HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 194-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
CITY MANAGER
APRIL 19, 2010
DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES I CITY MANAGER
CMR: 194:10
REPORT TYPE: ACTION
SUBJECT: Report on 2009 Climate Protection Plan Goals and Approval of
1) Expanding the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Goals and Reduction
Plan for City Operations in 2012 to 20%,
2) New Initiatives to Accelerate GHG Reductions and Cost Savings for City
Operations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council (1) review the results of the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction
plans for Calendar Year 2009, (2) expand the 2012 reduction goals first proposed in December
2007 for City operations in order to stimulate additional cost-savings opportunities, and (3)
approve the implementation of new initiatives to promote GHG reductions and energy savings.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On December 3, 2007 (CMR: 435:07), Council requested that staff develop a greenhouse gas
reduction plan, focusing on short, medium and long term goals. The short term goal, as
describ,ed in the Climate Protection Plan, was a 5% reduction in emissions from City opel'ations
in 2009 from the 2005 baseline levels. All references to years in this report are Calendal' Years
unless otherwise indicated. Council also recommended that staff continue to monitor the City's
and community's emissions and report back regularly ,to Council and the community on
greenhouse gas emissions and actions to reduce those emissions. To achieve this short term goal
for City operations, staff refined the 2005, emissions estimates, and developed a 2009 carbon
budget for each City department. Each department in turn has developed an emissions reduction
plan, approved by the department Director. These plans, and the estimated cost savings and
emissions reductions, were presented in April 2009 (CMR: 213 :09). The web links to the
CMR's discussed are provided at the end of this report.
CMR: 194:10 Page 1 of 14
In order to effectively monitor and report city operations emissions, staff contracted with a local
vendor, Hara Software, in 2009 to provide an energy and environmental management and
reporting package as a software-as-a-service application. The Hara system is now being used to
track the implementation and completion of each Department's initiatives, and the City's use of
natm-al gas, electricity, liquid fuels (gasoline, compressed natural gas, and diesel), and paper on a
monthly basis. In addition, annual assessments of emissions from solid waste and employee
commute have been included in the system.
Based on the Hara application analysis, the City's progress to reducing GHG emissions as well
as City expenditures on consumption have met the Council directives for 2009. The total
emissions from City operations declined by 11 % in 2009 over the baseline year of 2005
(excluding the employee commute estimates). The largest reductions in emissions were the
result of reduced natm-al gas and electricity usage, solid waste, and a reduction in paper usage.
Consumption and the corresponding emissions for liquid fuels and water increased over this
period. Reductions in electricity, natm-al gas, paper and solid waste avoided City costs of
approximately $529,000. These savings were partially offset by increases in the use of gasoline,
diesel, compressed natural gas and water. Total avoided cost savings were approximately
$185,000, when the increased consumptions were included.
Overall, of the. 166 actions committed to, 121 have been started or completed. The average
completion percentage of all initiatives started is 65 percent.
Preliminary community emissions from gas, electricity and water in 2009 in comparison to the
baseline 2005 shows that the community slightly reduced GHG emissions, although a full
inventory will need to be done in 2012. Community emissions from electricity were up-fromlmn-----
2005 to 2009, with a corresponding increase in GHG emissions by 6,723 metric tonnes (16.7 mil
kwh x .89 lbs/kwh). Water consumption was down by 3%, or 153,000 CCF. Natm-al Gas
consumption was down less than 1 %. Solid waste emissions are estimated to have declined by
23%.
BACKGROUND
At its December 3, 2007 meeting, City Council approved staff s recommendations in the Climate
Protection Plan (CMR 435:07). These recommendations centered on three key emissions goals:
l)a GHG reduction of 5% in City operations in 2009 from the 2005 baseline values, 2) a GHG
reduction of 5% in City and community emissions in 2012, and 3) a GHG reduction of 15% in
City and ((ommunity emissions in 2020 from 2005 levels. Council also directed staff to continue
to monitor and report back to Council on GHG emissions and actions to reduce those emissions.
In addition, Council directed staffto create an annual on-line green report card that tracks actions
and outcomes based on the baseline and goals identified in the Climate Protection Plan.
The refined estimates described in CMR 435:07 report that Palo Alto's C02 emissions from the
Community total some 752,629 metric tonnes. Of this total, some 30,000 metric tons are from
City operations (CMR 213:09). These data are summarized in Figm-e 1 below.
