Upload
josephine-king
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Energy PolicyDevelopment
Process and outcomes in local government
American Planning Association MN Chapter Annual Conference
St. Cloud, MN
September 28, 2011
SETTING THE STAGE
DAKOTA COUNTYENERGY PLANNING
Dakota County
• Third largest county in Minnesota (398,500)
• Located in Twin Cities metro area
• Rapid growth earlier decades,slowed 2000-10
Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG)
• Governor directed group to recommend policy options, final report 2008
• Local government can be leader in GHG reductions– inventory sources– establish reduction targets
Regional Efforts
• Metropolitan Energy Policy Coalition (MEPC)– Energy efficiency and conservation– Greenhouse gas management and reporting– Legislation and advocacy
Comprehensive Plan 2030
• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions• Achieve optimal energy use and conservation, and
transition to sustainable energy sources• Plan, design, and construct sustainable public
buildings in Dakota County• Prevent waste generation• Reduce demand for automobile transportation• Create an environmentally sensitive
transportation system
Source: DC2030 Executive Summary
Dakota County Efforts Underway
• DC Design, Construction and Sustainability Standards
• Lighting Retrofit/Rebates
• Park System and Comprehensive Plans
• Recycling
• Transit Options
• Alternative Energy
• E-government and Videoconferencing
• Hybrid fleet vehicles
Board Direction for Energy Work
2009 Board goal: “Achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and support transition to alternative/renewable energy by adopting and implementing a County energy plan and related sustainability strategies.”
THE PROCESS AND FINDINGS
DAKOTA COUNTYENERGY PLANNING
Energy Subcommittees
• Buildings and Grounds– Facilities– Parks
• Natural Resources– County-owned land– Research opportunities
• Transportation– Fleet– Vehicle miles traveled
• Met monthly
• About eight staff per committee
• Cross-disciplinary
Research TemplateDakota County Energy Policy
Transportation Subcommittee
Strategy Research and Presentation Template October 21, 2008 Please use this template to prepare a brief (5 minute) presentation for each of your strategies. This form should also be submitted electronically to Heather. Your Name: Strategy Category: Strategy Name: Strategy Description (brief paragraph/bullets of WHAT the strategy is and means and the County’s role – advocate, mandate, policy): Value and Impact (WHY is this strategy important and needed to meet stated goals? WHAT is the primary benefit to implementing this strategy – reduce, renew, restore? If possible, quantify HOW MUCH you think this strategy could ultimately impact energy use? What would be the anticipated life-cycle cost of this strategy?
Measures: Greenhouse gas equivalent reductions (impact) and costs.
Greenhouse gas equivalent: Cost/Investment:
Low-cost—less than $10,000
Medium-cost—$10-250,000
High-cost—more than $250,000
Capacity and Leadership (HOW is this strategy in place today in Dakota County or elsewhere? If this is a new model here in Dakota County/Minnesota, is there anywhere else where it is being done and how has it been successful? WHO should be involved in moving it forward?) Timeline and Feasibility (WHEN can this strategy reasonably be implemented? WHAT level of effort is required to implement it? WHAT are the primary barriers or potential pitfalls that might have to be overcome (e.g., Policy, Political Environment, Culture, Budget, Staffing, Technology, Availability) Intersections (HOW does this strategy interrelate to other strategies, if it does? HOW should they be brought together to the greatest effect?) Action Steps (Based on your research, WHERE would you recommend this be implemented, such as countywide or a demonstration project with one entity? HOW would you write the first action step?): Other (Share any other specific information about this strategy that is important for implementation):
Measures: Timeframe and Initial Investment (person hours).
Short-term—less than 2 years Low effort—less than 100 hours
Mid-term—2 -5 years Medium effort—100 to 300 hours
Long-term—5 years or more High effort—more than 300 hours
Energy Subcommittees
Criteria Name
Definition Measure Scoring
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission Reduction Return on Investment (ROI) Potential
Projected reduction in GHG emissions for the initial investment and recurring costs associated with the strategy
Dollars ($) per ton of CO2
Strategies will be ranked L, M, and H potential. Break points for L, M, and H will be determined after more calculations are completed
Energy and Cost Savings Potential
Projected reduction in energy consumed for the initial investment and recurring costs associated with the strategy
Net fiscal impact ($), including net County fiscal impact ($). (Some costs/benefit is accrued beyond the County). Energy saved is calculated by appropriate measures, such as KWh or Gallons of Fuel, and is part of the net fiscal impact
Strategies will be ranked L, M, and H potential. Break points for L, M, and H will be determined after more calculations are completed
Leadership Potential
Degree to which the strategy:a. Models energy
conservation/ GHG reduction visibly
b. Anticipates the futurec. Leverages other
resources or public benefit
d. Motivates and provides opportunity for others
Each sub-category will be rated as follows:Low=1 pointMedium=2 pointsHigh=3 points
Each sub-category will be measured individually (1-3) and then all categories tallied, for a total of 12 possible points.
