Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
No action.
II.
Subject:
Enterprise Fund Review: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
No action.
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
Monday, April 16, 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter and Don Lochman
Pat Mumford
3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those in attendance
to introduce themselves.
I.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Council member Foxx reminded the Committee they discussed the resolution in some
detail at the last meeting. As background, last summer the Sierra Club made a
presentation to Council asking us to consider adopting the Cool Cities Resolution and
part of that process involves adoption of the US Conference of Mayors Resolution.
Council referred this issue to this Committee. We have been discussing the language and
whether we want to join the US Conference of Mayors, whether we want to craft our own
resolution, adopt a set of practices outside a resolution or whether we need to do any of
that at all. We have gone through a lot of iterations. Council member Foxx continued
that he hoped the Committee would be able to make a decision today one way or the
other. He then opened the floor to discussion.
Lochman:
I am firmly opposed to resolutions which would involve specifics when
we have no idea about the feasibility or timeframe and what result would
be expected. I would suggest the Chair’s point about enumerating
practices outside a resolution be considered. That means nothing in terms
of tangible differences, in terms of environmental point of view, but I
think it spares us the absurd notion of signing a resolution that we don’t
have a clue if we have the resources to pursue or whether ultimately they
are worth pursuing at all. So, I like an action plan. We talked about this
at the last meeting. Any normal action plan has resources, benchmarks,
expected results and so forth.
Carter:
What would that mean with regard to the resolution? How would you
phrase it?
Lochman:
I wouldn’t phrase it. I would simply say like any other activity we do in
the City and obviously we have City priorities, City programs; this is a
priority so let’s develop a City program that we think appropriate to make
a positive impact.
Carter:
Would the further resolutions on page three be those that you would refer
to in an action plan? It was in the interest of bi-partisan support for this
resolution that I suggested the deletion of the first three paragraphs.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 3
Foxx:
The “whereas” section?
Carter:
Yes. Seeing that they were not presented to the Committee, I gather that
is a statement of general support from the Committee for the entire
resolution. I am willing to curb my support for the deletion of those three
sections until discussion with the full Council. But, I would like to hear
Mr. Lochman’s response to my queries.
Foxx:
I think the question, Mr. Lochman, is in the “further resolved” section
whether that statement is something you would not support in a resolution
but in an action plan.
Lochman:
I would be more apt to do it, but I think we have the same challenges. For
example in the first one, inventory of emissions, the staff in their
executive summary says the estimated resources needed to conduct an
inventory of emissions for City operations would be $30,000 plus staff
time plus technical assistance of $3,500; I don’t know is that a worthwhile
investment? It begs the question what would the results be used for and
how would we help the environment with whatever the results of the
inventory are? I don’t have an answer for that.
Carter:
I think within the action plan comes the budget piece and it makes its way
through the budgetary process. I think many of us would find this a
helpful exercise that would lead us to a desired point of action for the
City. As we presented the action plan, we can take this to Council. And, I
have no difficulty taking the resolution and creating an action plan or
having a separate action plan.
Lochman:
Let me respond by saying that I am much more comfortable with an action
plan. Because an action plan can be approved or not approved and it
doesn’t take the unfounded step that a resolution does by resolving to do
things we don’t know if we can do or not. So, I would say I am a lot more
comfortable with an action plan that we can build on.
Foxx:
Let me ask Mr. Lochman a question. In terms of what we can understand
about the environment it seems to me part of the challenge is that we don’t
know what the costs are until we do the analysis. So, whether its an action
plan or resolution we are still at the same place. If the goal here is to
figure out a reasonable way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and
many cities as I understand it are doing so with cost savings on the
operating side, then a model can be done to figure out how much it is
going to cost to implement changes, what the cost benefit of those changes
are and then the Council can make a determination on an item-by-item
basis on what it wants to do or not do. I think what we are committing to
in this language is doing as aggressive and reasonable an action plan that
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 4
we can reasonably accomplish by the year 2012. So, I don’t think we are
being prescriptive here because we don’t know where it is going if we
don’t know what the costs are. I think the idea is to get us beyond the step
of saying we don’t know what the costs are and getting us to a point we
know what those costs are and let future Councils make those decisions.
Lochman:
The problem I have is the word “resolve”. If you resolve to do something
its like you are saying we have decided to do something and now we have
to worry about how we go about doing it. We haven’t made a decision
that we want to pursue a sequence of activities.
Carter:
What if we reserve the whereas for another document, but they go to
Council at the same time? We present to the community that we are
concerned about the environment, we are being proactive, and we are
addressing issues and want to commit to further steps. We are still
evaluating our budgetary responsibility. There will be new technology
available in three months. This separates the policy from the action.
Foxx:
Do you have a special recommendation?
