Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
“Cool Cities” Resolution
No action.
II.
Subject:
Next Meeting:
Monday, March 19, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Pat Mumford, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter and
Don Lochman
3:30 p.m. to 4:50 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
2. Handouts: “Cool Cities” Presentation
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked those in attendance
to introduce themselves. He reminded the Committee that the “Cool Cities” resolution is
one possible way cities can start to take steps to reduce greenhouse gases. Following the
presentation at the last Committee meeting, there were several questions that staff will be
addressing today.
I.
“Cool Cities” Resolution
Julie Burch advised the Committee staff wanted to build on the information that was
presented at the last meeting. If the Committee and ultimately Council wants to be a
“Cool City”, there are several approaches. 1) Endorse the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement; 2) Join “Cool Cities”, which includes the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement; or 3) Adopt our own resolution [draft for discussion attached].
Today’s discussion will include looking at the revised resolution, and looking at some
information from other cities in North Carolina that have signed onto the agreement. Rob
Phocas and Wilson Hopper have some research to present. Staff would like to talk about
a specific target that has some challenges for Engineering staff and that is determining
global warming emissions. Specifically, how do we determine the emissions? So, we
looked at some other cities. There are three targets with the Mayor’s Climate Protection
Agreement that are challenging.
Mumford:
Did the Mayor have a problem with this agreement? I remember a year or
so ago there were two different initiatives and he agreed to one, but there
was a different one with the Seattle Mayor? Where does that stand?
Which agreement are we looking at?
Phocas:
The Seattle one includes the Mayor’s Protection Agreement; I’m not
familiar with another one.
Mumford:
We might need to investigate that.
Burch:
I know there were some questions about the Kyoto Protocol, but we’ll find
out more about that.
Foxx:
Just as a follow-up, my understanding is that if Council adopted the
resolution, we can’t be a part without the Mayor’s signature. The Council
can’t put the City into the Mayor’s Agreement; the Mayor has to do it.
Burgess:
So, can the Mayor sign without Council’s agreement?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 3
Foxx:
If he wanted to, he could. But, I think he would discuss it with Council.
Burgess:
I get a lot of questions about whether or not Charlotte is signing on. There
are 58 million people that live in cities that have signed on. I don’t know
how they got there, but over 350 cities have done this.
Foxx:
The Mayor’s Agreement is not the only game in town. The Sierra Club
has the “Cool Cities” Initiative that Council can act on. They all get to the
same issue.
Burgess:
I would like to see us sign the US Conference of Mayors and “Cool
Cities”.
Burch:
If you join “Cool Cities” – you are signing up to the US Climate
Protection Agreement.
Lochman:
I was determined not to express an opinion, but I have a lot of trouble with
resolutions. The Kyoto information is just mind-numbing. My preference
would be to create some kind of action plan and that would show the City
of Charlotte thinks this is important. Some of the language is beyond our
ability to implement. Look at the first whereas … it says “warming of the
climate system is unequivocal…” I don’t know that we can say that. A lot
of highly respected people don’t agree with that comment. But, that is just
an example that we are not in a position here, we do not have the technical
expertise to make that statement.
Foxx:
I hope that you will pursue the action steps and your concerns are
addressed. With the resolution, we are saying locally we want to reduce
our emissions, but using the standards of the 1990 levels, I’m not sure we
can. I’m not sure we can understand those levels to use as a benchmark.
Lochman:
Some of these items are tangible, but we need to get rid of some of these
global statements.
Burch:
We can get you some information from other cities and talk more
specifically about the inventory piece.
Ms. Burch then turned the meeting over to Rob Phocas to discuss the results of his
interviews with our peer cities in North Carolina (presentation attached).
Foxx:
How did Raleigh come up with a target of a 20% reduction? Did they do
an inventory?
Phocas:
Lochman:
We can find that out. Chapel Hill has established a 60% goal.
Could you get access to a specific plan for how they’ll accomplish this?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 4
Phocas:
I think we can get access to that.
Mumford:
Is the assumption that these cities will make their own fiscal plan?
Phocas:
Right. It is not part of the larger community.
Burgess:
What is ICLEI?
Phocas:
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. They are a
non-profit organization dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Carter:
Did you contact Wilmington?
