Guide 06 · PACE plan example
An APEGA PACE plan example, filled in section by section
Independent guide. PaceTracker is not affiliated with APEGA. The professional, the projects and the activities below are fictional. Use the example as a model for the level of detail, not as text to copy: a PACE plan has to describe your own practice.
The short answer. A complete APEGA PACE plan describes your areas of practice, the skills you want to maintain or develop, and the CPD activities you completed, each with a written explanation of how it contributed to your competence and supporting evidence. Each year you need at least one Technical activity and at least one from another category. The example below shows all seven sections filled in for one fictional engineer.
If you want the reasoning behind each section first, start with the seven sections explained. If you need your dates, see your CPD due date by renewal month.
01 Personal informationRecommended
Example
Name, APEGA ID, email and phone. CPD period: November 1, 2025 to October 31, 2026.
02 Areas of practiceRequired
Example
Professional Engineer, eight years of experience. Project engineer at a mid-size consulting firm in Calgary, municipal infrastructure group. I design water distribution and transmission mains, pump stations and small reservoirs for municipal clients, prepare approval applications, and review the work of two junior designers. Future area: I am moving toward hydraulic modelling of larger systems, including surge analysis.
Note what makes it usable: a job title, an employer type, concrete duties and a direction. Every later section can be traced back to this paragraph.
03 Competence evaluationRecommended
Example
Technical: strong in distribution design, limited in transient analysis, which my next projects need. Regulatory: the approval process for waterworks changed recently and I have not followed the changes closely. Ethical Practice: no specific gap, but site work raises situations outside our scope that I want to handle correctly. Communication, Management, and Leadership: I now review junior staff and need to explain design decisions better.
Risk factors: moderate supervision (senior review on large projects); frequent interaction with other licensed professionals; technology change moderate (modelling software); standards changed this year (client design standards, approvals); consequence of failure high for transmission mains.
04 Skills and knowledgeRequired
Example
- Transient and surge analysis of pumped mains (develop).
- Current design standards for linear infrastructure (maintain).
- Regulatory requirements for waterworks approvals (maintain).
- Professional obligations during site work (maintain).
- Reviewing and explaining design decisions to junior staff (develop).
Five items, each tied to something in sections 02 and 03. That link is what a reader looks for: why this skill, given this practice.
05 Completed CPD activitiesRequired
Five activities, two Technical and three from the other categories. The minimum is two; this professional did more because section 03 found real gaps. The category is the professional’s own choice for each activity.
Activity 1 · Technical · Formal
Short course: transient analysis of water transmission mains
- Organizer
- University continuing-education program
- Date
- February 2026
- Duration
- 14 hours (two days)
- Linked skill
- Skill 1 (transient and surge analysis)
- Written explanation
- I took this course because two upcoming projects include pumped transmission mains and my surge analysis experience is limited to small systems. The course covered pump trip and valve closure scenarios, surge protection options and how to read model results critically. Since then I have set up the surge model for the north reservoir project myself and identified that the original air valve layout was not sufficient, which the senior reviewer confirmed.
- Evidence
- Registration confirmation, course certificate, my annotated course notes.
Activity 2 · Technical · Informal
Self-directed study of the revised municipal design standards
- Organizer
- Self-directed
- Date
- March to April 2026
- Duration
- About 6 hours over three weeks
- Linked skill
- Skill 2 (current design standards for linear infrastructure)
- Written explanation
- Our main client adopted a revised edition of its design standards this year. I read the sections on watermain sizing, valve spacing and hydrant coverage and compared them with the previous edition. I prepared a one-page summary of the changes for the design team and updated our internal design checklist so the next submissions follow the new requirements.
- Evidence
- Calendar entries for the study blocks, my comparison notes, the updated checklist (internal version history).