Carter:
I would move that we present the resolution as stated with the exception
of page three [be it further resolved]. We pull that out separate. We can
send them both to Council at the same time. We have an action plan that
is those seven actions that we will evaluate.
Foxx:
Mr. Lochman, would that assuage your concerns?
Lochman:
If we are resolving to do something we have already done, why are we
resolving? We do all kinds of things without resolving anything. If our
objective is to measure results, why not just have an action plan except
that we are getting external requests for a resolution that doesn’t have
tangible statements.
Carter:
We are trying to work in partnership.
Lochman:
For what reason?
Carter:
We need the community to know we are concerned about the
environment.
Lochman:
For who’s sake?
Carter:
For us. I move for approval of the separated resolution.
Lochman:
Second.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 5
Foxx:
I have said before that a lot of thought has gone into the language in the
US Conference of Mayors document and I am also concerned about
committing to more than we understand without knowing the cost. But, I
think we have crafted something that is uniquely for Charlotte and we do a
disservice by not acting on the resolution. Unlike other areas, these issues
are beyond our reach and it is important to send a signal to Seattle and
Lancaster County or Lincolnton that the City of Charlotte acknowledges
the challenges but is taking proactive steps. I hear your concerns about
the cost. Your second concern about the commitments, I don’t
understand. We are agreeing to a realistic plan. We are encouraging the
private sector and embarking on public education that is operationally
defined. I really feel we would be doing a disservice by breaking up the
resolution. But, for the sake of reaching a compromise I am willing to do
it.
Burgess:
I was in a meeting with the Mayor this morning and he supports this
resolution. He spoke in support of it to Congress. I don’t know what the
opposition is.
Foxx:
We have no statement by the City of Charlotte acknowledging global
warming, but we want to work on a plan to address it.
Burgess:
What is on the table?
Foxx:
The March 15 draft resolution.
Carter:
Separation of the draft. Removing the “be it further resolved” on page
three and putting it in an action plan. We vote on both the same night at
the same time. We do parallel plans like this in planning. There is an
implementation section. We can appreciate the strengths of the actions. I
think it is incumbent on us to make a statement and we pass two
documents at the same time.
Burch:
To make sure I’m clear. The proposal would be to take the “be it
resolved” bullets and make those an action plan. Are we proposing any be
it resolved statements?
Carter:
We’re saying after further study, the subsequent action plan can be
adopted.
Burgess:
I think it needs to stay in one document or it becomes confusing. I hope
we will go forward with one resolution.
Foxx:
I think Ms. Carter is appropriately trying to broker consensus and the fault
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 6
line seems to be with the resolution. If the resolution is the dividing line, I
would rather have the stronger language. Mr. Lochman, is there any way
you will support one document?
Lochman:
No. But, don’t worry about it. It doesn’t really matter, this will be passed
anyway. For whatever reason, this subject is treated differently.
Foxx:
Are we going to vote on the pending motion?
Burgess:
I would like to present a substitute motion that we consider the March 15
resolution in total as presented.
Foxx:
Second.
Vote:
Burgess, Foxx – for; Lochman, Carter – against.
Foxx:
So, that brings us back to the base motion.
Vote:
Lochman, Carter, Foxx – for; Burgess – against
Foxx:
Can we go to Council with a split vote 2-2?
Burch:
It is difficult to take things back to the full Council with no indication of
how the Committee feels. You can take a 3-1 vote to split the resolution.
Foxx:
Mr. Buchanan, do we need this entire resolution to be considered for Cool
Cities? [Mr. Buchanan is a local volunteer representative of the Sierra
Club.]
Buchanan:
You would need the further resolved paragraphs for Cool Cities. As to the
first point about not committing due to the budget, the language was
written to protect cities. You are just making a commitment to other
cities, over 400 other cities, that says we stand with you. If you fail to
pass your goal, it will be hard to come up with an action plan. I think goal
setting is the best way to make the commitment and I would encourage
you to keep the resolution.
Lochman:
Who do “we” commit to?
Buchanan:
The City of Charlotte, the citizens, the 400 other cities that have signed on
to the US Conference of Mayors agreement.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 7
Carter:
If our process is to approve the policy and follow-up with an action plan,
we can just separate out the action plan to deal with the budgetary matters.
I actually support everything in these pages. We can have staff debate, we
can have a budgetary debate, but this is important for Council. I want to
see a resolution passed.
Foxx:
If we adopt the resolution, will the action steps be approved by Council in
the budget process?
Burch:
The inventory will cost anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000. We will need
to reallocate a staff person. Once Council approves this, we will shift
resources over.
Carter:
What priorities are we establishing?
Foxx:
If we don’t establish a protocol, nothing will be done. The question
becomes is this worth doing?
Lochman:
We are doing corridor redevelopment but did not resolve to do it by a
budget appropriation. We do all kinds of things through a normal
management process. Why this? Because 400 other cities are asking what
is Charlotte going to do?
