 50 685 1,010 272 312 182 163 0 837 0 13,229Mobile, Non-electric Heating 2,792 147 500 870 480 936 533 54 50 651 1,010 272 312 182 163 0 837 0 9,789



Exhibit I.2: Vancouver Island Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type

Dwelling Type

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

w

ashe

r

Clo

thes

dr

yer

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

pe

riph

eral

s

Oth

er

elec

tron

ics

Pool

s and

ho

t tub

s

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs

Tot

al

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 10,509 34 314 2,584 582 1,104 579 60 67 819 1,515 439 329 167 175 754 1,067 0 21,098Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 10,152 28 329 2,584 582 1,104 579 60 67 819 1,515 439 329 167 175 754 1,067 0 20,749Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,304 32 600 1,532 561 1,104 579 60 67 777 1,515 439 329 167 175 754 1,067 0 11,061Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,304 32 800 1,532 561 1,104 579 60 67 777 1,515 439 329 167 175 754 1,067 0 11,261Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 5,037 27 200 2,158 515 964 324 50 51 633 1,210 376 323 88 171 91 645 0 12,864Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 5,014 22 200 2,158 515 964 324 50 51 633 1,210 376 323 88 171 91 645 0 12,835Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,855 31 400 0 440 964 324 50 51 600 1,210 376 323 88 171 91 645 0 7,621Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,883 31 400 0 440 964 324 50 51 600 1,210 376 323 88 171 91 645 0 7,648First Nations, Electric Heat 14,228 34 314 2,584 582 1,104 579 60 67 819 1,515 439 329 167 175 754 1,067 0 24,817First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 1,006 32 600 1,532 561 1,104 579 60 67 777 1,515 439 329 167 175 754 1,067 0 10,764Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 2,538 4 31 164 361 575 79 22 10 123 619 281 219 67 116 0 137 0 5,345Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 306 4 415 1,750 0 0 0 0 13 155 2,043 0 0 0 0 45 0 68 4,799Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 2,844 8 446 1,914 361 575 79 22 23 278 2,661 281 219 67 116 45 137 68 10,144


High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 1,638 4 20 164 361 575 79 22 10 123 619 281 219 67 116 0 149 0 4,446High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 207 3 152 1,387 0 0 0 0 10 123 1,130 0 0 0 0 14 0 180 3,205High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 1,845 6 172 1,550 361 575 79 22 21 245 1,749 281 219 67 116 14 149 180 7,651


Mobile, Electric Heating 4,847 31 183 2,075 504 917 399 34 57 746 868 308 249 136 132 111 645 0 12,244Mobile, Non-electric Heating 2,173 31 422 1,349 460 917 399 34 57 708 868 308 249 136 132 111 645 0 9,000



Exhibit I.3: Southern Interior Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type

Dwelling Type

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

w

ashe

r

Clo

thes

dr

yer

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

pe

riph

eral

s

Oth

er

elec

tron

ics

Pool

s and

ho

t tub

s

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs

Tot

al

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 8,354 1,481 400 2,627 563 1,159 680 59 63 780 1,515 418 316 233 169 871 1,060 0 20,747Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 7,981 1,253 420 2,627 563 1,159 680 59 63 780 1,515 418 316 233 169 871 1,060 0 20,166Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 234 1,384 600 384 543 1,159 680 59 63 740 1,515 418 316 233 169 871 1,060 0 10,428Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 234 1,384 800 384 543 1,159 680 59 63 740 1,515 418 316 233 169 871 1,060 0 10,628Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 3,661 676 248 1,853 475 666 474 36 45 558 1,000 310 289 178 154 377 503 0 11,502Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 3,338 599 248 1,853 475 666 474 36 45 558 1,000 310 289 178 154 377 503 0 11,102Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 841 778 400 305 423 666 474 36 45 529 1,000 310 289 178 154 377 503 0 7,310Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 872 778 400 305 423 666 474 36 45 529 1,000 310 289 178 154 377 503 0 7,341First Nations, Electric Heat 11,814 1,481 400 2,672 563 1,159 680 59 63 780 1,515 418 316 233 169 871 1,060 0 24,252First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 1,022 1,384 600 429 543 1,159 680 59 63 740 1,515 418 316 233 169 871 1,060 0 11,261Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 2,392 390 28 204 378 590 164 25 10 123 693 243 225 62 120 0 159 0 5,804Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 75 278 236 1,726 0 0 0 0 10 123 707 0 0 0 0 20 0 36 3,212Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 2,467 669 264 1,930 378 590 164 25 21 246 1,400 243 225 62 120 20 159 36 9,015

Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 833 390 28 204 378 590 164 25 10 121 693 243 225 62 120 0 159 0 4,243Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 0 280 237 0 0 0 0 0 10 121 699 0 0 0 0 19 0 36 1,402Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Total 833 670 265 204 378 590 164 25 21 241 1,392 243 225 62 120 19 159 36 5,645



Mobile, Electric Heating 4,439 1,091 241 2,247 504 941 572 33 51 589 868 284 264 201 141 464 503 0 13,434Mobile, Non-electric Heating 293 1,091 474 1,415 428 941 572 33 51 559 868 284 264 201 141 464 503 0 8,582



Exhibit I.4: Northern Region Electricity Use by End Use and Housing Type

Dwelling Type

Spac

e H

eatin

g

Spac

e C

oolin

g

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

w

ashe

r

Clo

thes

dr

yer

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

pe

riph

eral

s

Oth

er

elec

tron

ics

Pool

s and

ho

t tub

s

Smal

l app

s &

Oth

er

Ele

vato

rs

Tot

al

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 9,275 20 350 2,596 565 1,078 679 50 64 755 1,515 372 306 254 167 536 902 0 19,485Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 9,142 17 367 2,596 565 1,078 679 50 64 755 1,515 372 306 254 167 536 902 0 19,365Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,089 19 600 462 546 1,078 679 50 64 717 1,515 372 306 254 167 536 902 0 9,355Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 1,089 19 800 462 546 1,078 679 50 64 717 1,515 372 306 254 167 536 902 0 9,555Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 4,671 13 220 1,853 488 621 529 25 46 563 1,000 366 294 152 160 0 428 0 11,430Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 3,493 11 220 1,853 488 621 529 25 46 563 1,000 366 294 152 160 0 428 0 10,250Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 2,185 15 400 305 460 621 529 25 46 534 1,000 366 294 152 160 0 428 0 7,521Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 2,265 15 400 305 460 621 529 25 46 534 1,000 366 294 152 160 0 428 0 7,602First Nations, Electric Heat 11,814 20 350 2,651 565 1,078 679 50 64 755 1,515 372 306 254 167 536 902 0 22,079First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 1,342 19 600 517 546 1,078 679 50 64 717 1,515 372 306 254 167 536 902 0 9,664Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 3,246 5 31 187 374 568 181 15 5 53 693 208 204 97 111 0 135 0 6,113Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 160 4 295 1,593 0 0 0 0 5 53 990 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 3,135Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Total 3,407 10 325 1,780 374 568 181 15 10 105 1,683 208 204 97 111 0 135 36 9,248

Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 1,041 5 31 187 374 568 181 15 5 52 693 208 204 97 111 0 135 0 3,907Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 32 4 296 0 0 0 0 0 5 52 979 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 1,404Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Total 1,073 10 327 187 374 568 181 15 10 103 1,672 208 204 97 111 0 135 36 5,311



Mobile, Electric Heating 4,351 36 207 1,857 504 916 592 30 50 625 868 269 282 299 154 170 902 0 12,112Mobile, Non-electric Heating 1,712 36 471 1,247 436 916 592 30 50 594 868 269 282 299 154 170 902 0 9,027



