The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016.07.06 CEAP Agenda Packet 1r , Climate and Eriergy.Action Plan Climate and Energy Plan Committee Meeting Agenda July (i, 2016 330..........530 Community i)cvclopmcnt Huilding A...9,.-)e-ri..da .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 min Call to Order Rich • Approval of Minutes—June 15,2016 • Icebreaker Question 15 min public Forum 30 min Review of Goals/Target Recommendations Rich z�� m�� Review of Cascadia Goals/Targets Document Andrea 20 n,;n City Council Check in Prep Rich July 19, 2016 Council Meeting io min Upcoming Meetings Adam ,-� cIrr or CASCADIA ,NSHLAND Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15,2016 Page 1 of 6 MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE & ENERGY ACTION PLAN ad hoc COMMITTEE Wednesday, June 15, 2016 Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way 1. Call to Order Committee member Roxane Beigel-Coryell called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Committee members Bryan Sohl, Greg Jones, James McGinnis, Claudia Alick, Jim Hartman, Stuart Green and Louise Shawkat were present. Staff member Adam Hanks was present. Committee member Marni Koopman arrived late. Committee members Rich Rosenthal, Isaac Bevers, Cindy Bernard and Sarah Lassoff were absent. 2. Approval of minutes Minutes were approved as presented. 3. Around the Room Group did an around the room team building regarding their favorite summer activity. 4. Public Input Huelz Gutchen: Stated there was a survey of high school classes regarding how many times high school teachers mentioned climate change, and the result showed less than twenty minutes per year. Portland schools are improving this, they now require science teachers to teach climate change in their classes. Everyone should have to learn it. He stated that the senate is having hearings because everything they understand is becoming obsolete. New technologies and information mean everyone needs to be retrained every ten years. We all need to go re-learn everything quickly and frequently be updated. James Stephens: Stated he hasn't been here in awhile. He likes that the group is doing the around the room icebreaker. He was sent information regarding electriv vehicles and a chart of what country has the most electric vehicles. The United States currently leads, but China is soon to overtake in total number of electric vehicles. SOHEVA recently found a Prius set to be junked but they found the problem, fixed it and donated it to the high school auto technology program for students to lean about repairing electric vehicles. They are willing to help set up the course work for the high school. They are also hoping to get into the 4th of July parade. He is also moving forward with helping the 1 Ox20 Initiative. This group signed interested people up at the CEAP open house (he read the proposal aloud). He stated that the goal of this proposal is to be aggressive but realistic. Ray Molett: Stated he was impressed with the recent open house. He spent time afterward looking more into the greenhouse gas inventory. He would like to encourage this group to, as part of the goals, lay out what citizens can do to make reductions in household goods. Goals should focus both on what the City can do and what the citizens should also do. Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15,2016 Page 2 of 6 Allie Rosenbloom: Stated that today she sent a draft ordinance to staff regarding climate action. She wanted to take this opportunity to introduce herself. 5. Review of Open House#1 Beigell-Coryell gave an overview of the committee survey results. Group discussed some of their concerns including the desire to make sure that the survey questions at the open house match those on-line, that only 13% of the attendees were under the age of 34, the lack of an MC/moderator to guide the event, and the "dullness" of the presentation regarding climate science. 6. Vision, Goals & Targets Group discussed the draft Vision Statement. Jones stated that, "Ashland leads" is too vague. Leads what? the community? Oregon? the State? the nation? Several group members raised concerns that the statement does not include the word, "electric" or "energy" even though that's a main focus of this action plan. Committee member Koopman arrived 6:00 p.m. Alick questioned what the intended purpose and audience are for this statement. Is it for the community, the committee, or the City of Ashland staff and Council? This clarity may help focus the language. Additionally, she raised concerns with the word, "diversity." Is it referencing a diverse population, a diversity of resources, or something else? Koopman raised concerns regarding the word"prosperous," as it typically only refers to money but the group probably intends something beyond just financial prosperity. Most of the group agreed this was probably not the best word. 7. Discussion of Preliminary Goals Group went through each question listed in the packet and voted on their preferred answer. For those questions with consensus, there was no discussion, for those questions without consensus the group had a short discussion regarding their votes. 