CMR: 194:10 Page 2 ofl4
Figure 1.' Greenhouse Gas Emissions from City Operations and
the Community from 2005
Emissions from City Operations
Employee 29,364 Metric Tonnes
Travel Solid Waste Paper
0% 0%
Water
1%
Compressed
Natural' Gas
0%
Diesel
5%
4%
Community Emissions (752,629 C02 Metric Tonnes)
Upstream
from
Discarded
Recyclables
54,838 mt , 7%
Transportation
218;019 rnt
29%
Solid Waste,
45,466mt 6%
Biogenic,
22,970 mt, 3%
Natural Gas
Leakage,
19,358 mt, 3%
Note: In the 2007 Climate Protection Plan (CMR435:07), components oj City Operations
Emissi~ns included Biogenic Waste and Natural Gas Pipeline Leakage. As was explained in
subsequent staff reports (CMR: 213:09) new reporting protocols prompted staff to remove
those emissions from City operationiand place them in Community emissions.
CMR:194:1O Page 3 of 14
City operations accounts for only about 4% of Palo Alto's total emissions, highlighting the need
for signifiQant community involvement in order to reach the next target, which is 5% of
community emissions, or 37,631 metric tonnes of C02 by 2012. The long term target of 15% by
2020 will require both strong leadership from city operations and significant community
involvement, but is a similar target to most other cities (See Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION
This discussion is organized in the following sections:
1. City Operations -Emissions and Cost reductions realized
2. ' Community -Preliminary Emissions and Cost reductions realized
3. ' City Operations -Emissions and Cost reductions future target and strategies
4 .. Community -Emissions and Cost reductions future target and strategies
5. Comp\lrable Community Goals
6 .. Continued Monitoring and Reporting
Staff implemented the Council mandated reductions by developing a program to reduce short
term emissions by at least 5% in 2009 from 2005 levels. This program included developing a
carbon budget for each department in the City to allocate the required emissions reductions.
These carbon budgets were allocated and reported in April 2009 (CMR: 213:09). In that report,
each department developed a series of GHG reduction plans which each Director committed to
implementing. In addition, staff committed to full implementation of a long term emissions
monitoring and reporting program which would track both emissions reductions as well as
energy and cost savings from the actions implemented.
1. CITY OPERATIONS -EMISSION AND COST REDUCTIONS REALIZED
Departmental Emissions Reduction Plans
The department plans focused on reducing the key' emissions factors identified in the original
Climate Protection Plan, namely: natural gas, electricity, fuels, solid waste, employee commute,
and paper usage. Many departments operating in City Hall and possessing no heavy equipment
were: naturally limited in the scope of their reduction plans. Departments focused on reducing
electricity usage through conservation, increasing recycling of solid waste, increased alternative
commute for staff, and paper savings efforts. Few of these efforts represented any increase in
costsl and most centered on behavior changes.
A total of 166 emission reductions initiatives were developed by City departments and
committed to by department Directors (CMR 213:09). Of that total, 121 were initiated and
progress status entered into the initiative trackil).g system in Hara. The initiatives were classified
under five main categories: employee education, electricity conservation, paper reduction,
commute reduction and waste reduction. Most of the initiatives were carried out in no cost to the
City, and primarily focused on changing employee behavior. The average completion rate of the
CMR: 194:10 Page 4 of14
initiatives is 64%. Approximately 36% percent of the initiatives are fully implemented, the
remainder requiring additional work. Because many departments share meters with others, such
as in City Hall, assessing the Department-specific impact of many initiatives was problematic.
Impacts from initiatives which were focused on one facility in one department, such as the
Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Public Works) or Elwell Court (Utilities Department),
were able to be better quantified compared with initiatives by Departments operating in co
located buildings. The results of the departments' initiatives, in terms of emissions reductions
and cost savings are presented below.
Emissions Reductions
Total emissions declined from 29,364 metric tonnes in 2005 to 25,518 metric tonnes in 2009, a
12% reduction, surpassing the Council mandated 5% reduction. However, 20% of this total
reductioll is due to a decline in employee commute, which is largely a result in a reduction of
stafffrom2005 levels. Excluding the commute data, the overall GHG reduction was 10%. This
data is summarized in Table 1 below. Consumables are defined as electricity, natural gas, water,
liquid fuels, and paper. Staff was able to account for changes in consumables through the
various electronic databases used to track such purchases. This billing data was directly
downloaded monthly into the Hara system. Changes in emissions from employee commute were
estimated from the anriual commute survey. Changes in emissions from zero waste from City
operations were derived 'from facility service levels as collected by the Public Work's Zero
Waste Program.