APPENDIX J: ANNUAL APPLIANCE ELECTRICITY USE (UEC) IN F2006 (KWH/YR)

Exhibit J.1: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Lower Mainland in F2006 (KWh/yr)

Dwelling Type

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s & O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 294 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 306 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 600 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 800 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 189 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 189 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 400 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 400 2,773 600 830 650 71 59 772 1,400 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25First Nations, Electric Heat 294 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 600 3,321 773 830 650 92 78 1,000 1,847 394 178 226 160 6,530 1,242 25Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 31 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 1,899 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,857 0 0 0 0 13,060 0 777Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 31 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 2,548 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,876 0 0 0 0 13,060 0 1,395High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 28 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 22,048 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 127,632 0 0 0 0 32,650 0 10,717High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 28 1,852 417 560 370 51 43 560 693 394 178 226 160 0 173 0High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 18,308 0 0 0 0 0 0 131,563 0 0 0 0 32,650 0 10,523Mobile, Electric Heating 196 2,538 585 830 650 76 59 760 1,010 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25Mobile, Non-electric Heating 500 2,538 585 830 650 76 59 760 1,010 394 178 226 160 6,530 837 25



Exhibit J.2: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Vancouver Island in F2006 (KWh/yr)

Dwelling Type

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s & O

ther

Ele

vato

rs

Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 314 2762 633 830 650 77 67 855 1515 394 178 226 166 6530 1,067 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Electric Heating 329 2762 633 830 650 77 67 855 1515 394 178 226 166 6530 1,067 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 600 2762 633 830 650 77 67 855 1515 394 178 226 166 6530 1,067 25Single-family/Duplex Dwelling, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 800 2762 633 830 650 77 67 855 1515 394 178 226 166 6530 1,067 25Row, Pre 1976, Electric Heating 200 2308 518 830 650 63 53 689 1210 394 178 226 166 6530 645 25Row, Post 1976, Electric Heating 200 2308 518 830 650 63 53 689 1210 394 178 226 166 6530 645 25Row, Pre 1976, Non-Electric Heating 400 2308 518 830 650 63 53 689 1210 394 178 226 166 6530 645 25Row, Post 1976, Non-Electric Heating 400 2308 518 830 650 63 53 689 1210 394 178 226 166 6530 645 25First Nations, Electric Heat 314 2762 633 830 650 77 67 855 1515 394 178 226 166 6530 1,067 25First Nations, Non-Electric Heat 600 2762 633 830 650 77 67 855 1515 394 178 226 166 6530 1,067 25Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 31 1725 367 560 370 46 42 530 619 394 178 226 166 0 137 0Low-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 2691 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13228 0 0 0 0 13060 0 981Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 31 1725 367 560 370 46 42 530 619 394 178 226 166 0 137 0Low-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 2725 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9663 0 0 0 0 13060 0 1,025High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Suite 20 1725 367 560 370 46 42 530 619 394 178 226 166 0 149 0High-rise Apartment Units, Electric Heating, Common Areas 8201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60961 0 0 0 0 32650 0 9,709High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Suite 20 1725 367 560 370 46 42 530 619 394 178 226 166 0 149 0High-rise Apartment Units, Non-electric Heating, Common Areas 12075 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89172 0 0 0 0 32650 0 12,302Mobile, Electric Heating 183 2257 504 830 650 63 61 775 868 394 178 226 166 6530 645 25Mobile, Non-electric Heating 422 2257 504 830 650 63 61 775 868 394 178 226 166 6530 645 25



Exhibit J.3: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Southern Interior in F2006 (KWh/yr)

Dwelling Type

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s & O

ther

Ele

vato

rs




Exhibit J.4: Annual Appliance Electricity Use (UEC) for the Northern Region in F2006 (KWh/yr)

Dwelling Type

Ven

tilat

ion

DH

W

Coo

king

Ref

rige

rato

r

Free

zer

Dis

hwas

her

Clo

thes

was

her

Clo

thes

dry

er

Lig

htin

g

Com

pute

r et

c.

Tel

evis

ion

TV

per

iphe

rals

Oth

er e

lect

roni

cs

Pool

s and

hot

tubs

Smal

l app

s & O

ther

Ele

vato

rs




APPENDIX K: JULY 31ST WORKSHOP OUTPUTS

CPR 2007 – Lifestyle Achievable Potential Workshop July 31, 2007 Agenda Item 4

Influences / Motivators to Conserve or Make a Lifestyle Change Note: The following points were made during an External Review Panel discussion of influences and motivating factors that affect the decisions British Columbians make about whether to conserve electricity or use it more efficiency or to make lifestyle changes that would affect their electricity consumption. This draft list (not yet approved as part of the Summary Notes of the July 10, 2007 meeting) contains influences and motivators that are both potentially supportive of and inhibiting toward greater energy efficiency or lifestyle changes that would consume less electricity. N. Cooley, ERP Facilitator ERP responses to a question as to how people make decisions, what influences or leads to lifestyle choices. Threats / sense of urgency

• Feeling threatened, perceiving a threat exists • A sense of crisis – that something has to be done now or quickly • The desire to use / enjoy something while it is still possible – e.g. consume more or quickly in

the face of a threat that something will become scarce or no longer available • Fear, especially fear related to personal safety

Making connections

• Making connections between individual action / lifestyle and climate change • Having a limited view / exposure – not seeing a bigger picture • Elementary education – help children make and understand connections • Inclusively – break down a sense of isolation in individuals’ beliefs and priorities so that those

who desire to conserve understand what others feel and believe and realize they are not alone Cultural factors and social norms

• Individuals have a drive for identity and identity as part of a group • Individuals desire to meet social expectations of a group • Individuals desire to meet cultural norms • Faith groups -- creeds • Individuals are influenced by peer pressure, guilt and popular culture • Acceptable behaviour including commenting on others’ behaviour or saying something when

behaviour affects resources / climate change • Careerism, ambition and status definitions • Status defined as conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure – In North America, status

has primarily been defined as conspicuous consumption.



Cultural factors and social norms continued . . . .

• What’s considered “cool” being defined as extreme individualism and being detached • Rebellion, rebelliousness – especially among the youth (It was suggested that it may be possible

to persuade people that some energy efficient behaviour is rebellious or “cool”.) • Cultural and social myths • Assumptions about what is “economic” – decisions based on a money system, monetary value

as what is important • A market ideology that believes open market mechanisms are preferable or “good” and

government interference in the market is “bad” • Cultural / social belief in unlimited resources and endless economic growth / growth as “good”

Access and community design

• Physical design of neighbourhoods / location of facilities • Need to use a car to access facilities • Assumption that a car is part of every activity • Supportive community design can be encouraged and / or supported by legislation • Urbanization contributes to a reluctance to comment on neighbours’ behaviour, creates more

isolation (A question was raised as to whether densification rather than urbanization is the key factor here.)

Key influencers

• Head of household – influences other members of the household • Parents – (It was suggested that one could reach parents by targeting their desire for

convenience and concern about the well-being of their children.) • Political leadership at all levels of government • Role models – both individuals and organizations • Backing / support from an authoritative source

Key influence mechanisms

• Marketing and advertising • Media – e.g., reporting on effects of climate change • Visual cues / evidence of need to change, e.g. natural disasters likely resulting from climate

change • Iconic images, e.g. the planet earth from space • Regulation & legislation • Financial incentives and disincentives– such as grants, rebates, tax credits, carbon taxes, fines • Product and service availability • Social marketing, e.g. anti-smoking and fitness campaigns, anti-drinking and driving

campaigns, etc. • Associate appropriate behaviour with a brand (e.g., Power Smart) • Use what’s desirable or considered “cool” as a tool



CPR 2007: Achievable Potential Workshop – Lifestyle Summary Notes 2007-07-31

8:30 am – 4:30 PM SFU Segal Graduate School of Business, Room 4800

MEETING CALLED BY Project Management Team

TYPE OF MEETING CPR 2007 – Lifestyle Achievable Potential Workshop.