Scoring criteria used to screen and filter initial ideas:• Consistent• Objective• Multi-
dimensional
Goals and Objectives Defined
Goals:• Reduce (energy consumed)
• Renew (use renewable resources)
• Restore (sequester carbon by
restoring natural landscapes)
Objective Themes:
Advocate Policy Change
Make Operational
Improvements
Model Behavior
Motivate and Provide
Opportunities for Others
Anticipate the Future
Dakota County Greenhouse Gas Inventory (2005): Government Operations
Buildings
68%
Employee Commute
21%
Vehicle Fleet
9%Traffic Signals
1%Waste
1%
Dakota County Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, 2009
Total=
27,120 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Framework Target Strategies
Dakota County can positively impact energy and greenhouse gas emissions and save money or be cost neutral.
Statement of Energy Principles
“Dakota County will reduce energy consumed and greenhouse gas emitted, use renewable resources, and sequester carbon. To do so will require ongoing commitment and leadership as demonstrated through the following principles...”
Statement of Energy Principles• Reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from buildings through
design, construction, operations, and user habits.
• Reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in transportation through transportation fuel alternatives, fleet related business practices, and transportation system design and use.
• Manage waste, land, and water to conserve energy and sequester carbon.
• Increase renewable energy use to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.
• Inform, advocate, and anticipate the future with others to collectively conserve energy, transition to renewable resources, and sequester carbon.
EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET
The Importance of Targets…
• Provide one or more endpoints toward which efforts are focused
• Enable benchmarks to know if we are making progress
• Signal our collective effort and commitment
• Align ourselves with scientific consensus on necessary reductions
Emissions Reduction Targets Reviewed other targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 levels, to show consistency and potential to achieve the targets
15% by 201530% by 202580% by 2050
If we followed State targets…
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
Tons
of G
HG
27,120
5,42415%
30%
80%
Dakota County can meet the 2015 target for government operations, using the following proposed strategies, and save money.
PROPOSED STRATEGY PACKAGEInternal Strategies
Developing Strategies
• Each subcommittee tasked with developing and ranking strategies
• 72 strategies were developedo 0-4 hours of research per strategy to estimate
impacts and costso Subcommittees ranked strategies, then an exercise
was used with the full group to prioritize among them
Evaluation Criteria Applied
1. Cost per ton of GHG avoided
2. Net Fiscal Impact
3. Leadership potential
4. Potential to avoid GHG
Developing the Strategy Package:
• Meet the 2015 target• Net cost-neutral or better• Represent the three goals• Use strong assumptions and data
10% Fuel Efficiency Increase by Class
Reduce:
11 mt
Promote Employee Transit Use
Reduce:
25 mt
Increase Employee Recycling 15%
Reduce:
32 mt
Cellulosic Biomass for Biofuel
Reduce:
160 mt
Environmentally Preferred Purchasing
Reduce:
221 mt
EECBG Projects
Reduce:
423 mt
Improve Building Efficiency 10%
Reduce:
1,619 mt
Build a 1 MW Wind Turbine
Reduce:
1,950 mt
Dollars Spent (or Saved) Per Metric Ton of GHG Avoided
10% Fuel
Efficie
ncy Incre
ase by C
lass
Promote
Emply
Transit
Use
Increase
Emp re
cyclin
g 15%
40-acre
Biomass pro
duction fo
r biofuel
Envir
onmental
ly Pref
erred
Purchasi
ng
EECBG pro
grams
Impro
ve To
tal Bldg E
nergy E
fficiency
10%
Wind Tu
rbine
$(225.77)
$530.14
$312.50
$31.34
$(101.17) $(117.82)
$(1.73) $3.12
Annual Net Fiscal Impact and GHG Avoided
10% Fuel
Efficie
ncy Incre
ase by C
lass
Promote
Emply
Transit
Use
Increase
Emp re
cyclin
g 15%
40-acre
Biomass pro
duction fo
r biofuel
Envir
onmental
ly Pref
erred
Purchasi
ng
EECBG pro
grams
Impro
ve To
tal Bldg E
nergy E
fficiency
10%
Wind Tu
rbine
(750)
(250)
250
750
1,250
1,750
2,250
$(20,000)
$(10,000)
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$2,423
$(13,322) $(10,000)
$(5,000)
$22,325
$49,839
$2,806
$(6,088)
GHG Avoided Fiscal Impact to County
GHG Emissions from County Operations - 2005
Buildings
68%
Employee Commute
21%
Vehicle Fleet
9%
Traffic Signals
1%Waste
1%
Dakota County Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report, 2009
Total=
27,120 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)
Impact of Proposed Strategies
16% (reduced
emissions)
84% (remaining footprint)
16% (reduced
emissions)
84% (remaining footprint)
Save $40,000Annually
Impact of Proposed Strategies
Impact of All Internal Strategies
50%
50%
Recommended Strategies
Other Internal Strategies
2015 Target: 15% Reduction
If Dakota County implements
proposed strategies from 2010-2015, we can meet this target (using
2005 baseline data)
We would need to double our reductions to
reduce emissions 30%.
2025 Target: 30% Reduction
2050 Target: 80% Reduction
We would need to do five times as much to reduce emissions 80%.