While all departments contributed to the energy savings efforts, some departments had greater
oppotiunities to save. The City's Water Quality Control Plant, which is the City's largest user of
electricity and natural gas, made the following energy efficiency efforts:
• Replaced natural gas used in the biosolids incinerator emissions control equipment with
landfill gas that had previously been burned in a flare
• Improved the aeration basin biological treatment system process control system
• Replaced 19,000 air diffusers with new diffusers that are more efficient
• Installed variable frequency drives and a new control program for the trickling filter
pump motors
• Replaced about 600 existing lighting fixtures with state-of-the-art energy efficient
fixtures
As a resuit, the Water Quality Control Plant's electricity consumption dropped from 17.4 million
kwh in 2005 to 15.7 million kwh in 2009. Likewise, natural gas .consumption dropped from
696,000 therms in 2005 to 465,000 therms in 2009. These reductions accounted for more than
75%ofthe City'S total electricity and natural gas savings. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions,
the Water Quality Control Plant reductions are responsible for 50% of the City'S non-commute
emissions reduction.
An additional example is the electric efficiency program carried out by Utilities in the Elwell
Courts facilities. City's Utilities Engineering Division occupies thirteen thousand square feet of
commercial space at 1007 Elwell Court. During 2009, approximately 110 lighting fixtures at this
facility were converted from the less efficient Tl2 fluorescent fixtures to the more efficient T8
CMR: 194:10 Page 5 of!4
fixtures .. This change resulted in a 40% reduction in lighting related energy consumption, saving
4,300 kwh/month. The co~t of installing the new fixtures was $16,000 and is estimated to result
in $6,000 annual electric bill savings.
For those departments housed in City Hall, the lack of meter density meant that individual efforts
could not be evaluated and the drop in electricity demand for individual departments could not
be verified. However, those efforts did have an effect in that electricity consumption in City Hall
dropped from 3,699,005 kwh in 2008 to 3,422,751 kwh in 2009,. a reduction of 7% coincident
with the start ofthe electricity conservation initiatives. In addition, gas consumption at City Hall
declined from 61,915 therms to 52,411 therms, a reduction of 15%. One key initiative involved
an infrastructure upgrade in City Hall, where some transformers were replaced, the boiler was
replaced, chiller and hot water pumps/motors were replaced, the building fan units were
completely refurbished with new motors and variable frequency drives, garage fans refurbished
with new motors and variable frequency drives, fans were re-balanced, and partial new control
system for mechanical equipment was installed. All motors in this project were replaced with
high efficiency motors. Cost of the project was approx $5M. Of the total, mechanical upgrades
were approx $2.5M"and electrical upgrades were $500K.
Emissions from City employee commute did appear to decline from an estimated 3,640 metric
tonnes of C02 in 2005 to 2,500 metric tonnes in 2009. based on a commute survey of city staff.
The result of this survey suggested the decline was primarily due to a reduction in staffing with a
small decrease resulting from an increase in the number of employees using van pools.
The data presented in Tabled 1 suggest a marked increase in water consumption by the City
operations between 2005 and 2009. However, this trend is likely obscured by several factors.
Certainly 2009 served as the last year of a multi-year drought compared to 2005 with average
r~infall. However, jn 2008 and 2009, the Utilities Department undertook a major effort to
enhance the effectiveness of the water metering system by repairing or replacing many older
meters located at city facilities. As a result, the observed'increase in water consumption may be
largely an artifact' of improved metering rather than increased water consumption.
Cost Reductions
Savings of approximately $530,000 were realized through reductions of electricity, natural gas,
and paper consumptions and solid waste generation between 2005 and 2009 (Table 1). The
City's electricity and natural gas savings were offset by increases in the use of gasoline, diesel,
compressed natUral gas and water. Total cost savings were approximately $185,000, when the
increased c()nsumptions were included. ' .