Foxx:
That is a fair point.
Burgess:
We can’t do this in isolation. We have to do our part. Nothing is
insurmountable. It is our responsibility and helps us speak with a greater
voice. We need a resolution.
Foxx:
What if the resolution said “be it further resolved the City will strive to
adopt further actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to include the
following …” Then, with the resolved step we commit to an action plan
that contains these points.
Carter:
What if we said we “will adopt an action and consider the following”?
Foxx:
So, considered, not committed to?
Carter:
Yes, since we don’t know the cost.
Burch:
We have a pretty good idea about the cost of conducting the inventory.
We don’t know the cost of an action plan. We don’t know the cost of
renewable energy. It will be up to Council whether we engage in
partnerships. We don’t know the cost of the other resources we might use.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 8
Lochman:
What do you do with the inventory once you get it?
Burch:
We will know where the emissions are coming from and will be able to
come up with an appropriate plan to reduce them. Other cities have been
able to come up with a plan to make reductions.
Lochman:
So, I would assume the 400 cities are sufficiently similar to Charlotte. If
they have put together an action plan to make improvements, we should be
able to do the same. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that Duke Power
and cars make up 60% of the problem. We are just nibbling around the
edges of the total problem. City operations make up an infinitesimal part
of the total problem.
Foxx:
Part of the reason, as I understand it, is to be able to track reductions over
time. We need a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We don’t
know what the impact will be without a baseline.
Burgess:
The first bullet talks about creating a specific action plan, its part of the
first bullet to look at the budget and cost benefits.
Carter:
I think we gave direction to form partnerships with the $500,000 CMAQ
funding.
Burch:
Yes, that was for Clean Air Works!
Carter:
I think this is an important effort. We do not do things the most efficiently
or the most effectively. This should be our guideline for action. We need
City Council debate. I really think this resolution could go further.
Burgess:
It doesn’t commit us to everything. Charlotte can’t do everything without
partnerships.
Carter:
How do we choose?
Foxx:
I don’t think we are giving up our ability to decide how and what we want
to implement. Council will have opportunities all along the way to make
additions.
Burch:
We can come back with some specific proposals, particularly if you want
to see spending what amount of money or how much staff time is needed.
Foxx:
I hope that will also address Ms. Carter’s issue about making the language
more clear. We need the inventory to develop an action plan regarding
greenhouse gas emissions. We need for Council to see what steps were
considered and approved and what issues we got hung up on. These
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 9
decisions will affect future Council’s decisions. We should show the
Committee wanted to leverage other resources and develop partnerships.
We can easily have Duke Energy do some pro bono building audits.
There are lots of ways to read the language. I appreciate Ms. Carter trying
to get everyone’s support.
Lochman:
There is nothing wrong with this; I guess we should just have five people
present.
Carter:
I am very distressed to be pushed to this position. Process vs. policy
needs to be clearly delineated and I respect the Chair’s efforts. This does
not reflect poorly on the Committee, we need to work through the
objections to have collaboration.
Lochman:
My position is not anti-environment. I just think resolutions are words.
Actions have tangible results. We should be about action. I have never
seen a resolution I liked.
Foxx:
I don’t share the view that resolutions are to be avoided. But, an
environmental policy doesn’t function in a vacuum. Outside of
Mecklenburg County, Charlotte does not have a reputation for partnership.
Americans are contributing to the problem, we need to contribute to the
solution and we don’t send that signal via an action plan. I am happy to
wait, because I fully intend to support the resolution with language that
addresses the problem.
Burgess:
We need to look at the big picture. What’s good for the future of
Charlotte? I don’t like every single statement in the resolution, but I am
willing to overlook words. I think it is important to join with the Sierra
Club and other groups and other cities. We have no more time to waste.
We need to get serious.
Foxx:
Can we schedule a meeting before the end of the month to re-vote on this
issue? I would like to say CM Carter has worked really hard toward
creating a resolution everyone can agree too.
The Committee agreed to defer action to the next meeting. [Note: Due to calendars, it
was not possible to schedule a meeting before the regular April 16 meeting.]
II.
Enterprise Fund Review: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Doug Bean introduced Steve Wilson, Chair of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Advisory Committee and then began their presentation (copy attached).
Carter:
With lift stations, will the interbasin transfer cause a reverse flow?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 10
Bean:
At some lift stations like the Mallard Creek Plant.
[Sewer Overflows]
Carter:
When you are cleaning the systems, do you re-coat the interiors?
Bean:
We clean the blockages, identify the problems and then rehab or replace
the lines.
Carter:
What percentage do you replace? What percentage do you rehab?
Bean:
I don’t know the exact numbers; we are spending millions on rehab. We
are funding all we can do.
Carter:
Do we need to lobby for more funding?