1. "ich type of inventory would you like to include in Ashland's emission reduction goal? a. Sector-based emmissions b. Consumption-based emmissions Vote: a=21 b= 7 Green stated that he voted for sector only, even though consumption must be addressed. Unfortunately, there is no way to get good numbers, particularly Ashland-specific numbers, for consumption. This means having a goal focused on consumption with no tracking ability is problematic. Group discussed what the best approach would be regarding inclusion of consumption. Some felt it appropriate to include consumption in the plan as Ashland is a small Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15,2016 Page 3 of 6 community with limited growth and no big-scale industry. Others felt the plan should not include goals related to specific consumption reductions but should include a strong community education component regarding consumption. 2. Do you think Ashland should include purchasing offsets as an option to reach its emission reduction goal? a. Yes b. No Vote: a= 81 b= 1 Koopman stated that she does not have enough information regarding offsets to agree to them now. Hartman stated it might be good to let the community decide on the desirability of offsets — the plan will cost money whether they are used or not, it's just a matter of how much money the community is okay with. Koopman also expressed concerns that many offsets sold are for projects which would have been done regardless of the offsets, and therefore are of no real value or aid in reducing greenhouse gas levels. Many in the group felt that by selecting option `a' (voting `yes') they were doing so with caveats —offsets are not intended to be the whole approach but should have limits and be as helpful to the local economy as possible. Group members mostly agreed that voting `yes' doesn't necessarily mean offsets will be part of the final plan, but it does leave the option open. 3. Do you think Ashland should have a specific goal for reducing emmissions from City operations? a. Yes b. No Vote: a= 91 b= 0 4. If yes to #3, should the targets be fossil fuel reduction or greenhouse gas reductions? a. Fossil Fuel b. GHG c. Both Vote: a = 0, b = 0, c = 8 Green stated that he declined to vote because he believes greenhouse gases are just a larger umbrella over fossil fuels, so the question is redundant. Group mostly agreed that fossil fuels reduction should be the short-term focus, with a longer- term focus on reducing greenhouse gases. Many other plans have separate and more aggressive Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15,2016 Page 4 of 6 reductions for city operations (in both timeline and goals). Overall, the group agreed that more aggressive reductions for city operations is their preference. 5. Which year do you think Ashland should use as a base year for its greenhouse gas reduction goal? a. 2011 b. 2015 Vote: a= 0, b = 9 6. What do you think Ashland's reduction goal for 2050 should be? a. <80%reduction by 2050 b. 80%reduction by 2050 c. 90%reduction by 2050 d. 100%reduction by 2050 (i.e. carbon neutral) e. >100%reduction by 2050 Vote: a= O, b =4, c = 0, d= 5, e = 0 Green stated his preference is to have the legally binding (ordinance)portion of the plan be 80% by 2050 but a higher amount of reduction for the overall plan goal. Alick stated that what's really debating is aspirational versus attainable. Sohl stated he thinks the goal should be more aggressive than in other cities because Ashland has little population growth possibilities, no heavy industry, and a somewhat homogenous community. The opportunity to be aggressive with the goal is here. Hartman stated that a 34-year plan(today until 2050) is very long-term. We need to aim high now because if we're afraid of the difficulties now,just wait until things are worse. Koopman agreed and stated that the group requesting a legally binding ordinance did not ask the group to water-down the plan's targets. Beigell-Coryell stated that 34-years in government/large-scale plans is not a long time and so the goal needs to be realistic to the timeframe. Group raised concerns about putting a plan before Council that is too aggressive and therefore will not be approved or implemented. Some in the group also raised concerns that if they choose a high-target goal how will it be enforced (who is going to carbon jail?). Group agreed that the goal is to make future decision making focused on the goal and to make staff more accountable. Group agreed that the ordinance discussion is making this goals discussion muddy and they need to set it aside for the time being. 