HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12162008 - D.2 I
I
Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Costa
nt E s
FROM: Climate Change Working Group '- County
Osr'1 C011N�
DATE: December 16, 2008
SUBJECT: Municipal Climate Action Plan and Next Steps
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. ADOPT the Municipal Climate Action Plan (MCAP), which includes municipal emissions
reduction targets,'quantifies greenhouse gas reductions from existing municipal programs
as well as potential reductions from the implementation of additional programs, and is
intended to prioritize potential future actions that the County could implement to achieve
the most cost-effective reductions (Attachment A).
2. DIRECT the Climate Change Working Group to return to the Board of Supervisors within
90 days with an evaluation and recommendations for possible application of a climate
protection charge on departments to fund programs identified in the MCAP or to further
community-wide climate protection efforts.
3. DIRECT the Climate Change Working Group to work with the County Administrators Office
to solicit suggestions/input from all County departments and return to the Board of
Supervisors within one year with a report summarizing specific operational measures ("best
practices") that can potentially be implemented at the department-level that would reduce
emissions from County operations, including options for reducing vehicle miles traveled by
employees/visitors (including potential user fee for parking as identified in the MCAP) and
reducing consumption of energy, water and other resources (e.g. paper) at County
facilities.
4. DIRECT the Climate Change Working Group to return to the Board of Supervisors in one
year to provide a status report on implementation of the MCAP measures and
recommendations regarding short-term strategy for further reducing community-wide
greenhouse gas emissions that is financially feasible based on current economy.
5. ACKNOWLEDGE that County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) staff
will submit meeting notes from the Climate Change/AB 32 Task Force, attended by
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema and DCD staff, to the Board of Supervisors consent calendar
whenever they are made available (Attachment B).
I
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES ❑ NO SIGNATURE
COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REC MMENDATION OF RD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
fi P'�JVL M it�KEp
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT:) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
YES. NOES: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Contact: Deidra Dingman (925-335-1224) ATTESTED�� d�
cc: Vince Guise,Agricultural Commissioner DAVI TWA, CLERK OF THE
Catherine Kutsuris, Dept of Conservation &Development(DCD) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Thom Huggett, DCD-Building Inspection COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Dr. Bill Walker, Health Services Department(HSD)
Dr.Wendel Brunner, HSD-Public Health
Mike Lango, General Services Department(GSD)
Julie Bueren, Public Works Department(PWD) BY , DEPUTY
Jason Crapo, County Administrators Office(CAO)
G:\Conservation\DRiley\BoS\BO—Climate-Decl62008.doc
Municipal Climate Action Plan and Next Steps
December 16, 2008
Page 2 of 4
FISCAL IMPACT
Contra Costa County was awarded a Climate Protection Planning grant from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District in the amount of $40,000 (which became effective in April 2008) to
fund certain staff costs associated with the development of the Municipal Climate Action Plan
(MCAP). The implementation of the measures identified in the MCAP should not be expected
to be funded within existing maintenance and departmental budgets and will require additional
funding in most if not all cases. (Specific implementation costs can be found in Section 6 of the
MCAP.) However, all but one of the fifteen proposed measures included in the MCAP (which
requires further research after completion of a pilot project) have available funding sources,
reasonable payback periods, or even generate revenue. The MCAP includes external funding
opportunities as well as internal mechanisms for generating funding for implementation.
Recommendations 2-5 will involve unfunded staff time to attend meetings and develop reports.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors originally formed the Climate Change Working
Group (CCWG) in May 2005. The CCWG is comprised of the Agricultural Commissioner, the
Deputy Director of Building Inspection, and the Directors of Conservation and Development,
General Services, Health Services, and Public Works. Background regarding the County's
climate protection efforts, including previous Board Orders, is available on the County's website
(www.ccco u nty.us/cl i mate).
The County is approaching the climate protection process in two phases. The first will focus on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by the County's municipal facilities and
operations, and the second will focus on reducing emissions from the greater community.
While community-wide reduction measures may result in greater greenhouse gas reductions,
the County government has greater control over its municipal emissions, and an initial focus on
municipal operations provides an opportunity for the County to lead by example.
The following table illustrates the County's progress in the climate protection process, according
to the milestones outlined in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign designed by ICLEI —
Local Governments for Sustainability (formerly known as the International Council for Local
Environmental Initiatives), to which the County is a member.