ATTENDEES

1. ERP Members: David Craig, Tom Hackney, Nicholas Heap, Len Horvath, Dave Humber, David Isaac, Don Scarlett, Sarah Smith

2. BC Hydro/BCTC Staff: Murray Bond, Christine Gustafson, Roshena Huang, Zechy Khoo, Cynthia Lee, Pat Mathot, Gail McBride, Dennis Nelson, Jim Nelson, Kala O’Riordain, Iris Sulyma, Tony Chu

3. Consultant Team: Dave Biggs, Team Leader for Lifestyle analysis 4. Facilitator: Nancy Cooley, Cooley & Associates, Inc.

ABSENT 1. ERP Members: Robert Barry, Colleen Brown, Barbara Docherty, Steven Earle,

Mansell Griffin, Casey Jarvis, Tom Knox, Ian May, Andrew Pape-Salmon, Kevin Pegg, Dan Potts, Keith Veerman

AGENDA

2. Welcome 3. Purpose of Achievable Workshops 4. Introduction to Lifestyle Achievable Workshop 5. Lifestyle Influencing and Motivating Factors 6. Review Lifestyle Energy Savings Potential 7. Identify Key Decision-Makers / Influencers and Influencing Mechanisms 8. Discussion of Lifestyle Opportunity #2: space heating and cooling 9. Discussion of Lifestyle Opportunities #3-#6 10. Rank Decision-Makers / Influencers and Influencing Mechanisms 11. Appropriate Roles for BC Hydro and Its Partners in Influencing Lifestyle Choices 12. Introduction to Customer Supplied Renewable Energies Workshop 13. Overview of Customer Supplied Renewable Energies Workshop 14. Introduction to Fuel Switching Achievable Potential 15. Discussion of Residential and Commercial Fuel Switching Opportunities 16. Next Steps 17. Quick Meeting Assessment

OBJECTIVE To determine the achievable potentials of key opportunities in the Lifestyle analyses.



MEETING SUMMARY NOTES

A/C AIR CONDITIONING AP ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL BCH BC HYDRO BCUC BC UTILITIES COMMISSION CCE COST OF CONSERVED ENERGY CFL COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHTING CO2E CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT FOR GHG EMISSIONS CPR CONSERVATION POTENTIAL REVIEW CPUC CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CSA CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION CSE COST OF SAVED ENERGY CSRE CUSTOMER SUPPLIED RENEWABLE ENERGIES CT CONSULTANT TEAM DHW DOMESTIC HOT WATER DSM DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT EE ENERGY EFFICIENCY/ENERGY EFFICIENT EC&E ENERGY CONSERVATION & EFFICIENCY EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ERP EXTERNAL REVIEW PANEL ET EMERGING TECHNOLOGY EUI ENERGY USE INDEX GHG GREENHOUSE GAS GWH GIGAWATT HOUR

HVAC HEATING, VENTILATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING IEP INTEGRATED ELECTRICITY PLAN IPP INDEPENDENT POWER PRODUCER ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ORGANIZATION KWH KILOWATT HOUR LED LIGHT EMITTING DIODE LM LOWER MAINLAND LTAP LONG TERM ACQUISITION PLAN MWH MEGAWATT HOUR N/A NOT APPLICABLE NGO NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION O&M OPERATIONS & MANAGEMENT PMT PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM PS POWER SMART PT PROJECT TEAM PV PHOTOVOLTAIC RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL SFD SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TBA TO BE ANNOUNCED TBD TO BE DETERMINED TRC TOTAL RESOURCE COST TOR TERMS OF REFERENCE VP VICE PRESIDENT W WATT ZEH ZERO ENERGY HOME

ABBREVIATIONS

DISCLAIMER

THESE ARE SUMMARY NOTES WHICH ATTEMPT TO CAPTURE DISCUSSION DURING THE CPR 2007 LIFESTYLE ACHIEVABLE POTENTIAL WORKSHOP. THE VIEWS EXPRESSED CONTAIN PERSONAL OPINIONS, WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARILY ENDORSED BY BC HYDRO OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION IN ATTENDANCE.

1. Welcome SUMMARY

1a. Introductions 1b. Safety Procedures 1c. Agenda review – differences from previous achievable workshops 1d. Time check Speaker: Nancy Cooley Nancy Cooley of Cooley & Associates, Inc. opened the Customer Supplied Renewable Energies (CSRE), Fuel Switching and Lifestyle Achievable Workshop (AP W/S) by welcoming the participants and asking each person to introduce him/herself. She reviewed the agenda noting that the structure of the day would be different than other AP W/S. In particular, the morning would be used to identify influencers, mechanisms, and potential roles of BC Hydro (BCH) and its partner organizations in effecting lifestyle changes. The CSRE discussion would be different in that most technologies did not pass the economic screen and those that did were not economically viable until later in the study period. For Fuel Switching, there would be no discussion of industrial measures since none of them passed the economic screen.

2. Purpose of the Achievable Workshops SUMMARY

Speaker: Christine Gustafson Christine Gustafson, recently appointed CPR Project Manager, thanked Murray Bond for his leadership thus far in the study. A gift was presented to Len Horvath for reviewing all CSRE, Fuel Switching, and Lifestyle Phase 2 draft reports. The objective of the day was to gather the information necessary for the consultants to take the economic results and develop the achievable potentials. Gustafson encouraged all participants to be open and share their thoughts.



3. Introduction to Lifestyle Achievable Workshop SUMMARY

Speaker: Dave Biggs Dave Biggs, Lifestyle Team Leader, provided some background information as a preface to the Lifestyle discussion. He reminded participants that Lifestyle is an independent analysis area separate from the rest of the CPR study and its results will not be combined with that of the other analysis areas at any point in time. There still remain significant information gaps in lifestyle research. This is the first time that Lifestyle has been a part of the CPR and is an attempt at addressing the questions around the potential for lifestyle change, possible appropriate roles of BCH and its partners, and the methodology for lifestyle analysis in future CPR studies. A key output of the Lifestyle analysis area in this study is to provide recommendations and identify areas where BCH can be better prepared for the next CPR. The first two chapters of the Lifestyle report are common to other analysis areas. Chapter 3 talks about the increased commitment toward sustainability and the evidence of a push for conservation (e.g., changes in public policy). Chapter 4 presents two scenarios used in the Lifestyle analysis: 1) neighbourhood design and housing, and 2) energy choices in the home. Chapter 5 had been intentionally left blank up to the W/S because it had great potential for further input from the participants. At the Vision 2026 W/S in February, a discussion about the causes and influences of lifestyle change naturally developed. Participants provided a lot of great input then and also at External Review Panel (ERP) Meeting #6, and time has been allotted at this W/S to allow for that discussion to continue. Dave explained the Lifestyle portion of the AP W/S would begin with a brief overview of the major energy conservation opportunities. There is little information available that purports a certain amount of lifestyle change is possible. However, motivations can be identified to help provide estimates of the magnitude of savings potential. The next step would be to identify the decision-makers and influencing mechanisms. For example, the municipal government is an important decision-maker and influencing mechanism in housing choices. The last part of the Lifestyle portion of the AP W/S would look at BCH and its partners’ roles with respect to the various influencers and mechanisms, and also identify where there might be dangers. This can be very delicate because there is nothing more personal than one’s lifestyle and BCH can severely damage its image if it does not go about its activities in Lifestyle properly. W/S participants were asked to keep in mind the difference between lifestyle and behaviour as it is defined in the CPR. Lifestyle only includes changes that individuals could make that would change the level of energy services they were using. Take the service of illumination via electricity as an example. Turning off the lights when leaving a room is analysed under Behaviour because it does not change the service level (i.e., there is no service impact from not having the lights on when nobody is in the room to utilize the service). However, decreasing the illumination while in the room would decrease the service level and, thus, is analysed under Lifestyle.