As noted above, some Departments have greater opportunities t() save on energy expenditures
through conservation. The Water Quality Treatment Plant, where energy consumption dropped
from 17.4 million kwh in 2005 to 15.7 million kwh in 2009, annual savings amounted to
$136,000. Reductions in electricity use from infrastructure investments and departmental actions
in City Hall amoUnted to· $36,425 in cost savings. Reductions in natural gas use saved an
additional $10,430.
CMR: 194:10 Page 6 of 14
Table 1.
-Other Recyclables pounds
-Potentially Recylable pounds
-Problem Materials pounds
-Recyclable Paper pounds
CMR: 194:10
Consumption
1,602,834
102,776
1,869,943
GHG Emissions
(Metric T onnes)
1,319
245
-
Consumption
1,244,966
79,806
1,447,140
and 2009 Cost Savings
GHG Emissions
(Metric"Tonnes)
1,025
190
Page 7 of14
Percentage
In-!=rease/(Reduction)
-22%
-22% I
City Cost of I Cost
Consuniable Increase/(Savings)
Variable I (2,1
2. COMMUNITY OF PALO ALTO -EMISSIONS AND COST REDUCTIONS
REALIZED
The community accounts for 96% of C02 emissions from within the City limits as reported in
the Climate Protection Plan (CMR 435:07). In the preparation of this update, staff did not
carry out a comprehensive update of community emissions to include transportation or solid
waste. However, using data contained in the utility billing database, comparisons between the
2005 and 2009 calendar year emissions from the community were available for gas, electricity
and natural gas. These results are summarized below.
Table 2. Changes in Community Energy Use and
ReSUlting GHG Emissions 2005 and 2009
.
2005 2009 Percentage
Commodity Unit Usage' Usage' Change Increase
or (Decline)
Natural Gas MMBTU 3,183,562 3,178,828 -0.15%
Electricity Kwh 996,094,590 1,012,752,060 1.67%
Water CCF 5,321,564 5,168,003 -2.89%
Solid Waste tons 69,491 53,745 3 -23.0%
Total
I. Data from Chmate ProtectIOn Plan.
2. Data from Hara Environment and Energy System
3. Data from Public Works
Change in CO2
Emissions in
Metric Tonnes
-251
6,731
-186
-18,322
-12,028
Based on these numbers, emissions from the community have decreased by a little less than 1 %.
However one major emissions factor, transportation, could not be estimated as part of this report
because of the resource requirements required to carry out such an assessment.
Staff have implemented, developed and managed many programs to reduce residential and
businesses GHG emissions as listed in Attachment 1. Such programs are:
• Energy efficiency programs and rebates
• Solar PV and Hot Water programs and rebates
• Green Building program
• Storm water retention rebates
One other program provided by the Utility's Marketing Services Division (UMS) to reduce GHG
emissions in the community is PaloAltoGreen. It is an extremely successful, nationally ranked
renewable energy program in which over 21 % of Palo Altans are participating. The average Palo
Alto household participation in PaloAltoGreen reduces carbon dioxide (C02) emissions by 9,500
pounds a year. PaloAltoGreen also supports the growth of renewable energy facilities and clean
CMR:194:IO . Page 8 ofl4
tech jobs. The program purchases Green-e Energy certified renewable energy exclusively from
new wind projects in Oregon and Montana for 97.5% of the program. The remainder of
PaloAltoGreen supply (2.5%) comes primarily from Palo Alto power purchases. UMS also
offers many appliance rebates, energy audits and PV partners program, which all contribute to a
reduction in C02 emissions.
3. CITY OPERATIONS -FUTURE TARGETS AND STRATEGIES EMISSIONS AND
COST REDUCTIONS
The effect of the GHG reduction and efficiency programs has been to reduce greenhouse gases
. as well as reduce City expenditures for energy, water, paper, and waste services during a time of
economic crisis. As noted above, cost savings from reduced energy and paper use and solid
waste geheration amounted to $530,000 per year. Further significant cost reductions can be
achieved by jmplementing additional energy efficiency and GHG reduction strategies. Based on
our analysis of the energy and material use and solid waste generation, several programs need to
be reassessed in order to achieve the goals recommended in this report while simultaneously
achieving cost reductions required by the current fiscal environment. The report issued by staff
in 2008 (CMR 308:08) presented a number of detailed proposals for initiatives which would
lower energy costs, provide positive GHG benefits, and show a positive return on investment.