Phocas:
No, we have not.
Carter:
Have we committed to using the ICLEI software?
Burch:
We have still been researching them. It is about $3,500 to purchase the
software. They might be a good resource for us, but we have not
committed to join them yet. We are meeting with a representative next
week.
Carter:
I thought part of the conversation at the last meeting was finding access to
this information would be useful. I thought there was a positive approach
from staff to bringing them to the table.
Burch:
We are looking at using them as a tool. The language in the resolution
requires some additional discussion with the County regarding resources.
We have had a brief exchange with COG as well towards being more
collaborative. We thought it was logical to approach them. But, we are
looking at several resources.
Ms. Burch continued that the next segment of the presentation shows how current
Council policies already apply to several targets.
#2 – Land Use Policies
#3 – Transportation Options
#5 – Building Energy Efficiency
#6 – Energy Start Equipment
#8 – Vehicle Fuel Efficiency
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 5
Foxx:
On those items that relate more to the private sector, we might want to
include language that has staff survey our private sector resources that we
could leverage to help us accomplish our goals. As an example, regarding
building efficiency, we could have Duke Energy perform an energy audit
to see if we can increase our efficiencies. There might be some other
things out that have high benefit, but low cost.
Burgess:
#7 [LEED certification] – Is the expectation that we will make a
commitment that all buildings will be LEED certified?
Burch:
I think the resolution is drafted so that it reads we will practice and
promote using LEED or similar processes.
Burgess:
Look at the NC Senate. Senator Basnight said that 10 years ago or even 5
years ago he didn’t believe there was a problem, now he is sure there is.
So, he required all the light bulbs to be changed and they are saving
$30,000/year now. If the NC Senate is looking at this, what can we expect
from them?
Burch:
I don’t know if there will be changes to the State building review process
or not.
Burgess:
I expect there will be some action here.
Garner:
We are actually meeting with a representative next week. There has been
some turnover in that office, but we want to get synched up with them.
Burch:
With the State Energy Office?
Garner:
Yes.
Lochman:
What is the premium to adding LEED to capital construction?
Schumacher: Anywhere from $3.00 to $15.00/sq. ft. of construction cost. There could
be some lower operating costs over time. Some would say it is close to a
quarter of a million dollars in administrative fees to get the certification.
Carter:
I know folks are lobbying NLC to ask them to bring the cost down to be
more reasonable. I hope that if this is more widespread they will bring the
cost down at least for the certification.
Ms. Burch continued that targets #1, #4, and #12 need more study and will require some
effort to gather the information.
Mumford:
I assume we are looking at today’s data, not data from 1990?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 6
Schumacher: Yes. Acquiring information from 1990 will be a challenge.
Mumford:
I don’t see the point in going through the effort to get information from
1990. That’s not what we’re after to move us forward. We have data
today. We need to figure out what to implement. I’m fine not making
comparisons to other cities’ data from 1990.
Schumacher: I think staff would agree.
Lochman:
Out of curiosity, how do we arrive at 7% reductions of the 1990 levels by
2012 without that information?
Schumacher: We don’t. But, that is the language from the Kyoto Protocol.
Foxx:
Part of the issue is we didn’t know how difficult it would be to get the
1990 numbers to figure out 7% below. In light of what is going on today,
I don’t have a strong feeling that we need to include the 1990 levels.
Lochman:
To me, why is it 7% versus 3% versus 14%.
Foxx:
I’m sure there was some basis for that, but I don’t know what that was.
Burgess:
I think it irrelevant because we have had significant growth since 1990.
There is no way to calculate this. We could guess, but the numbers would
have to be increased by whatever we think the growth was and there is no
way to prove that. It is not relevant to Charlotte.
Mumford:
What if we don’t meet the numbers for reductions? What if there is a
practical reason we can’t reduce 7%? As Mayor Pro Tem Burgess
suggested, so what? We need data from staff that says what’s practical,
what’s the most we can reduce, what will the cost be and then debate that
at a policy level. We don’t want to debate the science. I think we agree
that greenhouse gases aren’t good. We need to come up with a smart way
to reduce bad things while balancing our other needs. We need to
establish a percentage that is relevant to the City of Charlotte and not
compare ourselves to other cities that have different challenges and
weather patterns.