4. Lifestyle Influencing and Motivating Factors SUMMARY

5. Review Lifestyle Energy Savings Potential SUMMARY

Speaker: Dave Biggs Biggs reviewed the Lifestyle findings and identified the largest areas for savings potentials. There is a movement towards smart growth as indicated by a change in housing policies. There are also natural mechanisms, such as aging, that are instigating the movement. The number of people over 65 years of age will be peaking around the end of the study period and there is a definite trend that people want to downsize as they age. The lifestyle scenario shown in purple (on the graph in page 5 of the Lifestyle Introduction Presentation) is much more straightforward than the housing scenario. It is looking at lifestyle change in the home. The big winners are heat (i.e., decreasing heat needed), appliance use (i.e., changing habits), electronics (e.g., reducing the size and duplication of equipment), and other (e.g., reducing penetration of hot tubs). Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment



Q: How does the housing scenario achieve negative savings? A: We assumed that by increasing the number of apartments and compact housing, there would be

savings from decreased land use, etc. The final contributor to a negative change was that in more compact forms of housing, more and more residential units are heated by electricity. Single family dwellings (SFDs) tend to be heated by natural gas. Thus, moving towards smart growth produces negative savings for domestic hot water (DHW).

C: There is already a move towards electric DHW in SFDs. Soon there won’t be a difference between SFD and row housing. They will have the same concentration of electric heating.

C: High-rises tend to be more gas heated, more central gas boiler systems are used. C: So yeah, I’d expect the two to be a wash. C: The numbers turned out that there is a slight negative savings. C: I hope that in the report it highlights the reasons behind the negative savings and the general picture

including switching from electricity to natural gas and vice versa. C: For lighting, there tends to be more lighting over a larger area in shared housing. C: The counter argument is that there tends to be more incandescent lighting in SFDs. Q: Is the assumption that common areas are lit 24/7? A: Yes, but that is due to building codes. Q: I was wondering if that could be taken care of with sensors. A: If they become more reliable, yes. But for now, they can only be dimmed. Q: What about the fact that there is less area to light? A: There is more common area (e.g., hallway, parking lot, outdoors) that needs to be constantly lit. C: When we include the common areas, the buildings we looked at used more than SFDs. C: Please include discussion in the Lifestyle report on lighting, including the fact more common areas are

lit 24 hours a day but use more efficient types of lighting rather than incandescent lighting, affects of code requirements on reducing or eliminating lighting.

C: In the Lower Mainland (LM), an interesting problem is the high price of land. A $100,000 house on $100,000 land is OK, but not on $500,000 land. Thus, the push towards fancier homes.

C: Duplex and row homes would become more popular. The increase in apartments is relatively status quo. There is also an opportunity in downsizing the lot area around a house. Using MetroQuest, we also looked at the amount of traffic congestion and agricultural land. So, the savings go well beyond electricity. That speaks to a great opportunity for win-win partnerships. We can be influential to impact various areas of lifestyle.

Q: You wouldn’t have the common area problem with row housing. Is there a large increase in row housing?

A: There is. There is an overwhelming number of people who would like to stay in their neighbourhood and subdivide their property for more units. There is strong aversion against it, even laws. There are some other neighbourhoods that are more progressive. Smart Growth is “illegal” in much of the Lower Mainland re downsizing, sub-dividing, allowing densification.

C: There is a development of large housing around my area and the developer wanted to create an area for smaller homes. He had to go through a public hearing for it.

C: It is mostly not what you do with new subdivisions. They are so far outside the community that they need to be based around cars anyways. It is the redevelopments that have the largest potential to get around all the bylaws, etc. Redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods is required for sustainability.

Q: What penetration of an alternative for housing is assumed? A lot of what you have assumed is based on existing trends. I am trying to understand whether you are anticipating alternative forms or forecasting current trends.

A: Approximately 50% is assumed to respond to the pent up demand not being met at this point. One of the studies we looked at is that there are about 35% more bedrooms than people. That doesn’t even take into account people sharing bedrooms. So, if you have the opportunity to move it allows people the choice to move. The other 50% is changing people’s willingness to change housing practices. We think the Reference Case does not respond as aggressively to the change in housing needs (e.g., of aging population).

Q: So, we are not changing people’s lifestyle so much as compressing it? I think it is more plausible. A: It is mixed in with the scenarios and we can’t separate it out at this point. C: I think as the purchaser, I would ideally put more square footage onto the lot and have the kids in the

other half of the duplex. The key is getting more square footage for the same area of the lot. C: We can change the perception and make it appear that you are doing something cool by going to a

smaller home.



Item Person Responsible Deadline 5.1 Action: Include text in the Lifestyle report that highlights the reasons behind the negative savings in the housing scenario, including the impacts of switching between electricity and gas use.

Dave Biggs First draft of full Lifestyle report.

5.2 Action: Include discussion in the Lifestyle report that talks about the differences in lighting between SFD and other more compact forms of housing, i.e. more common areas are lit 24 hours a day, the typical use of more efficient lighting in these areas (than SFD), the code issues that affect reducing / eliminating lighting, etc.

Dave Biggs First draft of full Lifestyle report.

6. Identify Key Decision-Makers / Influencers and Influencing Mechanisms SUMMARY Speaker: Nancy Cooley Cooley facilitated the continuation of the discussion from ERP Meeting #5 in identifying influencers and mechanisms. Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment Q: What are some key influencers? A: Neighbours. They pose a resistance to changing the character of the neighbourhood C: Emergency requirements and the people who represent those services. They often overstate the needs

and they may not necessarily be required. Emergency personnel. C: The Gateway project encourages people to live farther away. The provincial government has a role

here. The mechanism is the policy. C: The general public as embodied by municipal politicians. C: The media has probably the greatest impact on what to report. The local community papers have a

great impact on how people view them. C: It is the advertisers that direct how those papers position themselves. C: When I think of making a housing choice, the cost per square foot and the cost of transportation per

kilometre are key factors. C: The real estate industry (e.g., agents) has great influence on what you buy. Many today do not sell the

energy saving features but they could. C: One of the reasons we don’t see clotheslines anymore is because the real estate agents saw that as a

low income signal. However, if clotheslines are viewed as a smart thing to do, then the whole situation would change.

C: The real estate agents are the real influencers. C: Appraiser and inspectors. C: Employers in terms of where the jobs are and also because they finance employees’ homes. C: There are a lot of people that live in Surrey because the houses there are much larger. Q: What are the key mechanisms? A: Status. C: Developers have a large impact. The OCP (Official Community Plan) dictates what they can do, but

often times, the municipal planners are subject to the developers lobbying them to change the OCP. C: Banks will not finance developments unless they have consultants doing market research to determine

the demand. There is a separate group of consultants that specialize in what this demand is and what features are wanted.