Combining the blueprint from the cost benefit analysis with the near real-time information
available from the Hara system provides the analytical and strategic basis for a more
cOmprehensive and aggressive cost cutting process. Below are a series of suggested avenues for
Council to consider in expanding the GHG reduction goals while driving down the cost structure.
These suggestions center on changing the business-as-usual practices within city operations
while enhancing the incentives and rewards system to capture cost savings. Staff is
recommending that council approve the following initiatives.
1. Provide greater incentives for energy and cost reductions
A. Linking Goals and Objectives with cost savings and GHG reductions. With the
implementation of the Hara system, the City can now estimate or directly track energy
and resource cost savings for each Department from utility bills. The City can track the
implementation progress of energy saving initiatives for all departments. This provides a
feedback process for Department senior managers to actively manage their energy costs.
Progress on achieving energy savings and implementation of GHG reduction actions
should be directly linked into performance evaluation. The linking of depmtmental goals
and objectives with cost savings will need to take into account those departments with
facilities which are co-located with other departments.
B. Continue implementing initiatives committed to by departments. The data analyzed
through the Hara system clearly indicates that both large infrastructure investments, as
well as changes in personal behavior, have an impact on costs and GHG emissions. If
Departments re-focused on completing the initiatives proposed and committed to in 2009,
emissions and costs from electricity and natural gas consumption, as well as from use of
liquid fuels would further decline.
C. Address City-Wide Activities. While departmental actions have significantly reduced
energy costs, additional opportunities exist on an enterprise-wide basis. For example,
CMR:194:10 Page 9 of 14
computers. likely account for a significant, but unknown, fraction for all electricity used
by individual departments, especially in the General Fund. Mountain View has
implemented a system-wide computer power management system which saves $24 per
computer per year, or a total after costs savings of $14,063 to the City'S 600 computers.
The return on investment for this initiative in Mountain View was less than 6 months.
San Jose is currently implementing the identical system. The City of Palo Alto supports
approximately 1,000 computers and an enterprise wide power management system could
provide savings approaching $30,000, much of which would apply to those departments
supported by the General Fund.
2. Empowerelllployeesto implement changes
Empowering employees to promote and.implement actions to reduce GHG emissions and
costs requires a confluence of factors: administrative flexibility, a transparent system for
recognition, proj ect funding and possibly reward, and senior management support. Many
employees recognize changes in operations that could significantly cut costs.
· Implementing such changes faces bureaucratic impediments, lack of funding mechanism,
and departmental silos. To continue to reduce costs, the City needs to help employees
1:Jreak through these barriers.
Staff recommends that the City elevate the linkage between cost cutting and GHG
reductions. A cross-department team reporting directly to. City Manager's office . with
.limited funding for high return-on-investment projects and the authority to implement
actions would achieve both objectives. This group would receive requests for initiative
funding from departments and allocate funding for those projects which met pre
established criteria and provided a positive net present value for energy saved.
3. Re-evaluate employee transportation strategies
Transportation issues continue to challenge both the City and the Community with regard
to energy costs and GHG emissions. Based on the data presented here, the results of the
cost benefit study of 2008 (CMR 308:08) as well as the results. presented in the "Audit of
Fl~et Replacement and Utilization" all suggest that the transportation strategy for
employees coming to work and while working provides significant opportunities for cost
savings and GHG reduction
A. Commute Incentives. Employee commute represents approximately 14% of total
· emissions from City emissions. The current Commute Incentive program does not
appear to provide adequate incentive for employees to switch public transportation, at
least in the absence of extremely high gasoline prices. However, additional support for
the commute programs would require additional revenue sources .
. One r.evenue source described in detail in the 2008 (CMR 308:08) is the parking buyout
· program. This program entails the City providing a financial incentive for employee's to
give up their parking permits (and signing a promise not to park in residential or
commercial spaces in the University area), and the City then selling these open spaces to
businesses or the general public for additional revenue. As described in CMR 308:08, a
number of Cities and businesses have used this approach to reduce their carbon footprint
CMR:194:10 Page 10 of 14
and enhance their revenue. Practical issues would need to be addressed, including
discussions with the various bargaining units representing city employees.
A proposed change to the existing commuter program is described in the accompanying
staff report Update on City Sustainability and Environmental Initiatives (CMR:200: 10).