Bean:
Yes, the lines are getting older and will cost more money in the future.
Burgess:
What contributes to the problem, fats, oils and grease?
Bean:
Those are our biggest problems. If we see an area with aggressive
overflows, we target them with billboards and other public information.
We are working with apartments. We are able to regulate businesses and
restaurants with grease traps, but residential areas are much harder. Once
the grease goes down the line, it is just in there.
Burgess:
Have you considered strengthening regulations on brown grease?
Bean:
No, we have not been looking at that. The biggest problem with
residential is there is no inspection program. We might be able to do more
with our restaurant inspections.
Burgess:
NLC has said we could look at stronger regulations for disposal of white
and brown grease. Have we compared our regulations to other cities to
see if should/could do more?
Bean:
One area we could look at doing more is multi-family residential. Maybe
requiring grease traps. If we can collect it, we can deal with it.
Burgess:
Can we find out from NLC?
Bean:
We are doing that. We are looking at laws, ordinances, what’s practical,
what requires changes to the plumbing code. We have made a
commitment to the EPA.
Burgess:
How do fats, oils and grease contribute?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 11
Bean:
In ¾ of overflows, they are a contributor. Sometimes roots contribute.
We can put an agent into the line that kills roots. If they are beyond the
line, grease is not that big a problem.
Carter:
There has been talk of using grease as an energy source. In someplace
like Minneapolis it would be too cold, the grease would solidify, but there
is potential in the South to recycle grease. It could be profitable.
Bean:
The restaurants contract with private companies to take grease away.
Foxx:
How much of the problem is Charlotte and how much is the surrounding
areas?
Gullet:
It is well distributed through the service area.
Bean:
It would be nice to find it in one area.
Foxx:
If the regulations are dispersed across the county, what about multijurisdictional areas like Huntersville?
Bean:
It is our system, so we can make regulations. But, plumbing codes might
be different.
Foxx:
So, these are just rules, not an ordinance.
Bean:
We have an ordinance for sewers.
Phocas:
There are some mandated changes from the State regarding oil and grease
that are not in there yet. We can look at that and see if we can make some
other changes.
Burgess:
Sewer flows are like that spill in Lake Wylie?
Bean:
Yes.
Burgess:
Do we need more foot soldiers?
Bean:
Yes.
Burgess:
But, are there measures in place to accommodate for a lack of foot
soldiers?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2007
Page 12
Bean:
Yes, we have alarms, dialers; we are upgrading the technology at the lift
stations. We have standby generators. We are trying to make something
mechanical failsafe. We need to visit the lake more frequently, because
sometimes mechanical things break.
Foxx:
I would like to thank Doug Bean and Steve Wilson for taking time to
educate us. When we are going over the capital budget, we don’t have
time for these types of exchanges to help us understand the challenges.
Carter:
You provided a good summary to the Budget Committee that would be
good for this Committee to see.
Bean:
We had it broken down in more detail for the Budget Committee.
Carter:
It is good for us to see the long range projects.
Bean:
We’ll be looking at $1 billion over the next five years.
Burgess:
How much is in the reserve?
Bean:
$90 million.
Burgess:
Is all of that committed?
Bean:
We have to keep 35% of the total budget in reserve. We have 40% right
now at $90 million.
Burgess:
Could you put the other 5% to work?
Bean:
The 35% is required by the bond commission. We had a rainy year a few
years back and lost $17 million in the spring. If we have a rainy spring,
there could be a severe impact in the fall and we might have to look at a
rate hike. If we fall below $40 million to $39 million, that’s okay, but if
we start the year lower than that, it makes me real nervous.
As the meeting adjourned, Council member Foxx introduced Josh Thomas from Topics
Education. Mr. Thomas has done quite a bit of climate research and work with
greenhouse gases. Council member Foxx suggested anyone with questions about the
science to contact Mr. Thomas.
III.
Next Meeting:
The Committee will meet on April 16 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, March 19, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
I.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Staff Resources: Julie Burch and Rob Phocas
Staff will present information to follow-up to questions from the February meeting and
possible alternatives for Committee consideration in responding to the “Cool Cities”
initiative. Briefing paper and other materials attached.
II.
Enterprise Fund Review: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Staff Resource: Doug Bean
In December 2006, City Council approved the Budget Committee’s recommendation for
Council to receive more information about the City’s four Enterprise Funds (Utilities,
Stormwater, CATS and Aviation), including discussion with the relevant citizens’
advisory committees. Utilities and Stormwater were referred to the Environment
Committee. Steve Wilson, Chair of the CMU Advisory Committee and Doug Bean will
present an overview of the Utilities’ operations, as well as budget drivers and issues for
the FY 2008 Budget. This presentation is for information only.
PowerPoint attached.
III.