Burch:
I think we would suggest preparing a baseline inventory and then see what
target we could reach by 2012. It’s hard to set a target now because we
don’t know what we are dealing with.
Foxx:
So, do we take out the 7%?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 7
Burgess:
If we do that, will that preclude us from signing the US Climate Protection
Agreement?
Foxx:
We can’t put us in the US Climate Protection resolution. The Mayor’s use
the 1990 standard, but we can’t retroactively understand those levels.
Burgess:
I would like to see us pass this and not consider other resolutions as an
either/or.
Foxx:
My view is that it is important for us to acknowledge our role in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and we need to develop a plan to do that. It
doesn’t have to be the US Conference of Mayors resolution.
Mumford:
We do quite a bit of work without resolutions. I’m sure we don’t need an
official resolution to look at this. We don’t need to spend time
wordsmithing this one. This fits into the Focus Area Plan. All of these
goals fit. We don’t do many resolutions and I think this is covered in the
Focus Area Plan.
Carter:
I think publicizing our involvement is important. We should establish a
benchmark. It is a good thing going forward for Charlotte to be a
participant.
Mumford:
The Committee has the Focus Area Plan that we can use just as easily as a
resolution. I think we are discussing a resolution that is the latest iteration
of something that we should be talking about that benefits our city. It
feels out of place here.
Lochman:
I would be comfortable with an action plan out of the Focus Area Plan.
That makes more sense to me. No global statements – they are
unnecessary and inaccurate and bring nothing to the table. I like an action
plan with accurate objectives.
Foxx:
We’re talking form and substance here and I would argue for approval. If
the substance is the same thing, then there is no harm in a resolution and
the Focus Area Plan. It sends a sign locally and nationally that Charlotte
thinks the state of the environment is important.
Burgess:
If we are all committed to action, I would argue that we need a stronger
resolution. It is more enduring and we join a greater effort. It emboldens
us to do our part regionally, for the State and on an international basis.
We need to make a commitment to the greater effort. I would like to see
us sign the US Conference of Mayors resolution and get us to a place
where we are considered a “Cool City”. I don’t think there is anything
we can’t do. This document was written in 1990. I don’t think they
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 8
expected us to start 17 years later, so I can’t believe we would be held to
that today. We need to explore that, but I would like to see us pass the
resolution and go further.
Lochman:
There are 12 targets and commitment to ones that we can’t do or don’t
make sense, I think is irresponsible to pursue. I don’t want to agree to
something that is inaccurate and I am uncomfortable with “unequivocal”.
Everyone doesn’t have expertise here. There is a wide body of sentiment
that says it is true and a wide body of sentiment that says it is not true.
Foxx:
As I read the language, I don’t think it says the City of Charlotte finds
“unequivocal”.
Lochman:
I think it sets the ground for activities that I couldn’t vote to support. I
don’t know if it is accurate or inaccurate.
Ms. Burch reminded the Committee that the global emissions inventory does require
work. She noted that targets #4 and #12 were not addressed in staff’s draft resolution
except generically as part of the last bullet. Staff has spent time researching those
targets. An elaborate effort could cost a lot of money and could be a lot of work.
Foxx:
I think all of these will take time.
Burch:
Once we have an inventory, we’ll have a little better handle on the others.
Burgess:
I think this is about forming partnerships. We don’t have to do all of this
on our own. There are environmental groups we can work with.
Renewable energy, for example, at our last meeting we had a discussion
on solar lights on I-277. We could keep some kind of track record on our
agendas for those kinds of actions.
Burch:
Renewal Energy and “green tags” are a good example of things we have
not researched yet. But, I agree about the partnerships. There will be
some financial resources involved.
Mumford:
I would like to try again to dissuade us from signing a resolution. We can
work with NLC, NCLM – we don’t have to sign up like 350 other cities.
Other communities look to Charlotte for Housing, Police, Transportation,
Budget, and Utilities; they will look to us for the Environment too. We
did it on our own. We don’t need to be a part of something else. We need
a stronger action plan rather than a resolution. I feel like we’re running in
circles and there is no substance. I agree the science is profound and real
and let’s pay attention. But, we need to figure this out and not just put
words in a policy document. We need to make it real in the community
and obligate other Councils. We have used the same format to do some
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 9
good work. Other communities look to us. We don’t need a resolution.