C: Intra-developer competition. If you could harness that competition, it could be very powerful. C: They currently have such competitions. Murray representing BOMA brought in the Earth Award and we

have more applications for that award this year than any other award. C: Maybe it can be some higher level award, such as provincial rather than local. C: Developers rely on the awards as a key selling point. It builds up the prestige and status of the

development. C: The real estate agent, the marketer, and the developer are all connected in the same chain. C: I thought that the award is coming from an independent source, such as the utility, rather than within



the industry. C: Well, industry associations currently do run these awards and that is where they would typically be

administered. Q: Is there a different market for selling existing real estate? Does it make sense to separate new from

existing? Q: Are there different mechanisms that they might use for new versus existing homes? A: I think there is. They can promote the unique features or benefits of a certain lifestyle in a certain type

of neighbourhood. C: There is also the idea of Vancouverism: a negotiated settlement where the city offers the developer

more floors if they are willing to build a community centre, for example. It is an approach to comprehensive planning.

C: Development cost charges are key mechanisms too. C: Transportation planning (e.g., routing) is a mechanism. C: Under provincial government, I’d like to add the land transfer tax and (municipal) property tax to be

based on density; more broadly, assessment practices. The federal government could also adjust the amount of GST on new homes.

C: Capital cost allowance under the income tax rules can also be used as a mechanism. Q: Who are the influencers? A: The energy cop. Q: Does space heating/cooling refer to the use or choice of equipment? A: Both the use and choice of. Q: The devices for decreasing energy use are becoming more prevalent. Is that appropriate here? A: We are looking for influencers, so more the people. C: Comfort seekers.

7. Discussion of Lifestyle Opportunity #2: space heating and cooling SUMMARY

Speaker: Dave Biggs Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment Q: What are the mechanisms? A: Values. Affecting people’s values. C: Readily available information on the impacts of one’s actions. C: Money. For example, I know of people who give their children financial incentives. C: Back to the energy cop, environmental issues are key to their persuasion. C: Comfort seekers C: It is only a small financial benefit. $2 in energy savings for more comfort but $5 for coffee? C: Social norms. For example, you are odd for wanting a cold home. C: A feeling that one person doesn’t make a difference. C: The guilt factor is larger for cooling C: There are health and quality of life issues. Appeals to these concerns. C: We can’t freeze the children or the elderly. C: We had a rooftop unit before where it gets extremely hot in the summer and my wife wanted an air

conditioner (A/C). But I suggested changing the windows and adding insulation and that worked quite well.

C: Most rooms are renovated upstairs, but we can think about changing rooms seasonally (i.e., moving down in the summer, up in the winter).

C: The developers need information on efficient alternatives (e.g., putting them in touch with contractors).

C: Housing and the housing unit is completely self contained and there are no shared functions within the community, which can be efficient (e.g., district heating/cooling).

C: Co-housing is a new form of higher density housing where there are shared facilities (e.g., dining, kitchen, guest spaces).

C: There are opportunities for shared recreational spaces, so people need much less space individually.



8. Discussion of Lifestyle Opportunities #3-#6 SUMMARY

Opportunity #3 – Hot tubs Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment Q: What is the penetration rate? C: 12-14% range for SFD and higher for apartments. Q: How are these things used? Year round? A: They are very well insulated around and on top. It is on continually year round. Kept at 102 degrees

unless we go on vacation and it’ll go on setback. C: That is electric. Those ones you need to keep hot or else you have to wait a long time to get them

warmed up. C: The vast majority are electric. I was trying to make my hot tub electricity efficient to not affect the

peak and I went through a lot of trouble to get it there and eventually had to get a custom electrical job. There was also a lot of resistance from contractors in doing this because it did not make economic sense.

Q: What are the influencers? A: Suppliers impact the numbers that are installed by pushing for them. Salespeople too. C: Under suppliers, one of the mechanisms may be improving technology (e.g., timers). C: In this study, we are looking at eliminating hot tubs not reducing use. Q: What is the power usage of saunas? We could promote sauna culture! A: Saunas use a lot less power usually. Q: Saunas used to be viewed as a very social thing. Are they still viewed that way? A: Yes, very much so. Just look at what they show on the advertisements. Q: How would you get rid of a hot tub? A: We tried quite hard to get rid of it but we got it primarily for a health issue. Realistically, if we really

wanted to be rid of the hot tub, we would move into an accommodation where we would share the hot tub.

C: Admittedly some use it for health reasons, but it is more for leisure. If you could make the hot tub as cheesy as possible, make them uncool, then it would decrease their popularity.

C: These units need quite a bit of repair after a few years, so there is an opportunity to get rid of some of these.

C: Encourage use in shared hot tubs (e.g., community centres). C: Maybe an expose on how disgusting the hot tubs really are and the health risks. Q: After a few years they break down, so maybe we can make a comparison between one that is in

disrepair a few years old versus the community hot tub. Pools can decrease the value of a home. What about hot tubs?

Q: Should municipalities require a permit of some kind for hot tubs? They could require more water and contaminate water, too. What about health authorities? They could do an education campaign.

Q: Do we have a real life example of the health impacts? A: There was one case of Legionnaire’s disease in Burnaby. The heat incubates the bacteria. There is

significant pushback on ozonators from the salespeople because the sellers make a lot more on a continuous supply of chemicals.

Opportunity #4 – Appliances This opportunity is in using appliances less and decreasing the penetration of optional appliances (e.g.,

secondary fridges, using the dishwasher less or more efficiently). Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment Q: What are the Influencers? A: Energy cop. C: Whoever does the majority of the housework. C: Domestic home manager.



C: Builders and developers because these are typically installed when built. C: Retailers. C: When they build a house, they design it such that you have to have a monster fridge otherwise it looks

stupid. C: So interior designers as well. Q: What are the mechanisms? A: Energy cop is same as before. C: You could use shorter drying cycles and line drying for the rest of it. C: I don’t trust the automatic drying detection in the machines. They tend to over dry. C: I do a lot of line drying in spring through fall. They don’t wrinkle. It’s easier to fold them and put them

away. C: I always air dry my clothes in all seasons. Another benefit is that it does not destroy the clothes and

does not shrink them either. Q: Is the mechanism more information about alternatives to an automatic dryer? A: Yes, I think that is true. C: I think the same can be applied to a dishwasher then. Use it only when it is full. Q: Is it more efficient than washing in the sink? A: Generally dishwashers are more efficient because people tend to let the tap run as they do their

dishes. C: We stopped using the dishwasher because it wasn’t doing its job very well. C: There are benefits as well in terms of killing germs, particularly in the winter. C: One of the things with the size of the fridges is how often you have to go to the shop. C: That ties in with community design and how close you are to the shops. C: With the design of the fridge, you can lose a whole third of the fridge and it would not be missed. C: There are sub-zero fridges that can be built into the cupboards. C: BCH can play a role such as in the fridge buy-back programs. Q: Should we be talking about microwaves versus ovens? A: The saturation of microwaves is really high. Mostly for reheating, not cooking. Opportunity #5 – Electronics This opportunity is for reducing the size and duplication/penetration of multiple units (e.g., extra TVs). Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment C: Multiple TVs allow people to be more harmonious. C: When we get a new TV, we just move the old functioning one to another room but it remains plugged

in. Soon we get many TVs but we will only watch one at a time. There are large standby losses. C: As high definition comes in, regular cable TVs will not be able to show the same programs. Multiple

TVs are much harder with high-definition due to the wiring requirements. C: Maybe in the future we will get towards one large TV per household but have multiple small TVs (e.g.,

handheld). This would be much more efficient. C: There are two forces here – micro, make everything small, and macro, get as big as possible. C: Isn’t the micro mainly booming because people want to use it on the road? C: Yes, we can promote this for in home use. Q: How do you get people to watch less TV and therefore need fewer TVs? Can faith groups help?

