Home > Proactive Disclosure > Audits and Evaluations > A&E Reports > 2011-2012 > Evaluation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) Pilot Project on Reducing Emissions from Vehicles and Engines (PPRE)

Evaluation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) Pilot Project on Reducing Emissions from Vehicles and Engines (PPRE)

July 2011

Previous page | Table of Contents | Next page

4 Findings by Evaluation Issue

• 4.1 Rating of Findings
• 4.2 Relevance – Continued Need for the Program
• 4.3 Relevance – Alignment with Federal government Priorities
• 4.4 Relevance – Consistency with Federal Roles
• 4.5 Performance – Design and Delivery – Performance Information
• 4.6 Performance – Design and Delivery – Program Design
• 4.7 Performance – Design and Delivery – Barriers
• 4.8 Performance – Design and Delivery – Communications
• 4.9 Performance – Design and Delivery – Best Practices
• 4.10 Performance – Effectiveness – Outputs and Outcomes
• 4.11 Performance – Effectiveness – Intended Outcomes
• 4.12 Performance – Efficiency
• 4.13 Performance – Economy

This section outlines evaluation findings for each of the defined evaluation issues and questions. Findings and ratings are presented by evaluation issue for the PPRE, in keeping with the protocol of Environment Canada’s Evaluation Division, with specific comments included under each evaluation question.

4.1 Rating of Findings

Ratings have been provided to indicate the degree to which the PPRE has addressed the key evaluation criteria. The rating is assessed according to the following chart provided by Environment Canada’s Evaluation Division. A summary table of these ratings/findings is provided in Annex 4.

Table 6: Evaluation Ratings Legend

Top of Page

4.2 Relevance – Continued Need for the Program

Summary

The evaluation found that there was a clear need for the pilot and a continued need to reduce emissions from municipal fleets. These vehicles are a significant contributor to local air pollution and GHG emissions, and pose a health risk to vulnerable populations (e.g., school children). The evaluation found that there are regional programs that target this need, but they are not national in scope, do not focus exclusively on on-road HDD vehicles, and remedial actions are not widespread. There are also similar federal programs, but the pilot was designed to complement these initiatives and address a specific area (i.e., on-road HDD including GHG and CAC emissions). The PPRE was designed to target an identified gap in meeting the needs of municipal fleet operators nationally. Due to the noted need, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

Municipalities operate HDD vehicles as a normal part of their operations, for services such as the transport of school children, garbage collection and snow removal. However, municipal fleets are a key contributor to the environmental and health impacts of municipal operations. Burning diesel fuel creates GHG emissions that contribute to climate change, and CACs that contribute to smog and acid rain. On average, Canadian municipal fleets are responsible for three to five percent of a municipality’s total GHG emissions, and consume billions of litres of fuel each year. In addition, HDD vehicles such as school buses can expose on-board children to elevated levels of air pollutants (see sidebar), adding to their environmental exposure. In particular regions (e.g., British Columbia and southern Ontario), local air quality is of particular concern and international agreements have been established to address air quality (e.g., Canada–U.S. Air Quality Agreement).

Although federal and provincial programs address emissions from HDD vehicles (see Annex 2), the PPRE was designed to complement these programs and target on-road legacy public vehicles that will continue to emit GHGs and CACs for many years. The pilot was designed not just to promote technology and tools to reduce emissions, but also to address needs specific to municipalities with respect to obtaining support for action (e.g., demonstrated economic benefits, business cases for action, etc.).

As part of the PPRE program design, Environment Canada consulted with federal partners and examined current initiatives to ensure the pilot project filled an identified gap. Partners indicated that “municipalities are committed to reducing emissions from their fleets, but are unfamiliar with the appropriate technological and behavioural adaptations.” Furthermore, the literature review completed for this evaluation noted that regional programs in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia work with industry and/or fleet managers to reduce emissions; however, these programs are not national in scope. Table 7 summarizes these regional capacity-building programs and compares them to the PPRE (see Annex 2 for details).