There is just not enough substance there for me.
Burgess:
We are doing fine things with affordable housing, but we’re not a national
leader. I think this is appropriate for us. Climate change is interdependent
and if we work together, in five years we could see a difference. I don’t
think we can just do action plans, we need a coordinated effort and this
resolution makes us part of the larger effort. I would like to see us support
the resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Burgess then made a motion to adopt the resolution. There was no
second. Council member Foxx asked Council member Mumford to assume the
Chairmanship of the Committee, so he could second the motion.
Foxx:
I think we have had some good discussion and I understand where folks
are coming from. At some level, we do owe our neighboring communities
and this resolution gives us an opportunity to say we want to partner with
them. A focus area plan does not. I think having a Council statement is
important. I don’t think the resolution excludes us from being a “cool
city”. We can go back and change some of the language to address the
inventory and take out the 1990 levels. I think we need to get the
resolution to what staff thinks is achievable.
Carter:
I think partnership is crucial and I think it has begun because of this
resolution. I think it helps focus staff and us on the issues, but I don’t
think it goes far enough. I don’t think the resolution is ready. I can’t give
a direct statement, but I think we need more advocacy for renewable fuels.
We have a role, an important role, but I think there are some points that
we need to rework.
Foxx:
What are some other points?
Carter:
Again, advocacy, being partners with regionalism, health control.
Burgess:
Do you have some recommended language?
Carter:
I don’t think we have the basis to get to that yet. I don’t want to
recommend something incomplete.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for February 19, 2007
Page 10
Lochman:
I don’t want to pass a resolution that includes actions that we might not
meet.
Foxx:
There is always some uncertainty.
Burgess:
I withdraw the motion.
Burch:
Some of the resources necessary will have a financial impact. Staff is
wrestling with not wanting to advocate for something that we can’t
deliver. We don’t have the expertise now, we need some time.
Sustainable environment needs more work. If Council wishes to invest in
green tags, we need to do more research. We share a similar concern.
But, it is up to City Council if you want to sign the resolution.
Foxx:
I think with the Focus Area Plan or with the resolution we are still going
in blind even with the inventory. I think we are on a path of creating a
development plan to implement goals and we need to see the cost. We all
agree we need a better environmental policy. We also need to see where
some of the other committees are with their work that impacts this.
Carter:
We need to make sure this is a priority for all of Council to devote staff
time.
Foxx:
We should spend some time educating Council. The science is out there.
But, it would be enormously helpful to have the language and resolution
part of the Focus Area Plan process. As information, by not approving
this resolution today, we are pushing this out to the third week in March.
But, I think it is well worth the time. I hope that between now and
March, Committee members will send their thoughts to staff to
incorporate.
Burch:
Council’s first opportunity to review the Environment Focus Area Plan
will be on Monday night. As a reminder, it was postponed from the
Council retreat and will be subject to full Council approval. One option
would be to include the global warming inventory in the Focus Area Plan.
But, I think for the very first plan for the environment, this is still pretty
aggressive. We’ll have some additional content on Monday.
II.
Next Meeting
The Committee will meet on March 19 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Meeting adjourned.
Environment Committee
Monday, February 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.
“Cool Cities” Resolution – Julie Burch and Rob Phocas
Staff will provide additional information about conducting a global warming
emissions inventory and other cities’ approaches to that and other climate protection
targets. A second draft of a possible resolution will be discussed (attachment)
II.