Not all strategies are scalable…
EXTERNAL/COMMUNITYSTRATEGY OPTIONS
Example Strategies and Policy Questions
Why look externally?
• Climate change will affect government operations (environment, water, public health)
• Federal and state mandates likely forthcoming
• Position ourselves to receive funds
• Some role unique to or best suited to counties
• Our decisions and actions impact our residents energy use
Why look externally?
• MCCAG major Recommendations: – Reduce VMT– Biofuels– Forestry Management– Recycling/Waste
Management– Public Education and
Outreach
County Government Operations:
27,120 metric tons
annually
Viewing Ourselves in Context
Govt. OperationsVMT on County Roads
440,000 MT from travel on County Roads…
Govt. Operations
VMT on County Roads
Dakota County Households
2.7 million MT from households…
Neighborhood Energy Sweep
Reduce:
222 mt
Improve Signalized Intersection Efficiency
Reduce:
447 mt
Work with CDA to Improve Efficiency in Units
Reduce:
1,098 mt
Reduce VMT by 1%
Reduce:
3,900 mt
Green Building Initiatives
Reduce:
9,600mt
Increase Municipal Recycling by 10%
Reduce:
174,000mt
Example External Strategies
Neighborhood Energ
y Sweep
Signaliz
ed Interse
ction Efficie
ncy
Impro
ve energ
y efficie
ncy 2% in
CDA units
Reduce VM
T 1%
Green Build
ing Initiative
s
Increase
MSW
Recycli
ng by 10%
$248
$14
$(58)
$44 $6 $6
$ Spent or (Saved) per Metric Ton Avoided (External Strategies)
Example External Strategies
Neighborhood Energ
y Sweep
Signaliz
ed Interse
ction Efficie
ncy
Impro
ve energ
y efficie
ncy 2% in
CDA units
Reduce VM
T 1%
Green Build
ing Initiative
s
Increase
MSW
Recycli
ng by 10%
(200,000)
(150,000)
(100,000)
(50,000)
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
$(1,500,000)
$(1,000,000)
$(500,000)
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$(55,100) $(6,195)
$63,497
$(175,000) $(56,581)
$(1,000,000)
$26,300 $100,945 $79,617
$901,000 $1,084,135
Annual Net Fiscal Impact & GHG Avoided (External Strategies)
GHG Avoided Fiscal Impact to County Fiscal Benefit to Public
Example External Strategies (minus recycling)
Neighborhood Energ
y Sweep
Signaliz
ed Interse
ction Efficie
ncy
Impro
ve energ
y efficie
ncy 2% in
CDA units
Reduce VM
T 1%
Green Build
ing Initiative
s (4,000)
(2,000)
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
$(400,000)
$(200,000)
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$(55,100) $(6,195)
$63,497
$(175,000) $(56,581)
$26,300 $100,945 $79,617
$901,000 $1,084,135
Annual Net Fiscal Impact & GHG Avoided (External Strategies)
GHG Avoided Fiscal Impact to County Fiscal Benefit to Public
Dakota County is well-positioned to affect change, realize benefit, and respond to future change beyond government operations.
Energy Principles, Plan, and Practices
APPROVALS AND IMPLEMENTATIONEnergy Principles, Policies, and Practices
• Adopted resolution 09-526– Adopt energy principles– Adopt government operations GHG reduction
target– Authorize implementation
• Established 2010 Energy Board Goal– Reduce costs of County services and operations by:
• Reducing County energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions
• Implement Energy Plan strategies – (largely internal)
Immediate Action
Intermediate Action
• Completed 2009 Government Operations GHG Inventory and Community GHG Inventory
• Continued Facilities/Fleet strategies with demonstrated results
• GreenCorps Member
Challenges
• Staff leaving the County; function not replaced
• Budget cuts and prioritization
• Accounting for weather
• Addition of new facilities
Performance To Date
Buildings
• GHG emissions up 2% between 2005 and 2009
• Existing buildings becoming more energy efficient– Total gas and electricity usage increased, but
decreased if you discount new construction
• 2010 data will show further efficiency gains– Results of some projects not measurable in 2009
Fleet
Largest source of overall emissions reduction:
• Decreased miles driven by 3.7%
• Reduced fuel gallons burned by 26%
• Decreased GHG emissions by 27%
Business Travel
• Business travel (total reimbursable miles) decreased 4.4% between 2005 and 2009
• Greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 8% (employee vehicles assumed to be slightly more fuel efficient)
Traffic Signals• Total number of traffic signals increased
• Energy use decreased by 11% due to increased use of LED signals
• Greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 12%
• Future opportunities for additional efficiency are limited
2011 Board Priorities
Conserve energy and save costs by implementing strategic changes in operations, specifically:
• Reduce annual electricity consumption by 1% over 2010 levels, by year end 2011.
(This will translate into a projected $15,000 annual savings.)
• Replace 16 vehicles with those that are, on average, 10% more fuel efficient.
(This will translate into a projected 1,601 gallons of fuel and $4,803 savings annually over replacement vehicles-65% unleaded gas and 35% diesel fuel.)
Thank youQuestions?