Table 7: Comparison of Capacity-Building Programs

Fleet Challenge Ontario (Municipal Fleet Review)

BC Air Action Plan (Action #10 only)

Clean Nova Scotia - Fleetwiser Program

PPRE Pilot Project

Top of Page

4.3 Relevance – Alignment with Federal Government Priorities

Summary

The PPRE’s objectives are clearly aligned with current federal government priorities, and with Environment Canada’s strategic outcomes to take action on climate change and reduce air emissions. The PPRE was found to be complementary to other federal programs such as CARA and ecoFREIGHT. However, it was found to be similar to NRCan’s FleetSmart program, although FleetSmart focuses broadly on GHG emissions and public and private vehicles, while the PPRE focused on both GHGs and CACs specifically for on-road public municipal fleets and school buses. Due to the alignment with federal priorities and outcomes, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

When designed, the PPRE was aligned with the Government of Canada priority, identified in the 2008 Speech from the Throne, of “tackling climate change and preserving Canada’s environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020.”⁵ This commitment to addressing climate change is maintained in the 2010 Speech from the Throne.

The PPRE is aligned with Environment Canada’s priorities and strategic outcomes, as evidenced in the following Reports on Plans and Priorities (RPPs):

• At the program design stage, the PPRE was aligned with the 2008-2009 RPP priority “reducing GHG emissions and air pollution” and contributed to the Department’s strategic outcome, as noted in the 2008 PAA: Canadians and their environment are protected from the effects of pollution and waste (Transportation Sector Emissions); and
• Currently, the PPRE is aligned with the 2010-2011 PAA strategic outcome: Threats to Canadians and their environment from pollution are minimized (Climate Change and Clean Air Program Activity, Climate Change and Clean Air Regulatory Program Sub-Activity, Transportation Sector Emissions Sub-sub Activity – which has the expected result: Reduced air pollutant emissions from Canadian motor vehicles and fuels).

The PPRE complements the Government of Canada’s CARA by addressing emissions from existing vehicles and engines that could remain on Canada’s roads for up to 20 years. CARA focuses on the On-Road Vehicle and Engine Emission Regulations to reduce emissions from new HDD engines (starting with the 2007 model year). However, diesel vehicles built before 2007 will continue to emit comparatively high levels of nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and PM over the next 20 years. The PPRE targets the on-road legacy public HDD vehicle fleet, such as municipal fleet vehicles, and explores how best to voluntarily reduce their emissions. Reducing emissions from the in-use public HDD fleet addresses two important Government of Canada priorities: reducing emissions (GHGs and CACs) and improving the health of Canadians.

The PPRE was designed to complement other federal programs such as Transport Canada’s ecoFREIGHT and NRCan’s FleetSmart (details of these programs are provided in Annex 2). It clearly complements ecoFREIGHT, which works with the freight transportation industry to increase the uptake of technologies and practices that reduce fuel consumption and emissions of CACs and GHGs. However, there is some overlap with the FleetSmart program, which offers free practical advice on how energy-efficient vehicles and business practices can reduce commercial and municipal fleet operating costs, improve productivity and increase competitiveness. NRCan’s transportation programs, in keeping with their PAA, indicate that they “aim to reduce GHG emissions from on-road transportation by encouraging drivers and fleet managers to use energy-efficient purchasing, driving and vehicle maintenance behaviours.” This is similar to the Environment Canada strategic outcomes. However, the focus of the FleetSmart program is GHGs (not air pollutants as well), and more on training and retrofits to promote energy efficiency specifically related to GHG emissions, while the PPRE focused particularly on capacity building and tools specific to HDD public municipal fleets and addressed both GHG and CAC emissions. Also, the PPRE focuses solely on public fleets (municipal fleets and school buses), while the FleetSmart program focuses on public and private vehicles.

Top of Page

4.4 Relevance – Consistency with Federal Roles

Summary

Managing emissions is a partnership between multiple government jurisdictions and stakeholders. There is a federal role and responsibility for the Government of Canada to regulate emissions from vehicles and engines, and thus engaging in pilots such as the PPRE to complement such regulations is appropriate providing that federal authorities focus their efforts on facilitating and enabling such programs and projects with relevant partners. Responsibilities for building capacity with and reducing emissions from the in-use municipal fleet are also strongly aligned with provincial and municipal roles and responsibilities. Stakeholders viewed the federal role in this pilot as appropriate. Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as ‘achieved’.

All levels of government have roles to play in addressing emissions from HDD vehicles. The environment is a matter of shared jurisdiction between the provincial and federal governments. Both levels of government derive their jurisdiction from distinct powers granted by the Constitution Act 1867. Both levels of government may have the authority to regulate the same emissions, albeit based upon different Constitutional authorities. Municipalities derive their power from the provinces.