This change adjusts commute incentives to be based on distance and commute costs, as
opposed to a flat disbursement. This proposal has no revenue impact.
B. City Fleet. Emissions from vehicle use increased by 780 metric tonnes, with costs
increasing by roughly $180,000, as detailed in Table I. The Public Works Department
continues to pursue alternative fuel/clean air vehicle strategies in pl'ocurement of new
City vehicles. Use of the City Fleet is the subject of a detailed evaluation by the City's
Auditor. The two key points of that report are 1) changing the management of pool and
departmental vehicles from its current system to that of only City-wide pool vehicles with
an online reservation system all general transportation vehicles would significantly
reduce costs, and 2) too many vehicles are driven' too few miles. Both of these
suggestions have significant impacts on costs and GHG reduction. Many other Cities
have abandoned vehicle assignment to departments and individuals (as the City currently
does), preferring to have a general small pool of vehicles combined with a system of
. paying a per"mile fee for staff use of personal vehicles. This trend is both a cost cutting
and a sustainability effort, especially when full cost accounting is used to assess GHG
emissions from a vehicle's production, use and scrapping.
With regard to the 2012 goal for City operations, staff believes that significantly greater cost
savings can be achieved through continued monitoring and evaluation of energy consumption
and expanding the energy conservation program. As noted above, many of the initiatives have
not yet been fully implemented, and essentially all of the projects implemented carried no up
froht costs.
The cost benefit study carried out by the City in conjunction with the consultant URS (CMR
308:08) identified a number of actions which had very low costs to the City but which could
significantly reduce energy consumption within the City. The future LEED Gold Mitchell Park
Library ahd community center will also have a significant impact on oUr facilities emissions,
which would potentially push us faster towards our higher goal. Staff recommends that the
Council consider a 20%·reduction in C02 emissions from City operations in 2012 over the 2005
baseline as a way to stirnulate highly cost effective actions and accelerate additional cost savings.
4. COMMUNITY -EMISSIONS AND COST REDUCTIONS FUTURE TARGET AND
STRATEGIES
With regard to the Community goal, staff is developing plans and projects to enable community
GHG reductions to reach our 2012 goal of 5% for Palo Alto as a whole. The plan that Staff is
developing is a three part initiative.
CMR:.194:IO Page II ofl4
The first step is. education and outreach activities. Staff will work closely with Community
Environmental Action Partnership (CEAP) to. help in their efforts. CEAP was formed in 2008 to
help the community reach the goals of the 2007 Climate Protection Plan. CEAP brings several
segments ·of our community together to share knowledge, build mutual understanding, leverage
resources, and both create and implement innovative environmental solutions.
Staff has approached the local newspapers to partner with them to promote awareness and
understanding of carbon emissions. Staff has also reached out to the Palo Alto Unified Schools
through the Sl)stainable Schools Committee and CEAP to work with the teachers, provide
program ideas and information to engage the students, and hopefully their parents, in
understanding their carbon footprint. Staff and interns are developing a carbon calculator which
can be used in many different areas of our community and can be distrib\\ted through CEAP and
1llal\y, other community groups. The carbon calculator we are developing is specifically Palo
Alto, with specific information related to our energy mix and service offerings.
The second step is for the information to be readily available to the residents and business, and to
that end, staffis working with the Utilities' bill redesign team to see if greenhouse gas (OHO)
emissions can be. displayed to the customer, perhaps even right beside the bill iqformation.
The third step is a catnpaign to reduce. one's OHO emissions. Staff feels that it is absolutely
necessary f<,lr the community to first understand what their emission is before asking them for
reductions. It is also to be noted, that significant research and case studies indicate that even just
a simple recognition of what ones potential impact is could reduce ones' usage 01' impact by as
much as 7%.
This.thl'ee part initiative is complemented by the many programs that Utilities Marketing
Servjce.s (UMS)team manages and the Green Building progratns promotes. Incentives for water
and energy effici(mcy have a great impact on one's OBO emission, and the connection and
messaging may be further developed as our climate protection goals become more challenging.