7. Which years should be used for intermediate targets? a. 2018, 2025, 2040 b. 2020, 2030, 2040 c. 2022, 2028, 2034, 2040 d. 2025, 2035 Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15,2016 Page 5 of 6 e. other combo Group agreed they don't like any of the target dates presented. Some were concerned the check- ins weren't frequent enough. Some were concerned they didn't tie into the budget cycles. Some felt that only the final end year was important. Green/Sohl m/s to have intermediate targets set on five-year increments, starting in 2020. Discussion: McGinnis stated that so long as there is a method in the plan to connect projects to the budget cycle, this is acceptable. Sohl stated the advantage of check-ins/adjustments to the plan scheduled regularly every five years is that the plan can be adjusted consistently with new science or technology. Voice vote: all ayes. Motion Passes. 8. Should the plan include recommendation for goals/targets to be adopted by Ordinance? a. Yes b. No Vote: a= 8, b = 1 Group discussed the potential timeline of an ordinance. They mostly agreed that the best course of action would be to send an ordinance for Council consideration after the plan was approved (or in tandem with the plan) so that the ordinance can accurately reflect the actions/targets/goals of the plan. Group received clarification from staff on a typical ordinance process. 9. If yes, should ordinance match the plan goals/targets or be something different (i.e. absolute vs. aspirational)? a. Match b. Different Vote: a= 71 b = 0 The two no votes stated they could not vote without clearly knowing what will be the final targets. Group decided to go back and re-vote on question#6 (6. What do you think Ashland I reduction goal for 2050 should be). Vote: a. (<80%reduction by 2050) = 0, b. (80% reduction by 2050) = 0, c. (90% reduction by 2050) = 1, d. (100% reduction by 2050) =2, e.( >100% reduction by 2050) = 5 Group discussed the desire to be aggressive in the goal, and to also be a leader in these plans. There were concerns raised about whether being too aggressive in the target may be in opposition to the desire to be science-based (i.e. can you be both aggressive and still accomplish things in a real-world, science-based manner?). Group mostly agreed that they want to be as Minutes for the Climate and Energy Action Plan ad hoc Committee June 15,2016 Page 6 of 6 aggressive as possible. Group agreed that they would like Cascadia to develop a science-based goal for consumption-based emmissions for consideration. 9. Next Meeting The next meeting will be July 6, 2016, at 3:30 p.m. in the Siskiyou Room. 10. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diana Shiplet, Executive Assistant CITY OF AS H L.AN D Council Communication July 19, 2016 Business Meeting Climate and Energy Action Plan — Project Update FROM: Adam Hanks, Management Analyst, adam@ashland.or.us SUMMARY The Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP) ad-hoc committee has been working on the development of a draft plan to bring to Council in January of 2017 per Council request. A process progress check-in was included in the plan to provide the Mayor and Council with an update on the work of the committee and the project consultant team. The update will summarize the work to date and focus primarily on the ad-hoc committee's first milestone recommendation of overall plan goals and targets that form the foundation for the remainder of the plan development. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: At the instigation of the Conservation Commission and with the support of Council, Mayor Stromberg created the LEAP ad-hoc committee in June of 2015 with a core member group. Additional members were added throughout the fall/winter with a now final member total of 13 (11 voting members). The committee began meeting in September, assisting staff on the development and issuance of a request for proposals for consultant services for the project. With considerable involvement of the committee in the review and selection process, Cascadia Consulting Group was selected in February of 2016 to assist the committee and City staff in the development of the plan document as well as facilitate the public involvement process throughout the project. The first major milestone recommendation request posed to the committee was for the overall plan goals and targets. Knowing that the goals and targets set the foundation for how the implementing actions are developed, reviewed,prioritized and selected, the goals/targets milestone was selected as a Council check in item in the plan development timeline. To assist the ad-hoc committee in developing this first milestone recommendation, apublic open house was held on May 24, 2016 to introduce the CEAP project to the community, to update them on the existing science based data guiding the project and to solicit their input and feedback on the importance of the topic and the aggressiveness with which to build the plan. An online survey also was made available on the City website to gather the same input/feedback for those that were not able to attend. The open house had an attendance of approximately 175-200 and 40 online survey responses were submitted. At its June 15, 2016 meeting, the ad-hoc committee went through a series of structured questions to build an overall recommended plan vision with accompanying goals and targets to meet that vision. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF AS H L.AN D Below are the elements of the goals and targets that are proposed to be utilized in the development of the implementation plan. • Be more than carbon neutral by 2050 (didn't define how far beyond neutral) • Goal/target should include community consumption(GHG from purchased goods and services) • Retain the option to include the purchase of carbon offsets as a contributing solution(there was discussion of limiting how much this particular tool would be used to achieve goals but nothing final) • Include specific City operations goals/targets—want them to be both in overall GHG form and as well as being fossil fuel specific • Base year for the plan is 2015 • Intermediate targets in five year increments starting at 2020 • Plan should include action for goals/targets to be adopted by ordinance (no recommendation yet whether the ordinance adoption should come before or after the plan approval) • Goals/targets ordinance should match the plan goals/targets (even with the fact that the goals will include consumption) FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The recommendations being presented to Council are preliminary. The final plan will include prioritized implementing actions for short, mid and long term progress toward the recommended goals and targets. The implementation plan will include cost estimates for all actions, as well as cost/benefit calculations. No financial commitments are being requested at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUESTED ACTION: The preliminary recommendations of the ad-hoc committee will be used to develop the implementation component of the plan. While no specific, formal action is requested at this time, Council feedback on the recommended goals and targets would be valuable if any modifications are needed before entering the implementation phase of the project. SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A ATTACHMENTS: www.ashland.or.us/climateplan June 15, 2016—CEAP Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016—CEAP Ad-Hoc Committee Meeting Packet Page 2 of 2 Ashlar �� E��~��~K�� I ��~�� U�� ~K�� -�� V�U��0er-A As shown in Figure 1, preliminary modeling shows that assuming expected increases in CAFE standards, Oregon's Clean Fuels Progrann,1 and state renewable portfolio standards, Ashland can expect a 3 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 2015 to 2050 under a business as usual (BAU) scenario.^This 3 percent reduction takes into account an annual growth rate ofO.88 percent, which is in line with recent growth in Ashland. Figure 1.Preliminary emissions forecasting.for Ashland 250 197 2,00 IMMUNE 196 0 � � U � ''X�I e I�,,:] i ii�',t i,c) i I�iy 2 C) UJ .5 0 0 . . 201.5 20201 2 0 2,�5, 210,30 203,5 20�0 12..(IT11"), BAk...) C,AJP�1::.::'.,, ERS&U —113At I CA11-E&C 1� BA� Achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 will require additional actions by Ashland. Figure 2 below illustrates how Ashland can achieve carbon neutrality by supporting actions that reduce private vehicle miles traveled (e.g., promoting bicycling, carpooling, and walking) and increase use of electric vehicles; and reducing emissions from refrigerant leakage and waste disposal. While it may be possible to achieve greater reductions through policies and programs, the reductions modeled are in line with current technologies. Remaining emissions are addressed in the model with Renewable Energy Certificates (RE[s) and greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets.' z Oregon's Clean Fuels Program authorizes the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission to adopt rules to reduce the average carbon intensity of Oregon's transportation fuels by lD percent over lO'year period starting in 2016. 2 These projections are updated from those presented in May, based on more detailed modeling of changes in renewable portfolio standards. sThe wedge analysis layers in one new policy/action area at a time.The sequencing of the policies and actions significantly influences the size of the wedge. For example, ifVMT Reductions/Changes(the blue wedge)were sequenced before CAFE Standards&Clean Fuel Program (the yellow wedge)'the VMTvvedge would be larger since each mile driven would be associated with higher emissions. 1 7/l/2Ol6 Figure 2.Preliminary wedge anal si for Ashland r ��"�G� il�"l�"OiOr�:� Renewable,Portfolio st��ium ��aro CAFE staiirrdiiar s&Clean Fu IIIII Program, ,..., nges a��//� ,,,,,,,,,,., �MiJ�J�,,,,�y ........ 