Next Meetings:
Monday, April 16, 3:30 p.m. Agenda items will include the Stormwater Enterprise Fund
Review.
Monday, May 21, 3:30 p.m. Agenda will include “Blue Sky” discussion about
environmental issues and challenges.
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Jim Schumacher
Doug Bean
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders
David Garner
Steve Wilson
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
PCCO Stakeholders
Sue Rutledge
COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
March 19, 2007
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Briefing Paper
Executive Summary
•
The U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, the centerpiece of Sierra Club’s “Cool
Cities” initiative, contains twelve initiatives that cities are asked to commit to undertake
in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
•
An assessment conducted by City staff found that three of the twelve initiatives could
involve additional cost and operational impacts: 1) conducting an emissions inventory
and developing and implementing an action plan to reduce emissions; 2) increasing the
use of clean, alternative energy and advocating for renewable energy resources; and 3)
participating in a broad, collaborative public education campaign about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
•
Staff’s estimate of the resources needed to conduct an inventory of emissions for City
operations only: $10,000 - $ 30,000 in staff time. City membership for ICLEI to provide
technical assistance and software: $ 3,500. Staff would also collaborate with County.
•
Without the baseline information from a current emissions inventory, staff is not able to
estimate the costs for developing or implementing an emissions reduction action plan.
•
Like Charlotte, most cities that staff contacted are uncertain what actions they’ll be
taking, so few had estimates of the costs of implementing an action plan.
•
Renewable Energy Credits are additional payment for producing power from renewable
sources. If the City were to participate in a credit program, costs would vary depending
on the scope and extent of purchasing credits.
•
The cost of a collaborative public education campaign involving public and private
partners would depend on the scope of the campaign and the role of the City in the
campaign.
Options for Possible Actions:
1.) Recommend the City join the Sierra Club’s “Cool Cities” Initiative by City Council
adoption of a resolution to endorse the U.S. Mayors’ Agreement and commit to a green
City fleet; energy-efficiency technology in City facilities; and investment in renewable
energy, OR
1
COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
March 19, 2007
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Briefing Paper
Executive Summary
2.) Recommend the City join the ICLEI “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign” by
adopting a resolution of support and commitment, OR
3.) Recommend the City Council adopt a Charlotte-specific resolution to commit the City
to greenhouse gas emissions reduction, OR
4.) Recommend the City Council use a Request for Council Action to direct City staff to
take actions to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Note: Based on staff understanding of the Sierra Club and ICLEI criteria, a formal
resolution must be adopted by the municipality in order to be considered a “Cool City” or a
supporter of the ICLEI initiative.
•
The complete briefing paper contains additional information related to all of the summary
points above. Further, staff has provided responses to Committee member questions
about the status of methane recovery at landfills and the programs already underway to
maximize pump efficiency and methane recovery at wastewater treatment plants.
2
COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
March 19, 2007
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Briefing Paper
Introduction
The purpose of this briefing paper is to provide the Environment Committee
(“Committee”) with answers to questions posed at the February 19, 2007 meeting and to bring
together information that has been presented over the past several Committee meetings. Staff
also presents new information from Utilities on pump efficiency for water and wastewater and
recovery of wastewater methane. Options for Committee recommendations to Council can be
found on pp. 5-6.
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
The centerpiece of Sierra Club’s “Cool Cities” initiative is the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement (“Agreement”) (see Attachment A), which a city must endorse in order to
become a Cool City. 1 Among other statements, the Agreement contains twelve initiatives that
cities commit to in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.
As indicated in staff’s December 19th preliminary assessment of these twelve initiatives,
there are three initiatives in the Agreement that would be most challenging for staff to meet, i.e.,
would involve potentially substantial cost and operational impact. These three initiatives are:
1) initiative #1, inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set
reduction targets and create an action plan; 2) initiative #4, increase the use of clean, alternative
energy; and 3) initiative #12, help educate the public, schools and others about reducing global
warming pollution. At the Committee’s request, staff provides additional information on these
three initiatives.
Initiative #1, GHG Inventory and Action Plan for City Operations
The Committee asked staff to estimate the costs of conducting a GHG inventory for city
operations, creating an action plan, and implementing the action plan.
Conduct a GHG Inventory for City Operations by June 2008
Engineering and Property Management (“E&PM”) staff has researched how a GHG
inventory for City operations might be approached and the associated costs. A commonly used
tool for conducting the inventory is to join the nonprofit group ICLEI-Local Governments for
Sustainability (see Attachment B), which provides computer software and technical support to
1
North Carolina cities that have endorsed include: Asheville; Boone; Canton; Carborro;
Chapel Hill; Durham; Highlands; Hillsborough, Wilmington; and cities expected to endorse
include: Brevard; Greenville; Salisbury; and Winston-Salem.
DRAFT
members to conduct a GHG emissions inventory. A one-year ICLEI membership for the City
would cost $3,500.