Distribution:
Next Meeting: Monday, March 19, 3:30 p.m. in Room 280
Agenda: Briefing on Utilities Enterprise Budget
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
Jim Schumacher
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders
David Garner
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
PCCO Stakeholders
Sue Rutledge
DRAFT
February 15, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
RESOLUTION
City of Charlotte Commitment to Climate Protection
WHEREAS the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change released a report on Feb
1, 2007, stating that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident
from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread
melting of snow and ice and rising global mean sea level; {from the IPCC report}
WHEREAS the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that most
of the global warming occurring over the last fifty (50) years is very likely in response to
increased greenhouse gas (“GHG”) concentrations primarily attributable to human
activities that have caused increased emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), halogenated fluorocarbons (HCFCs), ozone (O3), perfluorinated
carbons (PFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); and {taken from County resolution –
with the word “very” added as a result of new report}
WHEREAS over 350 jurisdictions throughout the United States have adopted resolutions
regarding climate protection, including endorsement of the U.S. Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement and participation in the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives’ Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, both of which call for
conducting GHG inventories, taking actions to reduce GHG emissions and raising public
awareness regarding climate change; {County resolution}
WHEREAS in accordance with the Clean Smokestacks Act (CSA) passed in June 2002,
the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (DAQ) has completed studies and made
recommendations to the North Carolina Environmental Management Commission and
the North Carolina Environmental Review Commission regarding GHG emissions and
steps that can be taken to reduce GHG emissions, especially reducing the use of energy;
{County resolution}
WHEREAS, the North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation in the summer of
2005, the NC Global Warming Act (S1134), that established a legislative commission to
study issues related to global warming, the emerging carbon economy and whether it is
appropriate and desirable for North Carolina to establish global warming pollutant
reductions goals for North Carolina; and {County resolution}
WHEREAS, in October 2005, the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources published a report entitled Draft North Carolina Greenhouse Gas
Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020 that identifies electricity use and
DRAFT
February 15, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
transportation as the principal sources of GHG emissions in North Carolina; and
{County resolution}
WHEREAS, the City of Charlotte has adopted the “Environment” as one of five Focus
Areas (priorities) for City government and is committed to safeguarding the environment,
balancing environmental health, sound fiscal policy and growth; and
WHEREAS the City has a number of policies and practices in place which already
support the following targets of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement:
•
Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space,
and create compact, walkable urban communities;
•
Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction
programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit;
•
Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements,
retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to
conserve energy and save money;
•
Purchase only energy efficient equipment and appliances, e.g., Energy Star, for
City use;
•
Practice and promote sustainable building practices, using the U.S. Green
Building Council's LEED program or a similar system to identify existing and
emerging sustainable design practices;
•
Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the
number of such vehicles; launch an employee education program including antiidling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel;
•
Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater
systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production;
•
Increase variety of materials recycled and recycling rates in City operations and
in the community; and
•
Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading, lower
urban temperatures and to absorb greenhouse gases.
WHEREAS the City Council of Charlotte, North Carolina is committed to lead by
example in matters related to the environment and climate protection,
-2-
DRAFT
February 15, 2007
For Discussion Purposes Only
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Charlotte, North
Carolina, that the City will continue to support and enhance the climate protection targets
outlined above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City will strive to take additional actions to further
reduce GHG emissions as follows:
•
Conduct an inventory of GHG emissions from City operations; establish a GHG
emissions reduction target that strives to achieve a reduction in GHG emissions
from City operations of 7% below 1990 emissions levels by the year 2012, or as
aggressive and realistic a reduction target that can be met by the year 2012; and
create an action plan and budget designed to meet the established GHG
emissions reduction target.
•
Work with Mecklenburg County and other neighboring communities to conduct
an inventory of GHG emissions for the greater Charlotte metropolitan area.
Once this inventory has been completed, continue this collaboration in an effort
to develop and implement an action plan to reduce GHG emissions in the
greater Charlotte metropolitan area.
•
Collaborate with Mecklenburg County and other neighboring communities to
educate the greater Charlotte metropolitan community about the need for and
benefits of reducing GHG emissions.
Adopted this ______day of __________, 2007.
-3-
Climate Change Initiatives
(Updated)
Council Environment Committee
February 19, 2007
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets:
1.) Inventory global emissions in City operations
and in the community, set reduction targets
and create an action plan.
2.) Adopt land use policies that reduce sprawl,
preserve open space, and create compact,
walkable urban communities.
3.) Promote transportation options such as
bicycle trails, commute trip reduction
programs, incentives for carpooling and
public transit.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
4.) Increase the use of clean, alternative energy
by, for example, investing in “green tags,”
advocating for the development of
renewable energy resources, and
recovering landfill methane for energy
production.
5.) Make energy efficiency a priority through
building code improvements, retrofitting city
facilities with energy efficient lighting and
urging employees to conserve energy and
save money.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
6.) Purchase only Energy Star equipment and
appliance for city use.
7.) Practice and promote sustainable building
practices using the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED program or a similar
system.