Programs such as ParticipAction could also get people off the couch. Even the publishing industry may have a role here to promote the benefit they have to offer (books).

C: The issue of leaving computers on all day is something that should be tackled. I’m not sure how to influence that. Maybe we need technology that allows the computer to flash on immediately rather than having to wait for it. I’m not sure who promotes it though.

C: Let’s say that the industry comes to a stage where they have developed such technologies, there also needs to be another step in getting the message out that the world has changed.

C: There are significant trends on why computers are left on. For example, file sharing activities (uploading/downloading) encourages computers to be left on. It may not be physically used but may not necessarily be idle either.

C: Designers and builders put plugs in but there is no control tied up to them. The technology is around but none of it is integrated. The technology of plugs and lights (i.e., turning off a plug) has been around for a long time but it has not been used.



C: There is a project around where I live that provides a feature that allows you to switch off the receptacles with one switch.

C: The design of the smart controls has to be integrated to address issues such as loss of memory in electronics.

C: Watching TV is a very solitary activity. C: Remember back to the California energy crisis that people thought the experience was a positive

influence on their lifestyle. Opportunity #6 – Lighting Speaker: Dave Biggs Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment Q: What are the influencers? C: Developers, architects, and designers. There is very little thought that goes into lighting. A lot of

developments are based on a plan that just gets used over and over again. There is no thought from builders or stock plans from builders.

C: Municipalities and building codes state a minimum number that need to be in there and often the minimum gets installed.

C: The perception of adequate lighting. C: The use of task lighting. C: I was talking with three major property owners during the Cathedral sub station issue and they

identified a great number of areas where lighting could be reduced immediately. Q: What about Christmas lighting? There is a lot of competition to see who has the best lights. C: In my family we have 2 little kids, and we took out a lot of the task lighting because they can be

knocked over by little kids. I don’t prefer it but it is a safety issue. C: But that is because task lighting sits on the floor rather than being designed to hang down from the

ceiling. C: Architects get less than 20 hours of education on lighting. Q: Could I get a show of hands of who would be willing to fill in the ranking on the influencers and

mechanisms identified if we send it out to you after the W/S? OK, several would like to.

8. Discussion of Lifestyle Opportunities #3-#6 SUMMARY

ITEM PERSON RESPONSIBLE DEADLINE

8.1 Action: Send the list of influencers and mechanisms to the ERP to allow them to rank.

D. Biggs August 10, 2007

9. Rank Decision-Makers / Influencers and Influencing Mechanisms SUMMARY

It was agreed that the ranking of influencers and mechanisms would be done via email after the workshop. (See Action Item #8.1.)

10. Appropriate Roles for BC Hydro and Its Partners in Influencing Lifestyle Choices SUMMARY

10a. What role(s) is it appropriate for BC Hydro and / or its partners to play generally in influencing lifestyle choices that can impact electricity use? Speaker: Nancy Cooley facilitated a discussion of the ERP members’ on appropriate roles for BCH and / or its partners to take on with respect to promoting lifestyle changes that would result in lower electricity use. Questions and Discussion… Q = question A = answer C = comment Q: Could someone from BCH summarize what BCH has done in the past to promote energy efficiency? A: We started out encouraging people to use less energy and use more energy efficient equipment. We



have promoted people to use what they “need” rather than just buying the largest ones. We haven’t gone to the extent of saying “you don’t need this much lighting” on the residential side; we have done that in the commercial side. In terms of lifestyle, I really can’t think of much that BCH has done.

C: I don’t think it is appropriate for BCH to tell people how to change their lifestyle. BCH can take a very strong role in promoting lifestyle change but not be the only one promoting the change. BCH owns the process of doing all the promotion of influencing change. It is now running into problems in trying to promote lifestyle changes.

C: In the early ‘90s, management had to separate energy from conservation. We have now moved back to the little girl switching the lights off. It took us a long time to get back to that.

C: We are getting into the choice of partners and the appropriate ones could take the lead. I’m particularly thinking of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who could take the lead.

C: I’m thinking of BCH taking an external role in this movement. It would be influential but the lifestyle movement needs to be started by organizations outside of BCH. BCH can be a visible partner. It should not look like it owns the movement or social engineers change.

C: It needs to be promoting social good but not own the movement. C: If you put the government in the position to promote social change, you’ll get a huge pushback. NGOs

can promote it all they want but they do not have the power to cause change. The partnership can bring the two together.

C: From where we stand, it wouldn’t be so bad if the government were to promote such a movement. It might be very effective to have as wide a group of partners as possible. If you can have partners who can speak authoritatively to each of the arguments, then it would be very effective. For example, hospitals can speak to health issues and BCH to power issues.

C: The Ontario ads with David Suzuki, it appeared to me like the government promoting lifestyle but did not get the backlash.

C: The Refrigerator Buy-Back program can be seen as a lifestyle change. BCH encouraged its customers to make a change but that is more encouragement. There are other areas in lifestyle where the customer would react and tell BCH to stay out of their lives.

C: The main thrust of the lifestyle issues is divided in many areas, so you do not get the push to get change. It is divided over too many areas.

C: As part of a collaborative, BCH can spend money on promoting things that directly impacts them and still be part of a group to promote greater change. The regulator would not allow BCH to do this all on its own.

C: Use demo projects to showcase these issues during the Olympics. Q: Are you also thinking of providing an image of what lifestyle in B.C. should be? A: Yes, I think we want to promote that B.C. has a green lifestyle and sets the standard of what people

want to achieve. Q: Has BCH been involved with the athletes’ village? A: There is a whole group in BCH that is involved with almost every aspect of the Olympics, but I am not

sure if BCH is specifically involved in the athletes’ village. Q: Is there general agreement with the idea that BCH’s role is providing information, organization,

resources, and leadership with a collaborative set of partners? A: In some areas, yes, but in other areas where BCH is more relevant (e.g., directly tied to energy

savings), then BCH can be more involved. C: I think you need to have one solid group because the change would not be effective if it is very

parceled. You need a common direction and common influence. C: It needs critical mass. C: Many of the lifestyle areas are on the fringe. Q: I think I’m on the same page as you, but who would be leading it? A: There can be all sorts of partners. NGOs, for example. C: But you still need a driver. For example, this study has many different parties involved but it still needs

one driver, being BCH in this case. C: I think it is OK for BCH to play a large role but it also needs other major players. C: I think this can work but I am not convinced that it is the only way. C: I concur that BCH has a very important role to play, but I’m not sure if people would be comfortable

with a crown corporation leading the charge. It should come from the provincial government. Another thing is that this sort of thing requires creativity and utilities and governments are not necessarily great at those things.

C: I think there is a difference between an instigator and leader. Ideally, you want a constellation of people who push forward a broad agenda.

C: The leadership should not be owned by BCH; politics could be pulled into it. I think the issue resides in society now and it is not necessarily just BCH’s leadership to bring this forward. There are many people who have important roles to play.



C: Politicians are poor leaders because they are too influenced by people’s votes. Thinking back to the first CPR and the cooperative model used then, BCH kicked the whole thing off, financed it, etc. I think that model could fly. Government was a minor participant. I like the idea but I’d caution to not rely on the government too much. The issue with NGOs is that they do not have the resources to back it up. With the goodwill Power Smart (PS) has built up, I can see BCH play a very strong role maybe even as an operator of this whole thing.