The PPRE builds on the federal role to address emissions nationally (through a group such as the FCM) and to target regions where cross-border air emissions are an issue (e.g., southern Ontario). However, the specific roles for working with municipal fleet operators and funding retrofits to reduce emissions from diesel buses and heavy-duty trucks is more strongly aligned with provincial and municipal roles. This is evidenced by the existence of similar provincially funded programs in British Columbia and Ontario (see Annex 2 for details). In fact, the literature review, in comparing the PPRE to other relevant capacity-building programs in Canada, highlighted that these programs were mostly designed for a regional audience and implemented at the regional and local levels by NGOs.

Views from interviewees indicated that this kind of pilot was unique for Environment Canada to undertake, as complementary measures to regulations are of interest to the Department but not its primary focus. Stakeholders believed that the appropriate federal role is primarily to regulate air quality, and secondarily to provide national capacity building in order to support municipalities as well as to provide incentives for change (adoption of new technology).

Top of Page

4.5 Performance – Design and Delivery – Performance Information

Summary

The evaluation found that a performance indicator was included in the original program design for the PPRE, but has yet to be reported on. Performance information has been provided by funded partners, primarily at the output level, in a timely and relevant manner. However, there is little evidence of a formal internal performance reporting mechanism to senior management and/or federal partners for the entire pilot project. As the pilot has ended, performance data are not required to support future decisions, but it is relevant to determine whether the pilot has achieved its expected outcome. As it is expected that Environment Canada / FCM will report on the stated performance indicator at the end of the pilot, and other performance data have already been reported, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

A comprehensive performance measurement plan was not developed for the PPRE. Rather, the program design document presented the following anticipated results and performance indicator for the pilot project:

• Anticipated Result: Increased implementation by Canadian municipalities of specific actions to reduce emissions from municipal on-road HDD vehicles.
  • Performance Indicator: Population-weighted count of municipalities that participate or report through FCM that they are implementing greening fleet initiatives consistent with Project 1.

Although this level of detail was considered appropriate by Treasury Board to report on this initiative, no performance information on the defined indicator has yet been compiled. However, the FCM is conducting a final survey of all participants within its Enviro-Fleets Pilot Project, which will produce the required performance information for this indicator.

The work conducted by the FCM under the PPRE had a number of defined performance measures to track outputs and outcomes. These were reported on regularly within its quarterly reports. In addition, the FCM is planning to conduct an end-of-pilot survey with municipalities to better assess the impact of the pilot project. This information was not available for the evaluation but is expected by the end of March 2011. The performance information provided by the FCM thus far was assessed to be reliable, timely and relevant to the project.

The other initiatives funded under the PPRE (i.e., CAP, MSC, Bronson Consulting study) did not have specific performance measures, but were required to submit deliverables as part of their contracts. Interviews with program staff confirmed that all deliverables were completed appropriately and in accordance with the terms and conditions presented in the contracts between Environment Canada and those who received PPRE funding.

Although performance information was collected and reported by the FCM, and contract deliverables were produced as planned, there is no evidence of formal internal reporting mechanisms to senior management or other federal partners on the status of the pilot project, including all of its activities (i.e., those completed by the FCM, CAP, MSC and Bronson Consulting). Program managers indicated that they shared the PPRE outputs and results with management and partners informally through meetings/briefings or by distributing the final deliverables to relevant colleagues.

Top of Page

4.6 Performance – Design and Delivery – Program Design

Summary

The evaluation found a plausible link between program activities, outputs and expected results for the pilot project. There was a clearly defined, understood and appropriate program design and governance structure for managing projects, including their deliverables, timing, funding, and reporting requirements. In addition, program resources and the capacity of internal staff and funded partners were commensurate with the expected results. Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

The program design document is the foundation of the PPRE design and delivery. It clearly lays out the rationale; anticipated results and performance indicator; activities, deliverables, timelines and funding; and the management of the projects and requirements for evaluation. The first year of the pilot was spent consulting with partners and determining the most appropriate activities to be undertaken, not only to meet the goals but to fill necessary gaps. The program design document was produced after this first year. Interviews indicated that it was important to take this time to investigate what had been done, what was being done by others, and what was needed to ensure the PPRE could provide valuable outputs.

As a result, the PPRE was appropriately designed to use the available resources and capacity of funded partners, as expert delivery agents, to achieve the intended results. Although no logic model was developed, the link between the planned activities, outputs and intended outcomes was plausible.

Although there was little formal management or governance structure for the pilot, this is seen as appropriate given the small amount of funds, the oversight provided by the Strategic Transportation and Policy and Analysis Section, and the controls put in place to effectively manage the funded partners (e.g., via contracts or contribution agreements).