8.) Increase the average fuel efficiency of fleet
vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles;
launch an employee education program
including anti-idling messages; convert
diesel vehicles to bio-diesel.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
9.) Evaluate opportunities to increase pump
efficiency in water and wastewater systems;
recover wastewater treatment methane for
energy production.
10.) Increase recycling rates in city operations
and in the community.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
11.) Maintain healthy urban forests;
promote tree planting to increase
shading and to absorb CO2.
12.) Help educate the public, schools, other
jurisdictions, professional associations,
business and industry about reducing
global warming pollution.
US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement
• Includes twelve targets
1.) Inventory global emissions in City operations
and in the community, set reduction targets
and create an action plan.
4.) Increase the use of clean, alternative energy
by, for example, investing in “green tags,”
advocating for the development of
renewable energy resources, and
recovering landfill methane for energy
production.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Tallahassee, FL
– Signed US Mayors Protection Agreement in August 2006
– Unique because city owns and operates the utility
– Target 1
• City calculated its CO2 from city operations and some
outside sources.
• Have not yet begun setting reduction targets or developing
an action plan.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Tallahassee, FL
– Target 4
• Purchasing total output of biomass plant coming online
in 2010.
• Low interest loans to customers who wish to purchase
solar energy systems.
• Program that allows customers to pay into a renewable
energy resources fund.
• Management program with the goal of reducing electric
demand by 59MW by 2012 and 161MW by 2026.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Kansas City, MO
– Signed US Mayors Agreement in June 2005
– Target 1
• Using ICLEI software
• Plugging in consumption information, vehicle miles traveled,
solid waste produced.
• Trying to collect info from utilities and city-wide
– Target 4
• Under discussion
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Boston, Mass.
– Signed Agreement in April 2006, but not as focused on
meeting the specific Kyoto targets in the Agreement; hard
to get baseline of 1990 levels.
– Target 1
• Conducting baseline inventory in-house using ICLEI
software. Beginning with city facilities . . . hope to
extrapolate results to private sector. Will begin creating
action plan once inventory is complete.
– Target 4
• 8.6% of total energy purchased will be renewable.
• Green building strategy for public as well as private
development.
• Switching to biodiesel busses.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Atlanta, GA
– Signed Agreement in May 2005, but not concerned
with meeting Kyoto levels . . . hope their measures
will surpass these levels.
– Target 1
• working with ICLEI and using their software; used an
outside firm to do an internal audit in 2001. City will use
data from that year to form their baseline because the
1990 level is difficult to determine.
– Target 4
• working with GA Power to come up with solutions; GA
Power donated CFLs to city employees for home use;
considering joining Chicago Climate Exchange.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Houston, TX
– “Strong Mayor” form of government
– Did not sign Agreement, because they did not like its
approach. Houston wants an aggressive and realistic
approach based on their actual emissions data, not
on what they perceive to be is an unscientific target.
– Turned to ICLEI for a more scientific approach and for
access to ICLEI’s resources.
– No intention to sign ICLEI’s climate protection
resolution; Houston will draft their own.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Houston, TX
– Target 1
• Worked with ICLEI and the emissions inventory software.
• Emissions data collected by building services staff and
inputted by and intern.
• Had paid a consultant in 2005 to audit their 2000 and 2005
emissions; ICLEI software produced a comparable result
and was cheaper.
– Target 4
• Houston is buying green tags/renewable energy.
• Texas uses predominantly natural gas . . . City put out an
RFP for a certain percentage of wind power.
• very committed to diversifying, for environmental reasons
but also due to the radical fluctuation of NG.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Raleigh, NC
– Env. Advisory Board working on 3 directives:
– 1) A 20% reduction in fossil fuel use over the next five years.
Currently working on this alone
• Light emitting diodes to be placed in street lights, etc.
• 42 vehicles powered by compressed natural gas, electricity or
ethanol; 75% of diesel fleet operates on biodiesel
• Used grant from NCDENR to build compressed natural gas filling
station
• Working with DOE, Duke Energy and Alliance to Save Energy
(http://www.ase.org) to find additional solutions
• Formal recommendations from Env. Advisory Board expected in
March
– 2) Endorse Agreement/Kyoto Protocol?