C: When the Collaborative Committee was created for the first CPR, it was our understanding that it was the first of its kind in the utility industry. It was widely copied and people were very pleased by the collaboration. I certainly agree that there is an opportunity for BCH to play a significant role and kick start the movement.

C: What it often comes down to is where the funding comes from. With our GoGreen program, we set up a foundation where the various interested parties put money in and it generates funding over time for the functioning of the program. That model is one option.

Q: The challenge I’m having is what this collaboration will actually do. A bunch of social marketing campaigns?

A: BCH does not have a particular direction there. We are looking broader than electricity (e.g., transportation) at solving the problems we are facing (e.g., climate change). In that sense, if that is the proper direction, we can certainly look at such partnerships with other groups to impact a broader range of issues than electricity.

Q: Are we not reinventing the wheel then since there already is ConserveCo? We have some concerns with ConserveCo.

A: I am not sure the government is the right leader here. It should be a grassroots movement and avoid the politics.

C: One could imagine this group agreeing to a high-level set of goals and objectives. Not all groups may care about all the objectives but they will all care for some of them. Each group can then focus on what they care about. For example, BCH would only be working on the ones that are directly relevant to it.

C: There is a consultative group outside of the CPR process, the Energy Conservation and Efficiency (EC&E) Committee that talks to BCH about general demand-side management (DSM) strategies, the social strategy for DSM, where lifestyle would fit in. It currently talks about the government being the coordinator for such a collaborative. In a sense, what we’re discussing is emerging and BCH is taking an active role in identifying parties and who would or would not be offended.

C: I think the collaborative idea has a lot of merit. I don’t think BCH should completely shy away from the movement. It is very beneficial to have BCH’s support. One such area could be the use of hot tubs being on all the time but only used once or twice per year. I don’t think people would mind being reminded.

Q: As a business, how easy would it be to reconcile all these issues considering our shareholders want us to grow our business? I think many other businesses would have the same issues.

C: I think this can generate a lot more business elsewhere and for any business, you’d want to align with the opportunity interests of society.

C: I agree with a lot of what has been said. I was wondering what the goal of this organization is (e.g., conservation, sustainability). The branding of the goal of the organization allows different groups to hang off of this organization and all the benefits that come with it. I’d like to spend some time to identify what the dividing line is between what BCH can or cannot be involved with.

C: I think BCH on its own can go a certain distance in lifestyle. But if you want to go so far as where they shop and live and what modes of transportation to use, there are a myriad of reasons why BCH can’t touch on. However, as a larger group, all these issues can be tackled. BCH would have partners that it works with on electricity issues and would have collaborators in the organization that are involved with other sustainability issues.

C: I think we need to keep a sense of perspective on this. There won’t be hard numbers on this. These numbers we talk about today are very mushy. BCH has to report to the regulator and it may not be able to get much funding, especially at the start, to be a part of this.

C: The only reason that BCH accounts for their activity the way they do is because the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) says so. There is the possibility that this may change. That is the status quo and I don’t think we should restrict it to being so in the future also.

C: I agree. I think we should avoid coming anywhere close to the sponsorship scandal. Q: As opposed to being worried about that, I’d look at the supply side. There is $25M that goes into

alternative energy. A huge amount goes into the supply side but almost nothing goes into this, yet there is a huge savings potential. How do we go about changing that?

C: I think there is a general lack of understanding that slows such things down. The facilitator assembled the points recorded on flip chart sheets during the discussion to



create a summary of the views of the ERP members. See Attachment #2 to these notes. 10b. Explore a few decision-makers / influencers and influence mechanisms identified in the discussions of Lifestyle Opportunities #1-6 appropriate role(s) for BC Hydro: Speaker: Dave Biggs The consultants will take the results of this previous discussion and the definitions for the lower and upper achievable scenarios (see definitions below) into consideration for Lifestyle’s Phase 3 analysis to see how they fit with the Lifestyle scenarios.



Attachment # 1: Influences, Influencers and Motivators to Conserve or Make a Lifestyle Change Note: The following points were made during two External Review Panel (ERP) discussions of influences and motivating factors that affect the decisions British Columbians make about whether to conserve electricity or use it more efficiency or to make lifestyle changes that would affect their electricity consumption. This draft list contains influences and motivators that are both potentially supportive of and inhibiting toward greater energy efficiency or lifestyle changes that would consume less electricity. This version of the list includes the results of the ERP discussions on July 10th, as expanded and revised by the discussion recorded on the flip chart sheets during the July 31st Achievable Potential Workshop for Lifestyle. This version also includes further modifications as a result of a review during ERP Meeting # 8, September 5, 2007. N. Cooley, ERP Facilitator ERP responses to a question as to how people make decisions, what influences or leads to lifestyle choices. Sense of urgency or crisis

• A sense of urgency or crisis – that something has to be done now or quickly • The desire to use / enjoy something while it is still possible – e.g. consume more or quickly in the face of a sense that

something will become scarce or no longer available • Concerns related to personal safety

Making connections

• Making connections between individual action / lifestyle and climate change • Having a limited view / exposure – not seeing a bigger picture • Elementary education – help children make and understand connections • Inclusivity – break down a sense of isolation in individuals’ beliefs and priorities so that those who desire to conserve

understand what others feel and believe and realize they are not alone Cultural factors and social norms

• Individuals have a drive for identity and identity as part of a group • Individuals desire to meet social expectations of a group • Individuals desire to meet cultural norms • Faith groups -- creeds • Individuals are influenced by peer pressure, guilt and popular culture • Acceptable behaviour including commenting on others’ behaviour or saying something when behaviour affects resources /

climate change • Careerism, ambition and status definitions • Status defined as conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure – in North America, for many status is often defined as

conspicuous consumption. • What’s considered “cool” being defined as extreme individualism, being detached, disengaged • Rebellion, rebelliousness – especially among the youth (It was suggested that it may be possible to persuade people that some

energy efficient behaviour is rebellious or “cool”) • Family / relationship / social obligations at different stages of life, different ages • Cultural and social myths

Economic factors

• Economic cycles – in boom times people buy more energy consuming products; during a recession, people try to save money, conservation becomes more attractive

• Disposable income – prosperous era leads to more purchases • A desire to save money • Assumptions about what is “economic” – decisions based on a money system, monetary value as what is important • A market ideology that believes open market mechanisms are preferable or “good” and government interference in the market

is “bad” • Cultural / social belief in unlimited resources and endless economic growth / growth as “good”

Access and community design

• Physical design of neighbourhoods / location of facilities • Need to use a car to access facilities



• Assumption that a car is part of every activity • Supportive community design can be encouraged and / or supported by legislation • Urbanization contributes to a reluctance to comment on neighbours’ behaviour, creates more isolation (A question was raised

as to whether densification rather than urbanization is the key factor here.) • Availability of appropriate products

Key influencers

• Head of household – influences other members of the household • Household “energy cop” – individual who seeks to reduce others’ energy consumption in the house • Parents –(It was suggested that one could reach parents by targeting their desire for convenience and concern about the well-

being of their children.) • Children – influence their parents • Teachers / educators – especially of elementary children • Political leadership at all levels of government • Role models – both individuals and organizations • Backing / support from an authoritative source • Developers and marketers – e.g. using features that consume more electricity as selling points for homes and resale value