Top of Page

4.7 Performance – Design and Delivery – Barriers

Summary

The evaluation found that the key barriers to implementing a national program to address HDD emissions resulting from municipal and school bus fleets are: a) funding; and b) ability to work with all components of a municipal / school bus fleet (sometimes composed of both public and private vehicles). There were specific challenges identified in component pieces of the pilot that could be addressed by a broader, national strategy, but some elements, such as determining the amount of GHGs produced by HDD vehicles within a municipal / school bus fleet, are difficult to determine due to the heterogeneous composition of municipal / school bus fleets. As the barriers were clearly identified, and some recommendations for how to address them were included in component reports, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

Two reports produced from the PPRE identified specific challenges that should be considered in developing a broader program to reduce emissions from on-road municipal and school bus fleets. The Bronson Consulting report noted that any clean air program for school buses should be part of a comprehensive school bus health and safety program in order to achieve high success rates, and should be linked with a larger national strategy. Implementation challenges included operators’ knowledge gaps regarding emission issues, and funding constraints. The report noted that program delivery agents from various sectors identified that the optimal role for the Government of Canada in a national clean air for school buses program is that of facilitator rather than being the driving force.

The MSC report on school bus retrofit programs noted that the key barrier is funding, and that another barrier is the reluctance of some school bus companies to consider diesel retrofit technologies for their buses due to time constraints and, in some cases, confidence in specific technologies. Some operators believe that the availability of new technologies, and legislation requiring the transport sector to reduce diesel emissions from school buses over the next several years, will significantly reduce air pollutants and that other efforts are therefore not necessary.

All stakeholders interviewed believed that funding was the key constraint in rolling out a more comprehensive national program. In addition, the variety of players that make up municipal / school bus fleets (e.g., vehicles owned and operated by municipalities vs. vehicles subcontracted by municipalities), along with the variety of information sources and technologies that currently exist, were seen as barriers to action. Busy fleet managers need one integrated and easy-to-access source of information to facilitate adoption. Also, multiple jurisdictions need to be engaged to establish a longer-term and more comprehensive approach.

Top of Page

4.8 Performance – Design and Delivery – Communications

Summary

The evaluation found that there was extensive communication and information sharing with the target audience (municipal fleet operators) to promote and facilitate emission reduction actions, particularly as part of the FCM project, with FCM leading the majority of the communication and information-sharing activities. Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved. It was noted, however, that information sharing within the federal community was informal and at times inconsistent.

Table 8 summarizes how the FCM and CAP have shared information with organizations.

Table 8: Evidence of Information Sharing by FCM and CAP as part of the PPRE

FCM

CAP

* 140 municipal representatives and 67 non-municipal representatives. Does not include participants who attended the FCM’s EnviroFleets Workshop, who were not registered; estimated at 50 participants.
** Information was also sent to subscribers to the FCM weekly newsletter and Partners for Climate Protection members.
*** 818 views from unique IP addresses were reported.

In addition, Environment Canada indicated that the Department distributed project outputs (e.g., Bronson Consulting report, Clean Air Agenda’s Clean Air Partnership Report) to other federal partners (Transport Canada and NRCan) as a means of sharing information. However, some interviewees stated that they had not been informed of some deliverables, such as the program design document or FCM publications such as the best practices guide.

Top of Page

4.9 Performance – Design and Delivery – Best Practices

Summary

The evaluation found that best practices and lessons learned were provided as part of the component pieces of the pilot. A best practices guide was produced for municipal fleet managers, and advice was provided for addressing emissions from school buses. Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

Elements of the pilot project identified best practices, lessons learned and/or challenges as a result of the pilot activities. The FCM produced a best practices guide that aims to help municipal fleet managers find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions from heavy-duty vehicles. The guide focuses on best practices relative to overall fuel use (e.g., life cycle management, idle-reduction technologies, etc.). The FCM also produced a resources guide to help fleet managers access the resources they need to improve their fleet efficiency. The CAP, MSC and Bronson reports completed under the pilot provided advice and recommendations for moving forward in addressing CAC emissions from school buses.

In terms of moving forward from this pilot, a summary of the best practices and lessons learned is provided in Section 6 of this evaluation.

Interviewees highlighted that it is important to take time at the beginning of a new pilot project such as this to investigate what others are doing, and what is needed, to ensure the pilot/program meets a clear need and builds on existing programs and initiatives. Many indicated that pilot projects such as this are important for demonstrating what can be done with a finite amount of resources.