– 3) Recommendations for energy efficiency.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Carrboro, NC
– Signed Agreement
– Target 1
• Joined ICLEI and formed partnership with Chapel Hill,
Hillsborough, and Orange County to conduct emissions
inventory and set targets
• Will collect data on industrial energy consumption,
transportation patterns, and waste disposal
• Seek to calculate current emissions but also future
projections
• Seek to identify potential new measures for future targeted
GHG reductions
• Develop GHG emission reduction targets
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Chapel Hill, NC
– Signed Agreement
– Target 1
• Joined ICLEI in 2001 and partnered with Carrboro,
Hillsborough and Orange County to inventory and reduce
emissions
– Reduction levels
• Committed to reducing CO2 emissions to 60% below 2005
levels by the year 2050
• Progressive targets – 5% by 2010, 10% by 2015, etc.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Chapel Hill, NC
– Working with UNC faculty and students to help
achieve targets
– Town has established:
• Energy Bank (revolving loan fund) to promote installation of
energy efficient equipment in town operations. Savings due
to efficiency are put back into the fund.
• “Green Fleets” policy to reduce Co2 emissions.
• “Million Solar Roofs” initiative to promote solar in Chapel Hill.
• Expedited plan review process for developments seeking
LEED certification.
• Updating comprehensive plan to focus on sustainability.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Asheville, NC
– Signed Agreement in October 2005
– Sustainability Advisory Committee has 4 key focus
areas: global warming; clean air; energy.
consumption; leadership in the field.
– Target 1
• Joined ICLEI Climate Protection Campaign in Oct. 2006.
• Following the five milestones of that effort, using ICLEI
software.
– Target 4
• Not actively pursuing, but working with local solar power
manufacturer to potentially put panels on city buildings.
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Asheville, NC
– Other Efforts:
• Actively increasing alternative fuel vehicles in City fleet.
• Constructed a compressed natural gas station.
– Policy: December 2006, city council agreed to
establish an energy conservation goal, includes:
• a commitment that future municipal facilities will be LEED
certified (City Council presentation)
Interviews with Peer Cities about
US Mayors Protection Agreement
• Durham, NC
– Signed Agreement
– Target 1:
• Durham, in conjunction with Durham County has developed
the Durham County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
and Local Action Plan.
• ICLEI was selected as the consultant on the plan, which will
consist of an inventory of greenhouse gas emissions in the
county, a forecast of 2030 emissions, an evaluation of
measures to reduce emissions, and an implementation plan
to achieve emission targets.
• On March 23, 2006, kick-off meeting (presentation) outlining
the development of the action plan.
US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
Targets: Initial Assessment
• Current City practice
- #2 – Land use policies
- #3 – Transportation options
- #5 – Building energy efficiency
- #6 – Energy star equipment
- #8 – Vehicle fuel efficiency
US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
Targets: Initial Assessment
• Enhance current City practice
- #5 – Building energy efficiency
Develop baseline energy consumption model
(Focus Area Plan and Budget)
- #7 – Sustainable architecture
LEED certification for all buildings and/or additional
“green” measures would add capital costs
- #9 – Treatment plant efficiency
Improvement under study by Utilities
- #11 – Tree canopy
Establish baseline assessment of canopy with aerial
photography study (Focus Area Plan and Budget)
US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
Targets: Initial Assessment
• New activities
- #1 – GHG emissions inventory of City operations
Develop baseline inventory
Evaluate viability of establishing 1990 levels
Establish reduction targets
Develop, fund, and implement reduction plan
- #4 – Investing in renewable energy
Needs study
- #12 – Public education
Needs study of effective options for collaboration with
Mecklenburg County and other entities
GHG Emissions Inventory of City Operations
Potential Next Steps
•
•
•
•
•
Coordination with Mecklenburg County
Test existing inventory software
Evaluate additional ICLEI resources
Complete City operations inventory by June 30
Further activities in accordance with FY08 budget
GHG Emissions Inventory of City Operations
Building gas and electric
consumption.
Street light/traffic signal
electric consumption
Motor fuels broken down
by vehicle type
Employee commute
mileage
Solid waste tons
Data available now.
Data available now.
Can be derived from
existing data
Must research
availability of data
Can be derived from
existing data