Palo Alto's Oreen Building program requires certain measures which have a significant impact
on the community's carbon emissions. Public and private new construction and major
renovations are required to reduce the City's current emissions, and avoid an even greater
increase typically experienced with new development. Some of the strategies produce one time
savings, while other are experienced over the life of the building, such as building energy
efficiency, reduced home size, photovoltaic systems, energy-efficient appliances (including non
HCFC refrigerants), construction waste recycling, and water savings from efficient landscapes
and plumbing fixtures. Carbon emission reductions and avoidance differ by project type and the
strategies chosen to meet the green building ordinance. There are approximately 200 projects per
year going through the green building program. In the future, this progratn will expand to
include more projects and therefore will have a greater impact. See the Oreen Building Annual
Report provided to Council in conjunction with this repoli for more information.
CMR:194:10 Page 12 of 14
5. COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES' GOALS
Staff has kept track of what other cities, states and countries are committing to with respect to
GHG goals. Attachment 2 compiles these findings. It is important to note that the County of
Santa Clara and other nearby municipalities have adopted a more far reaching goal of 80%
reduction by 2050. A goal of 80% GHG reduction would mean significant changes in our
community. Specifically what those changes would be are hard to estimate, but would include
increased use of public transportation and non fossil fuels modes· of transport, more efficient
buildings, and smaller homes with a denser footprint. Staff has considered this goal and feels
that it may 'also'be within the goals of the Climate Protection Plan and the priorities of the
council, but waits for council direction if this initiative should be taken.
6. CONTINUED MONITORING AND REPORTING
The continued detailed monitoring of meter, facility and department emissions is vital for a
number of reasons. Firstly, reporting regulations, as well as voluntary reporting procedures to
which the City has committed, will require additional depth and detail. Without the commitment
of additional staff to this process, the system can allow the City to continue to produce the
required reports, which are expanding in 2010 to include the addition of several high-potential
greenhouse gases, .
Perhaps more importantly, this monitoring is the only approach that permits the analysis of the
effectiveness of energy efficieiicy programs and provides opportunities to identify and pursue
cost savings within operations.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
Approximately 0.25 FTE are expended by staff to monitor the city operations GHG emissions
and energy conservation results; continue inputting energy data into the Hara system, managing
the reporting process and publishing the results of the City website. Staff time commitments
currently associated with the community outreach are approximately 0.25 FTE, including staff
and interns in the City Managers office"·and the' Community Environmental Action Partnership
(CEAP). These activities are currently carried out by existing staff performing other duties.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Approval of staffs \)ontinued monitoring of the' City's greenhouse gas emissions does not meet
the definition of a "project" pursuant to Sec. 21065 of the California Public Resources Code and
thus a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). review is not required.
CMR:194:IO Page 13 of14
WEBLINKS for CMR's REFERED TO IN THIS REPORT
1. CMR 435:07. City of Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaifilebankiblobdload.asp?BlobID=9940
2. CMR 308:08. Review of Results of Cost-Benefit Analysis of Climate Protection Plan and
Direction to Staff on recommended follow-up Actions.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicaifilebanklblobdload.asp?BlobID=I2872
3. CMR 2l3:09. Approval of 1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Goals and Reduction Plan for 4009,
2) Continued Monitoring of Emissions from City Operations, and 3) Expansion in the Reporting
of Emissions to the Community.
http://www .cityofpaloalto. org! ci vicalfilebanklblo bdload.asp?B 10 bID= 15 5 61
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Utility Marketing Services Energy Efficiency Measures and Greenhouse Gas
Emission Reductions and Cost savings for the Community
Attachment 2. Comparable City, County, and Country Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Targets,
PREPARED BY:
KARL V AN ORSDOL,
Energy Risk Manager
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
Assistant City Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~~lo~
~~~p,.MES KE, ENE
~lty Manager ,
CMR:194:10 Page 14 of 14
Attachment 1 -Utility Marketing Services Energy Efficiency measures and GHG reductions and cost savings.
' ... '. >, c . .. " .. '.<. .\ c··.· "COi~eductions for
..... . ........ . _G~:~~Dg~ (Tbern$)' ' '. '. ,':' ::Netil~C~ic,Sa~ingS'(KilOWaif-HO~-~~-.k~b/~~~· _ ". COS~'savings:to_ Cominunity ~D Metric ~. :_/. :~ ':.~_Dlmllri!ty ~ _.
Residential .... Commercl3J ...... Residential ' _ -Commercial,. :'_' ,,: -, tonnes-,
" '.'