Staff learned that Mecklenburg County (“County”) intends to conduct a GHG emissions
inventory of County operations by June 2008, and that the County already has access to ICLEI’s
software through the County’s membership in a state-wide organization. City staff has met with
County staff about collaborating on a City/County GHG emissions inventory, and the County has
offered to work with City staff to calculate the City’s GHG emission inventory if the City so
desires.
E&PM staff believes that collaborating with the County to conduct the inventory would
be beneficial, but E&PM staff also supports the City conducting an independent inventory and
becoming an ICLEI member for the following reasons: 1) it will be more seamless for E&PM to
enter City GHG emissions data; 2) E&PM staff would become more familiar with the ICLEI
software and its potential if E&PM has access to its own copy; 3) joining ICLEI offers
networking possibilities in discussing emissions issues with other cities and using their past
experience in attaining City emission reduction goals or developing the City’s action plan.
To date, E&PM staff has collected the majority of the data 2 needed to conduct the
inventory. Going forward, E&PM staff estimates that staff resources needed to conduct a GHG
inventory by June 2008 entail reassigning some of the workload of one staff member 3 so that he
could work over the coming year to complete data compilation, learn the ICLEI software, enter
the data into the software, and collaborate with the County, at a cost of approximately $10,000$30,000 in staff resources.
Develop a GHG Emissions Reduction Action Plan for City Operations
For cities that wish to develop their action plan internally, ICLEI also provides resources
to develop an action plan; for example, ICLEI will make available to members this summer new
software aimed at developing action plans. An alternative approach would be for a city to hire a
consultant to develop the action plan. At this time, not knowing the City’s current GHG
emissions per year, the City’s reduction target and what actions the City would take to reduce
GHG emissions, staff has not determined which approach to take and thus has not been able to
estimate the costs for developing an action plan.
Most of the cities that staff has contacted plan to develop an action plan using internal
staff and ICLEI resources; they too have not quantified the resources that will be needed.
However, we did receive cost information from two groups. First, Orange County, Chapel Hill,
Carrboro, and Hillsborough have contracted with ICLEI to conduct their inventory and create an
action plan. Their inventory and action plan address GHG emissions from both government
operations and the larger community. Total cost is $45,000 to be split by the communities based
2
The data includes: electric and natural gas consumption for City operations and City motor
vehicle fuel consumption (gasoline and diesel).
3
The impact of reassigning this one staff person would be assigned CIP maintenance projects
would be put on hold.
-2-
DRAFT
on their populations. Second, the City of Durham and Durham County sent out a request for bids
to conduct an inventory of GHG emissions from government operations and the larger
community and to develop and action plan. They too chose to contract with ICLEI, which will
cost approximately $50,000; the other bids received came in at around $100,000.
Implementation of GHG Emission Reduction Action Plan for City
Operations
Staff reached out to two sources to answer this question. First, staff contacted the cities it
had spoken to earlier to determine if these cities had determined the costs associated with
implementing an action plan. Staff received responses from: Atlanta; Houston; Tallahassee;
Asheville; Chapel Hill, Chicago and Kansas City.
Staff received generally the same response from each of these cities, except for Kansas
City, all of which are in the process of conducting their GHG inventory and creating an action
plan. These cities have not determined the costs associated with implementing an action plan,
because they do not yet know what actions they will be taking. The cities have made the
commitment to reduce GHG emissions, and after they calculate their GHG emissions and a
reduction target, they will then undertake an effort to figure out how much it will cost to get
them to the reduced levels.
Kansas City, however, was able to provide staff with some costs. Kansas City is
presenting (and seeking approval of) their action plan in phases. Phase I will be presented in late
April, and Phase I consists of several internal initiatives, such as increasing recycling in City
operations ($50,000-$60,000) and cutting down on employee miles traveled by buying bus
passes for City employees ($30,000). Kansas City also proposed undertaking some larger
projects, such as putting a green roof on city hall ($400,000) and purchasing Green Power to
cover 5% of their energy usage, which will amount to about $200,000.
Second, staff contacted Professor Douglas Crawford-Brown at UNC-Chapel Hill, who is
helping Chapel Hill and the UNC to reduce GHG emissions. Professor Brown also indicated the
difficulty with estimating what a city’s costs might be, because it depends on what reduction
strategies are chosen as well as how a city accounts for the costs. Professor Brown suggested
that reduction strategies are generally broken down into three categories: 1) Short-term, which
can be implemented immediately from an organization's annual budget and where there is an
immediate reduction in energy costs (e.g., keeping doors closed, turning the heat down a few
degrees); 2) Medium-term, which also can be implemented from the annual budget, or perhaps
require two budget cycles, and where there is a pay-back period of 5 years or less (e.g.,
replacement of lighting fixtures, adding an energy management system, etc.); 3) Long-term,
which might not ever pay themselves back or would take a long time to, and certainly involve the
capital budget for a number of years (e.g., investment in a bus system or new passenger fleet).