Top of Page

4.10 Performance – Effectiveness – Outputs and Outcomes

Summary

The evaluation found that all but one of the planned outputs have been achieved under the pilot project (the FCM did not obtain sufficient responses to establish a baseline of municipal HDD fleets across Canada). There was a consensus from the evidence and interviews that the pilot project achieved its intent. As the pilot recently ended, it is too early to determine the extent to which this intended outcome has been achieved, although the evaluation did find some evidence to suggest that progress is being made. Information on the performance indicator “population-weighted count of municipalities through FCM that report implementing green fleet initiatives” is not yet available, although it is anticipated that this information will be received through a final assessment survey to be carried out by the FCM in March 2011. Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as Progress Made; Attention Needed.

Table 9 summarizes the planned and delivered outputs under the PPRE pilot project. It is evident from this table that nearly all of the planned outputs were delivered.

Table 9: Planned and Delivered Outputs for the PPRE

FCM

CAP

My Sustainable Canada

Bronson Consulting

The anticipated result/outcome for the first initiative under the pilot project was: “Increased implementation by Canadian municipalities of specific actions to reduce emissions from municipal on-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles,” with the following performance indicator: “Population-weighted count of municipalities that participate or report through FCM that they are implementing greening fleet initiatives consistent with the pilot project (i.e. first initiative).” As the pilot has just ended, the degree to which the anticipated outcome has been achieved is not yet documented. The FCM will be conducting an end-of-pilot survey of municipalities that is expected to provide information to address this outcome. In addition, future FCM reports (expected circa 2012-2013) will provide information on how municipalities took actions with their on-road HDD vehicles (e.g., new applications to the FCM’s Green Municipal Fund and its Partners for Climate Protection annual measures report on actions taken related to the HDD fleet).

The following information indicates that progress has been made toward achieving the stated outcome:

• The FCM indicated that it has increased the capacity of municipal fleet managers and other officials to adopt measures that reduce GHGs and CACs, reduce fuel consumption, and reduce costs in municipal fleets through training and knowledge resources. Evaluation of their webinars indicated that a vast majority of participants felt that the webinar met or exceeded their expectations and increased their knowledge in the topic area, and agreed that they would apply the discussed ideas, tools and strategies to their work. Evaluation of the FCM workshops indicated that all respondents agreed that the sessions were worthwhile.
• The FCM reported that 39 fleet-related measures have been undertaken by municipalities, with an aggregated amount of $8 million invested in greening the fleet measures (this is part of the broader Partners for Climate Protection program and is not directly attributable to the PPRE). In addition, the FCM’s Green Municipal Fund has changed its criteria to allow for fuel switching and retrofit projects in municipal fleets; it is anticipated that projects of this type will increase based on the work initiated in the PPRE.
• Information on best practices and resources has been widely distributed to the target audience (as noted under Section 4.8) to increase awareness and facilitate the implementation of actions to reduce emissions.
• MSC implemented retrofits on 60 school buses and 6 garbage trucks in southwestern Ontario. This resulted in substantial emissions reductions from these vehicles (approximately a 40% reduction of PM, 75% reduction of hydrocarbons, and 60% reduction of carbon monoxide).

Top of Page

4.11 Performance – Effectiveness – Intended Outcomes

Summary

The evaluation found no negative unintended outcomes.

There was no evidence of unintended outcomes identified in the documentary evidence. Interviewees noted the following two key unintended outcomes:

• increased understanding of the challenges facing municipal fleet managers in implementing changes to address emissions; and
• enhanced relationships and networks between non-traditional partners (e.g., EC, NRCan and the FCM).

Top of Page

4.12 Performance – Efficiency

Summary

The evaluation found evidence that Environment Canada partnered with other organizations to achieve the program’s objectives in an efficient manner while maximizing limited resources to manage the program within the Department and leveraging funding from partner organizations (i.e., the FCM).

Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

Table 10 presents the expenditures of the PPRE against original allocations. These expenditure figures were provided by program staff.

Table 10 PPRE Allocations and Expenditures

The financial data provided highlight that $116,664 in G&C funding available for the pilot project’s first initiative in 2009-10 was not spent. Program staff explained that this funding was not provided to Environment Canada until late in the fiscal year 2009-10 (released in September), and therefore the program partner (FCM) only had a limited part of the year to spend the contributions effectively. As a result, some of the allocated funds available to the pilot project were lapsed.

