energy policy development process and outcomes in local government american planning association mn...

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?