Initiative #4, Alternative Energy
Under initiative #4, a city commits to increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for
example, investing in green tags, also know as renewable energy credits, advocating for the
-3-
DRAFT
development of renewable energy resources and recovering landfill methane for energy
production.
Green Tags or Renewable Energy Credits
Green tags or renewable energy credits (“RECs”) are a market mechanism that represent
the environmental benefits associated with generating electricity from renewable energy sources,
such as wind, solar and water. A REC represents an additional payment for producing power
from renewable energy sources, allowing the producer to create and sell electricity at the local
market price and thus enabling cleaner, renewable energy to be made.
The REC does not take the place of one’s normal electric bill; the cost associated with a
REC is in addition to what one normally pays for electricity. A popular incentive for buying
RECs is to make the claim that your energy use is "carbon neutral" and hence does not contribute
to global warming. For example, the recent Super Bowl purchased enough RECs to make the
event a carbon neutral event (see Attachment C). RECs can be purchased from entities that act
like middlemen. Two such entities are NC Green Power (used by Duke Energy) and Renewable
Energy Choice.
Staff contacted both of these entities to get an idea of the costs associated with buying
green power. According to Renewable Energy Choice, for example, to make the government
center building (approximately 450,000 sq. ft.) 100% carbon neutral for one year, it would cost
the City approximately $36,000. According to Renewable Energy Choice, price will change
based on volume of deal, length of contract, and when one purchases. The quote provided is at
the high end of the pricing spectrum (see Attachment D, which includes the environmental
benefits of this approach).
NC Green Power currently offers two products: 1) $4.00/per month for a 100 kwh block;
and 2) the $2.50/per month per 100 kwh block if you buy a minimum of 100 blocks a month (the
average US individual uses approximately 3,000 kwh/per year). They are considering, but have
made no commitment to, a third option that would allow a very large customer to pick what
alternative source they would like and, if it is available, pay a rate anywhere from $.50-$2.00
block to have all their purchased blocks come from that source.
Landfill Methane
Currently, the City does not have the opportunity to recover landfill methane for energy
production from the two closed City landfills. The Statesville Avenue landfill, which has been
closed for several decades but not redeveloped, does not have a methane recovery system and an
argument can be made that is old enough that it no longer produces enough methane for a
recovery effort. At Renaissance Park (the York Landfill) there is a small vacuum extraction
system at the golf shop, but it is to protect the building, not for true recovery. In the early 1990s,
the City tried methane recovery, but it is staff’s understanding that the recovery system was not
successful.
-4-
DRAFT
According to County staff, there is a methane recovery system at the Speedway Landfill
in Concord. The recovered methane is used to produce energy.
Initiative #9, Pump Efficiency for Water & Wastewater and Recovery of Wastewater
Methane.
Pump Efficiency
Staff has received additional information from Utilities since the February 19th meeting
on this initiative. Utilities' water pumps are already energy efficient, with most operating at 97 to
99.5 percent efficiency. Utilities purchases efficient water pumps and maintains those
efficiencies through pump testing, repair and maintenance. Utilities reduces energy consumption
and cost for water pumping by utilizing an off-peak pumping schedule. Utilities also purchases
efficient pumps for wastewater treatment and maintains those routinely for high performance.
Wastewater pumps and other wastewater treatment processes will be evaluated more fully during
an energy audit that a consultant will conduct as part of the optimization of wastewater treatment
plants.
Recovery of Wastewater Methane
Utilities already has completed a preliminary study that identified the McAlpine WWTP
as a candidate for more extensive methane recovery. All wastewater treatment plants that
operate digesters (four of five plants) currently capture methane and use it to heat the digesters,
but the large amount of methane generated at McAlpine might lend itself to other applications as
well. Utilities expects the energy audit and methane feasibility study to be complete by July
2008.
Initiative #12, Education about GHGs
At this point staff, staff does not know the scope of what the City would undertake to meet
this community initiative and thus does not have information on potential costs. The costs of a
collaborative public education campaign could vary widely, depending on the exact scope and
extent of the campaign. Education could be an important part of the City’s GHG emission
reduction action plan, but several factors would need to be considered: the message; strategies;
resources; and possible partnerships and appropriate roles for the City, County, Centralina
Council of Governments, CMS, Duke Energy and other members of the business community.
Options for Recommended Actions related to the “Cool Cities” Initiative/ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reduction
If the Committee wishes to recommend action to respond to the Sierra Club Cool Cities
initiative, below are options for consideration as possible recommendations to the Council:
1.