'M T f il 4,!L III I��` " l 1 G1 IV� ^� v< Vim» ' Building eiw� tiuir�ls in Energy Use! rii//////// Red uicti ons ini gerant Leakage II IEC purchases, v i, �1 u Carbon offset Iplur hula ' Table 1 shows the specific reduction sources and assumptions within each wedge in Figure 2.These assumptions were customized from modeling conducted by the City of Portland for their Climate Action Plan update, with additional assumptions regarding 1) emission reductions from refrigerant leakage and waste and 2) REC purchases. Percentage increases shown by 2030 are relative to the BAU case, and 2050 increases are relative to source reduction and assumptions for 2030. Table 1. Emission Source ReductionsAssumptions i 1 J JJJ J JJJJJJ JJJJ JJJJ JJJJJJ J J JJ JJJ)JJJJJJ J J J JJJ JJJJ JJJJ JJJJ JJ JJ J J JJ J J J JJ J JJ J J 1 1 i r- 1111111D11((�11111111�1D11DD1D�111D1��)�1D11DD111111D11111D11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111D11�11(I»»lllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!llfll!!!ll�rrrrllll!!!!!rr)(01!!!!!!!rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr�l!!!!!!!!!!r rri�»»lllllllllll11111111111111�11111111flllllJfff111f!!(1)�lllOf111ff111llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll11 Renewable Energy 13.8% 23.8% CAFE 35 MPG 50 MPG Clean Fuels Program 10% reduction in transportation fuel carbon VMT Reductions/Changes Reductions from density 5% 15%additional Incr. electric vehicles 10% 15%additional Displaced by walking/biking 15% 20%additional Displaced by transit 5% 15%additional Displaced by carpooling/trip chaining 5% 5%additional Reductions in Building Energy Use (NG) Due to shell efficiency 5% 15%additional Due to appliance efficiency 2% 5%additional Due to combined heat and power 5% 15%additional Due to renewables/fuel switching 2% 30%additional Reductions in Building Energy Use (Elec.) Due to conservation 5% 13%additional Due to shell efficiency 5% 10%additional Due to appliance efficiency 5% 15%additional Due to lighting retrofits 5% 10%additional Due to other efficiencies 0% 10% Transmission losses 15% reduction 11%additional reduction Increased load due to fuel switching 111 MW 1,262 MW 2 7/1/2016 Increased load due to elec. vehicles 3,033 MW 41845 MW Reductions in Refrigerants Leakage and 80% Waste Emissions REC purchases 50,000 RECs annually 80,000 RECs annually Offset purchases —110,000 annually —55,000 annually Offsets and Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) GHG offsets are carbon-reduction certificates created through verified carbon-reducing actions by one organization, such as planting trees,that can be sold to another organization. RECs are similar to GHG offsets, but can only be applied to energy-sector emissions. GHG offset projects must be verified using strict, accepted protocols.Verification can be a rigorous and expensive process.'The California Air Resources Board's Compliance Offset Protocol,for example, stipulates the following requirements for verification of avoided conversion projects for forests:' ■ Demonstrated significant threat of conversion of project land to non-forest land use by following the requirements for establishing the project's baseline. ■ Exclusion of lands that were part of a previously listed and verified Forest Project. ■ Must be on lands that are privately owned prior to offset project commencement. ■ Must demonstrate GHG reductions or removal enhancements above and beyond any which would result from compliance with federal, state, or local law, regulation, or ordinance.This can be assessed using a "Performance Test," which includes a real estate appraisal for the project area that indicates that the area is both suitable for conversion and that the alternative land use has a higher market value than forestland. Carbon offset prices can vary greatly; California Carbon Allowances have been trading around $12- 13/metric ton.6 At this price, offsetting Ashland's 2015 emissions (including consumption)would cost just under$2.4 million. In 2050, assuming emissions reductions outlined in Table 1 (except purchasing RECs), offsetting Ashland's total emissions would cost nearly$1.1 million. 4 Source: personal communication, project manager for Microsoft's recent Nisqually Carbon Project offset purchases 5 Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/protocols/usforest/forestprotoco12015.pdf 6 http://..... calcarbondash.or................................g/ 3 7/1/2016 ..................... ........ ........ 0 0 ul ru no Qj m„ gicc 0 . ,, ,,,,,, ro IIIIIIIIIIVIii" Illlllllllllllm" �"%m� w 4—Cali m L,,, � 8 ,,,,, liuu�a �,,,,,,,, m '.m�V01�11 ,perMD '�� CDL W B �„N,� IIIII jW+11111Cr1j �ouuuu� w� a — co mnm°j p ,,,, L 0 �,,, III,,,� � � �,,,,,,,, -.a ,,,,,,,,,,, Gi ........ m uv) 0 UV) �, m �� i +a CL � -Xi � ;;; j ..., .............. mm o- ii I,,,,,. I,,,,,, CL M 1111110 oi�ulluil ��,' v,,,,,I LC rrQ Is cmII. V{ Gi Ou MC� ..... y `i,..., .........., ..............uuul UA I luuull� m louuu ulnnniuuu lUuuuuoo �ioouuu Uuuul VuIII uuuu �� 0110 II III III..........: 2 2 p��I 1111 I�II�IIIIIIIII Ou COL. o di ai � flu ��s �„�» oIDmml W e 3: �,,,rere nn�°�Illiol E EEEE EE c: LA EE LA c: EELJ tiluwll s �� m m uuuuCIL II,,,N,,,J II,,A LIJ LA LLJ I ll Dill ..., .........;