Activity 3 · Regulatory · Informal
Webinar: changes to provincial approvals for waterworks projects
- Organizer
- Industry association
- Date
- May 2026
- Duration
- 1.5 hours
- Linked skill
- Skill 3 (regulatory requirements for approvals)
- Written explanation
- I prepare approval packages but had not followed the recent changes to the application process. The webinar explained the new submission sequence and the information now expected at the preliminary stage. I applied this on the reservoir upgrade application in June, which went in complete on the first submission.
- Evidence
- Registration email, webinar agenda, my notes.
Activity 4 · Ethical Practice · Informal
Case discussion: duty to report unsafe conditions
- Organizer
- Internal lunch-and-learn, led by our Responsible Member
- Date
- June 2026
- Duration
- 1 hour
- Linked skill
- Skill 4 (professional obligations in site work)
- Written explanation
- We discussed a published case where an engineer noticed an unsafe temporary works condition outside their scope. The discussion clarified when the obligation applies even if the work is not ours, and who to notify. I now raise site observations outside our scope in writing on the same day, and I added a line for this to our site visit report template.
- Evidence
- Meeting invitation and agenda, attendance list.
Activity 5 · Communication, Management, and Leadership · Informal
Mentoring an engineer-in-training
- Organizer
- Firm mentoring program
- Date
- November 2025 to August 2026
- Duration
- About 10 hours (monthly one-hour sessions)
- Linked skill
- Skill 5 (reviewing and explaining design decisions)
- Written explanation
- I mentored an EIT through their first year on design work. Preparing the sessions forced me to explain the reasons behind design choices I usually make by habit, and to give feedback on calculations in a structured way. I have started using the same review checklist with the rest of the team.
- Evidence
- Calendar entries for each session, short session notes.
— A weak explanation and a strong one
The written explanation is required for every activity, and it is where most plans are thin. Compare two versions for the same course:
Weak
Attended a two-day course on transient analysis. Very useful for my work.
Stronger
Says why the course was chosen (a gap found in section 03), what it covered, which skill from section 04 it supports, and what changed in the work afterwards. Three or four sentences are enough.
A simple test: if someone who does not know you read only the explanation, would they understand why you did this activity and what it changed?
— What this example does not count
The mandatory learning modules this professional completed in myAPEGA are recorded separately: APEGA does not let them count toward the two-activity minimum. Day-to-day project work is not listed as an activity either. Work can count when it goes beyond your routine, but APEGA expects CPD activities alongside it.
06 Peer input and reviewRecommended
Example
Plan reviewed in December 2025 with my supervisor, a P.Eng. in the same group. Input: add the approval process changes as a skill, since two applications are due this year. Section 04 updated the same week.
07 Sign-offRecommended
Example
Signed and dated September 2026, after the last activity was recorded and before the CPD due date of October 31, 2026. Filed with the evidence for each activity. Declaration completed in myAPEGA the same week; for a November renewal the declaration window opened on September 1, 2026.
— Quick answers
How many activities does an APEGA PACE plan need?
At least two per year: at least one in the Technical category and at least one in Regulatory, Ethical Practice, or Communication, Management, and Leadership. Beyond that, the right number depends on your practice and the risks you identified in your competence evaluation.
What should a written explanation for a CPD activity say?
Why you chose the activity, which skill in your plan it supports, and how it contributed to your competence, ideally with one concrete change in your work afterwards. Three or four specific sentences are usually enough.
What counts as evidence for an informal CPD activity?
APEGA lists examples such as registration confirmations, presentation outlines, calendar entries, meeting agendas and emails. Where there is no formal document, APEGA says a detailed description of the activity may be suitable.
Can I copy this PACE plan example?
Use it as a model for structure and level of detail, not as text. The plan has to describe your own areas of practice, your own evaluation and the activities you actually completed. APEGA does not approve PACE plans; you sign yours and keep it in your records.
Build yours with the same structure
PaceTracker walks you through these seven sections, links each activity to the skills in your plan, helps you write the explanation from a few short answers (no AI), keeps the evidence next to it, and exports the whole period as one PDF. Records stored in Canada (Montréal).
Create your free accountFree until launch · No credit card