In terms of comparable federal government approaches to reducing diesel emissions, the literature highlighted that the United States maintains a more comprehensive approach to delivering its objectives concerning diesel emissions, through the U.S. EPA’s National Clean Diesel Campaign (NCDC), which provides access to approximately $200 million (between 2007 and 2011) in funding to manufacturers, fleet operators, air quality professionals, environmental and community organizations, and state and local officials, to reduce diesel emissions (see Annex 2 for details). In the absence of such a large funding envelope to address diesel emissions in Canada, the PPRE utilized partnerships with not-for-profit and/or expert organizations to achieve the project objectives.

The evaluation highlights that the PPRE was implemented by funding not-for-profit and/or expert organizations to undertake specific studies and initiatives. The funded partners were chosen based on their expertise in the required area and their ability to deliver work effectively and efficiently. For example, the FCM was selected as an appropriate organization to work with based on their ability to access municipalities and fleet managers through the FCM’s existing networks. The funds provided to these groups were relatively small (ranging from $25,000–$170,000) and all the deliverables were produced on time and met the Department’s expectations. The project was managed efficiently by one FTE in Environment Canada and was designed to complement existing initiatives.

In addition, some leverage was achieved through the FCM initiative (e.g., $37,000 was provided to the project by the Green Municipal Fund, which resulted in a 14% increase in the original $230,000 in G&Cs allocated for the project). Leverage was also achieved by the FCM collaborating with Fleetwiser to co-promote projects, with FPInnovations, and with Fleet Challenge Ontario (FCO) to deliver the Ontario workshop (FCO contributed $1,000).

Interviewees noted that the funded projects and the work managed by Environment Canada were undertaken in an efficient and collaborative manner. For these reasons, the PPRE was assessed to be efficient.

Top of Page

4.13 Performance – Economy

Summary

The evaluation found that the project is on track to achieving its intended outcomes in an economical manner. All stakeholders viewed the PPRE as a good use of public funds, and believed that the delivery approach was economical. Therefore, the overall rating has been assessed as Achieved.

As noted above, the delivery approach was seen as economical, as it used expert non-profit groups that completed the required tasks for a relatively low cost and in a timely manner. The FCM project was able to reach a wide audience across Canada, to ensure a strong and equitable reach.

Interviewees believed that the federal government, on its own, could not have completed the work in the time required and for the available budget. For instance, it would not have been able to reach the target municipalities economically without the FCM, which had a pre-existing national network and channel in place. The FCM also had established credibility with the target audience, facilitating uptake and engagement. In addition, the FCM built on existing regional initiatives in British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario, and leveraged its broader networks and resources through the Partners for Climate Protection program and Green Municipal Fund. One alternative suggested for enhancing the economy and reach of the FCM workshops was to implement a train-the-trainer approach rather than hold individual workshops.

As well, alternatives could have been used to conduct the studies completed by MSC, CAP and Bronson Consulting, but these would likely not have been as economical, as these groups had successfully and recently conducted previous related studies and were able to build on this work in an economical and timely fashion. One interviewee noted that an alternative such as funding municipalities to do outreach or retrofits may be problematic, as they may not have the same drivers for action (they may be more concerned about fuel savings than environmental benefits).

The literature review (see Annex 2) indicated that the PPRE’s delivery is consistent with the delivery of regional programs that are being implemented in Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Key highlights include:

• other capacity-building programs maintain a similar temporal scope of 2–4 years;
• implementation by a non-governmental partner is the preferred delivery vehicle for capacity-building programs; and
• the target audience for capacity-building programs continues to be municipalities, although in at least one case a program is working directly with the commercial sector.

The literature review also demonstrated that there are multiple options for developing capacity with the goal of reducing HDD emissions, including the following:

• Conducting audits of municipal fleets, which focus on identifying retrofit opportunities by conducting an on-site audit of a municipal fleet.
• Delivering technical workshops to fleet managers, which educate the managers on fuel efficiency or how to green their heavy-duty vehicle fleet.
• Providing networking opportunities, which include enabling networking opportunities for fleet managers through online forums, workshops, informal/formal meetings, and so forth.
• Developing guidelines and toolkits for fleet managers (on a range of topics), such as tools for identifying appropriate technologies, and information or data on best practices / approaches for reducing HDD emissions.
• Product testing, which focuses on supporting demonstration projects for emission reduction technologies.

5 2008 Speech from the Throne

Previous page | Table of Contents | Next page