Key influence mechanisms

• Marketing and advertising • Media – e.g. reporting on effects of climate change • Education • Advocacy groups, e.g. environmental organizations • Visual cues / evidence of need to change, e.g. natural disasters likely resulting from climate change • Iconic images, e.g. the planet earth from space • Regulation and legislation • Financial incentives and disincentives– such as grants, rebates, tax credits, carbon taxes, fines • Development of new technologies – often means cheaper, more accessible products and also more marketing • Technical improvements that lead to lower cost products • Product and service availability • Social marketing, e.g. anti-smoking and fitness campaigns, anti-drinking and driving campaigns, etc. • Associate appropriate behaviour with a brand (e.g. Power Smart) • Use what’s desirable or considered “cool” as a tool



Attachment #2: Appropriate Roles for BC Hydro and Its Partners with Respect to Lifestyle Change Note: The following summarizes a discussion held among External Review Panel (ERP) members for the Conservation Potential Review 2007 (CPR 2007) during the Achievable Potential Workshop for Lifestyle, held July 31, 2007, and continued briefly on August 2nd. There was no attempt to reach consensus during the discussion. However, there was a general convergence of views, except where differences are explicitly noted below. The summary was created by the ERP facilitator, using the flip chart record of the discussion. N. Cooley, ERP Facilitator Create a Broadly-Based, Diverse Collaborative to Promote Lifestyle Changes In response to the question about what would be an appropriate role or roles for BC Hydro and / or its partners to play with respect to lifestyle change, an ERP member proposed that BCH should be part of a collaborative of organizations to be created to promote lifestyle changes in the public good. It was suggested that making changes to reduce electricity consumption was best seen and addressed as part of the larger picture of the challenges posed by climate change and the need to initiate many changes in society to move toward sustainability. The proposed focus for the collaborative would be on lifestyle changes that would be required to address climate change with sustainability as the over-arching goal. It would promote both the public and private benefits of lifestyle changes that could have a positive impact on climate change and sustainability generally. Participating organizations would share goals, general objectives, and general directions and pursue their specific interests and objectives within the defined, shared framework. It was argued that the scope of action required to promote positive lifestyle changes was beyond the resources and influence of any single organization and thus needed the combined efforts and resulting higher profile of a broadly based initiative. The collaborators would all have a piece of the action, but the sum of their combined efforts would be greater than the individual pieces. The proposed collaborative was suggested to be as broadly based and diverse as possible. Potential participants suggested included universities, other institutions, environmental organizations, non-governmental organizations business groups, and other utilities. The stated desire is to create a diverse collaborative with partners who can speak credibly and authoritatively to the impacts and benefits of specific lifestyle changes. It was suggested with such a collaborative, each individual partner would get the synergy of joint and collective action; that a collaborative could help provide a locus of activity and promotion to bring diverse actions together to generate a critical mass. It was suggested also that a collaborative would be able to address the huge educational role of effectively informing people, motivating them to make changes, and letting them know what they can do. It was pointed out that there are models and experience with similar efforts elsewhere in the world that have been successful. Appropriate Roles for BC Hydro Appropriate roles suggested for BC Hydro to play with respect to the proposed collaborative included: • providing information and research; • providing organizational and administrative support; • providing financial and other resources to support it generally; • providing leadership or acting as the driver to create the collaborative and / or to operate it. There were differences of view among ERP members as to whether it would be appropriate for BC Hydro to take the lead or act as the driver in setting up a collaborative on lifestyle change. While most or all members thought it would be appropriate for BC Hydro to promote electricity related pieces within a broader collaborative climate change initiative, several members thought it would not be appropriate for BC Hydro to take the lead or be the driver of the effort. They expressed the following: • concerns about a possible backlash against BC Hydro being seen to be meddling in people’s private lives; • a preference for a grass roots initiative that BC Hydro could then become involved in; • a preference for an arm’s length group; (One member wondered how easy it would be to reconcile business vs crown

corporation vs environmental group objectives. In response, another ERP member pointed out there are business opportunities that could come out of such a collaborative effort on lifestyle change.)

• concern as to whether the B.C. Utilities Commission would allow BCH to take the lead in such an initiative; • desire not to see anything come close to the sponsorship scandal; • concern as to whether people would be comfortable with a crown corporation leading the charge; • preference to have the provincial government lead; • a view that this sort of initiative requires creativity and utilities and governments are not necessarily great at those things; • a view that BC Hydro could be the instigator but not stay in a leadership role.



The question was raised as to whether it would be more appropriate for BC Hydro to be the instigator of such an initiative or for the province to take the lead. The question was also raised as to the relationship of the proposed collaborative to the provincial government’s ConserveCo. ERP members who prefer to see BCH take a lead role in creating a collaborative expressed the following views. • The reputation of Power Smart has a lot of good will; BC Hydro could effectively take a strong role. • The connection with the Power Smart brand would be an important part of public buy-in (August 2, 2007 ERP Mtg. #7) • Such an initiative needs to happen and BC Hydro has a huge stake in its potential success (August 2, 2007 ERP Mtg. #7). • BC Hydro has the experience of creating a successful collaborative with the first CPR; it could take the lead inkicking-off

another collaborative. • The effort needs innovation and creativity; governments are not appropriate as instigators or leaders as they tend to be

reactive. • It is difficult for partisan politics not to enter the picture when governments take the lead. • A step away from government may be desirable from residents’ perspectives. • BC Hydro has the resources to take a lead role. • BC Hydro’s regulatory regime is not unchangeable; if could be modified if necessary to allow BC Hydro to take a leading

role. • Non-governmental organizations and other possible instigators do not have the resources to take the lead. • BC Hydro could help set up a foundation or trust, similar to the one that exists in Oregon state, to which many organizations

could then contribute. An ERP member suggested the provincial government has a key role to play, since it wants to foster conservation. However, the Panel member also suggested that it would be better to have conservation implemented by a host of organizations, as opposed to being primarily pushed by the provincial government. This ERP member felt it was important to consider all energy sources, as well as other factors, such as a building strategy. (August 2, 2007 ERP Mtg. #7) Another ERP member suggested that the leadership of the proposed collaborative should be generated out of the collaborative and should be neither government nor BC Hydro. Suggested Individual Projects for BC Hydro to Pursue ERP members generally supported BC Hydro’s participation in the proposed collaborative effort, but also said that the corporation should not shy away from talking about lifestyle on its own. Some individual efforts suggested were the following: • Support municipalities that have smart growth initiatives; provide tools and information. • Use the 2010 Olympics as a showcase for demonstrations. For example, promote smart houses and promote the prestige of

living In the athletes’ village as an example of an energy efficient and sustainable neighbourhood. • Create a definition, a standard and / or an image of an electricity efficient lifestyle. In concluding the discussion, one ERP member pointed out that the electricity supply side draws huge dollars, while addressing the demand for electricity has little resources devoted to it comparatively. Yet, the personal and public benefits are potentially huge from reducing the demand for electricity. Additional comments from August 2, 2007 ERP regular Meeting #7 Suggestions for goals or output from the proposed collaborative included the following: • a Bruntland type or stature report on appropriate lifestyle changes; • lifestyle catch phrases and slogans similar to “sustainable development”; • a number of targets, e.g. Kyoto energy plan targets for Green House Gases for 2020, plus a conservation 2020 target; • pursue the United Nations framework on climate change, to which Canada is a signatory, and other related initiatives; • produce a menu of appropriate actions similar to the provincial public health handbook or the David Suzuki Foundation’s

Nature Challenge commitments; • motivate people and tell them what they can do, especially things that can’t be covered by regulations, codes, and standards,

and especially attitudes about what’s cool.

bc hydro 2007 conservation potential review the …

Documents