Residential Energy Assistance Program (REAP) 2,800 535,707 $ 86,147 234
Residential Smart Energy Rebates 30,133 362,060 $ 111.231 330
Refrigerator Recycling 421,893 $ 63,706 170
Residential CFL's Included with Smart Energ)
Other Residential Included with Smart Energ)
Measures WIth ~~ Water efficiency measures witl
Water Rebates with Santa Clara Valley Water Water efficiency 9,32 savings 6,57 electric saving $ 27,821 97
District
2,131 $ 322 1
Commercial Advantage Energy Rebates 94,639 1,869,334 $ 411,803 1,332
Solar Water Heating 725 0 3,100 $ 4,461 6
Right Lights Commercial Installations 1,834 1,476,586 $ 203,869 608
1 Year Annual S3vings Totals 42,985 103,043 1,319,660 3,348,051 $ 909,360 2,777
. ' . '. . .. ..... ...... " •...... ·.C • I _ . C02-Emissions or
•••
.. .. Gas h'he~)--.·c· ..> . .EleCtricity (kWh) ·.c cc:; --Savings:
Total Commodity I" Year Savings 146,028 4,667,711 S 978,919 . 2,777
TotalZOO8-i009 Sales 30,582,964 995,682,782 S 207,752,324 588,831
Total Est. Lifetime SaviD~ 1,460,280 51,425,595 $ 10,506,210 29,685
Attachment 2 -Comparable City, County and Country Green bouse Gas Reductiontargets
City Community-Wide Government Operations Notes *
Alameda 25% by 2020
Benicia 10% by 2020 20% by 2010, 33% by 2020 Below 2000 levels
Berkeley 80% by 2050
Burlingame 15% by 2020,80% by 2050
Campbell 15-25% by 2020
5% by 2010,15% by 2015, 25%
Foster City by 2020 Informal goals -not targets adopted by Council
Fremont 25% reduction by 2020
Hayward 13-18% by 2020 .
Hillsborough 15% by 2020,80% by 2050 Task Force recommendation; decision pending
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills 30% by 2015 40% by 2015
Los Angeles 35% by 2030 ..
Millbrae 15% by 2020,80% by 2050 15% by 2020, 80% by 2050
Morgan Hill 15% by 2020 Below current levels
5% by 2012,10% by 2015,15-
Mountain View 20% by 2020, 80% by 2050
Palo Alto 5% by 2012, 15% by 2020 5% by 2009, 15% by 2020
...
AB 32 & Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement;
formal goals have not yet been adopted based on the
Portola Valley 15% by 2020 ghg inventory
Redwood City 15% by 2020 15% by 2020 Informal aoals -not taraets adopted by Council
Richmond 15% by 2020
San Carlos 15% by 2020,35% by 2030
Attachment 2 continued -Comparable City, County and Co~try Green house Gas Reduction targets
City Community-Wide Government Operations Notes *
San Francisco 25% by2010 25% by2010 City and County of SF
25% by 2012,30% by 2015,35% by
San Jose 2020, 50% by 2030, 80% by 2045 Below 1990 levels
San Leandro 25% by 2020
San Mateo 15% by 2020 15% by 2020 Below 2006 levels
San Rafael 15% by 2020
Santa Cruz 30% by 2020, 80% by 2050 Below 1990 levels
Sunnyvale 20% by 2010 7% by 2012 Informal goals -not targets adopted by Council
Union City 30% by 2020 30% by 2020
County County-Wide Government Operations Notes
Marin 15% by 2020 20% by 2020 Below 2000 levels
Flat emissions by 2010, 80% by
San Mateo 2050 Below current levels; Cool Counties
No increase by 2010, 10% reduction
80% by 2050, 10% reduction every 5 years, 80% reduction by
Santa Clara every 5 years 2050 Below current levels
Sonoma 20% by 2012 .
Attach t2 d-C .hle Citv .. County and Country Green house Gas Reduction targets ---------------..
City/Country Country/City-Wide
Others General Goals
San Die<>o 15% below 1990 by 2020
Boston 7% below or more by 2020
New York 30% below 1995 by 2020
EU 20% below 1990 by 2020
Germany 21 % below 1990 by 2012
UK 20% below 1990 by 2012
Denmark 21% below 1990 by 2012
Luxemburg 28% below 1990 by 2012
Sweden 30% below 1990 by 2020
* Below 2005 levels unless otherwise stated