Recommend the City join the Sierra Club’s Cool Cities Initiative by City Council
adoption of a resolution to endorse the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and to
commit to the following: (i) green” city vehicle fleets with hybrid and other cleaner cars; (ii)
-5-
DRAFT
modernize city buildings with money-saving energy-efficiency technology; and (iii) invest in
clean and safe renewable energy.
Recommend the City join the ICLEI “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign” by
2.
adopting a resolution of support and commitment (see Attachment B for ICLEI’s proposed
resolution). If the City joins this campaign, the City would have to commit to five milestones:
1) conduct a baseline emissions inventory and forecast; 2) adopt an emissions reduction target
for the forecast year; 3) develop a local action plan; 4) implement policies and measures; and
5) evaluate, report on progress and update plans. These milestones differ from the Cool Cities
requirements in that they are more general targets rather than specific actions.
3.
Recommend the City Council adopt a Charlotte-specific resolution to commit the
City to GHG emissions reduction. Based on Committee direction and guidance, staff has
tailored a draft resolution for Charlotte, drawing from targets in the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement and from the adopted Mecklenburg County resolution (see Attachment E,
also included for comparison is the 2/15/07 version). Staff has shared this document with the
local Sierra Club representative. It is our understanding that the resolution, if adopted, would
qualify the City for both the Cool Cities initiative and for the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection
campaign.
4.
Recommend the City Council use a Request for Council Action to direct City
staff to take actions to further reduce GHG emissions. The specific actions in the Request for
Council Action could be the same as those proposed on page 3 of the Charlotte-specific
resolution described above, but under this option, the Council would not be asked to adopt a
resolution.
It is staff’s understanding that to be considered a “Cool City” by the Sierra Club or to be
recognized as part of the ICLEI “Cities for Climate Protection” initiative, a formal resolution
must be adopted.
-6-
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Utilities
Environment
Committee
March 19, 2007
Consolidation
1972
Mecklenburg Co.
Charlotte
Davidson
Cornelius
Consolidation
1980s
Huntersville
Mecklenburg Co.
Charlotte
Mint Hill
Matthews
Pineville
Cabarrus
Regional
Agreements
1990s
Rocky River
Regional WWTP
Reedy/McKee
Metered Connections:
• Concord - 3
• Union Co.
• Lancaster Co. SC
• York Co.
McAlpine WWTP
Six Mile
Union
Today
Lake Norman
• Water Intakes – 2
McDowell
• Water Treatment Plants – 3
Lee S. Dukes
Mountain
Island
Mallard
Franklin
Vest
Irwin
Sugar
McAlpine
• Wastewater Treatment Plants – 5
• Lift Stations – 72
• Miles of Pipe W/S – 6,961
6,961 Miles of Pipe Water & Sewer
Today
Intake
• Water Intakes – 2
• Water Treatment Plants – 3
Lee S. Dukes
McDowell
Intake
Mallard
• Wastewater Treatment Plants – 5
• Lift Stations – 72
• Miles of Pipe W/S – 6,961
• Connections – 238,405
Franklin
Vest
Irwin
Sugar
McAlpine
Net Book Value – $2.4 B
Advisory Committee
‹
‹
‹
‹
City Council – 3
County Commission – 3
Mayor – 1
Seven Members Representing:
„
„
„
„
„
„
Real Estate Developer
Contractor Water/Sewer
Neighborhood Leader
Civil Engineer Water/Sewer
Financial Expert
Mecklenburg Towns
Advisory Committee Charge
‹ Review
all capital improvement programs
‹ Review
proposed changes in the method for
determining water and sewer charges
‹ Review
proposed changes in the policy for
extending water and sewer service
Major Issues
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
‹
Wastewater Capacity Needs
Water Master Plan
Duke Re-licensing
Interbasin Transfer
Sewer Relief lines in urban areas
Sewer Overflows
Major Issues
Wastewater Capacity
Needs
Major Issues
Water Master Plan
• Southwest Water Supply
• West Blvd. to Park Rd.
• West Blvd.
• Park Rd.
• Northeast Water Supply
Major Issues
Duke Re-licensing
Major Issues
Interbasin
Transfer
Union
Major Issues
Sewer Relief lines in
Urban Areas
• Long Creek
• Irwin Creek
• Briar Creek
• McAlpine Creek
Union
Sewer Overflows
600
533
500
400
370
347
344
300
250
241
199
200
100
Union
0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
To date
(FISCAL YEAR)
Major Projects
• Briar Creek Outfall
• McDowell WWTP Expansion
• Southwest Water Line
• McAlpine Outfall
• Wastewater Lines Rehab (2008-12)
• Sugar Creek Pump Station
• McAlpine Pump Station
• Irwin Outfall
• Long Creek Outfall
$101 M
$91 M
$83 M
$78 M
$50 M
$51 M
$37 M
$38 M
$20 M
Questions?