Milestone Municipal Community-wide
1. Conduct emissions inventory Completed -July 2008 Completed - July 2008
2. Adopt emissions reduction targets Complete - if Board approves Completed — October 2007
Recommendation 1
Complete - if Board approves Develop short-term strategy
3. Develop climate action plan if Board approves
Recommendation 1 Recommendation 4
Initiate targeted implementation
4. Implement climate action plan if Board approves
Recommendations 2 & 3
Periodic
5. Monitor results (implementation status update
recommended annually, frequency
of re-inventory to be determined
July 2008 - Board accepted the revised "Contra Costa County Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventory Report" (first accepted in October 2007), which summarizes the results of the
County's greenhouse gas emissions inventory for municipal and community-wide emissions.
October 2007- Contra Costa County adopted the long-term community-wide greenhouse gas
reduction target set by the US Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration which calls on
the County to work with local, state, and federal governments and other local leaders to develop
a regional plan to reduce countywide GHG emissions to 80% below baseline levels by 2050.
In October 2007, the Board also authorized the CCWG to develop a Municipal Climate Action
Plan (MCAP). A Climate Action Plan (CAP) represents the local blueprint for climate protection,
Municipal Climate Action Plan and Next Steps
December 16, 2008
Page 3 of 4
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) — continued
which should include the set of programs and policies the jurisdiction will implement in order to
achieve its chosen emissions reduction targets. The CAP should include existing initiatives as
well as potential policies and programs that, when implemented, will help meet the emissions
reduction targets. Consistent with the phased approach mentioned above, the County's MCAP
focuses on policies and programs that target emissions from municipal facilities and operations
which the County controls.
The County was awarded a Climate Protection Planning grant from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) in the amount of $40,000, effective in April 2008 and lasting
until June 2009 (or depletion of funds), to help fund the development of the MCAP. The
BAAQMD's Climate Protection grants support greenhouse gas reduction activities across the
Bay Area, and the County was selected from a pool of 81 applicants. This grant funded staff
time associated with the development of the MCAP, presented for adoption today, which
includes:
• Quantification of the greenhouse gas reductions and implementation costs for existing,
planned, and potential reduction measures that target emissions from municipal
operations;
• Implementation scenarios and funding sources for these measures;
• Analysis of various greenhouse gas reduction targets; and
• Detailed methods and metrics for use by Contra Costa cities and other local
governments.
This grant also funded the development of a climate protection toolkit for use by other local
governments, including the MCAP, a list of greenhouse gas reduction metrics, and a list of
planning and funding resources. This toolkit will be available online in the next few months.
As part of this grant contract, County DCD staff worked extensively with local cities and other
local jurisdictions and agencies. DCD staff represented the County at a variety of meetings and
events and gave presentations on the County's process to the Climate Change/AB32 Task
Force, the Contra Costa Mayor's Conference, and the Moraga Town Council. County DCD staff
also aided the local cities in their climate action processes by providing advice whenever
needed and reviewing their documents and plans for accuracy and applicability.
The MCAP demonstrates that the County's existing and planned municipal programs already
result in an annual greenhouse gas reduction of about 26% below a business-as-usual
scenario. Furthermore, the potential measures identified in this report would allow the County
to reduce its municipal greenhouse gas emissions by an additional 37% to a total of 63% below
a business-as-usual scenario by 2030, and all but one project (which requires further research
after completion of a pilot project) have available funding sources, reasonable payback periods,
or even generate revenue. Estimated future emissions reductions have been calculated using
assumptions which are based on the best information currently available, however actual
outcomes may differ and, therefore, periodic progress monitoring is critical to tracking success.
With the completion of the MCAP, the County's next steps include the implementation of the
MCAP and the development of a Climate Action Plan that would target greenhouse gas
reduction from the greater community.
MCAP Strategies that could generate revenue to fund County's climate protection efforts
The following two strategies would potentially generate funding adequate to cover the cost
of implementation and potentially generate adequate revenue to implement additional
measures identified in the MCAP.
1. User Parking Fee. Implementation of a user fee for parking could help pay for more
convenient employee commute alternatives, such as extended County Connection
bus service to County buildings in Martinez. A potential first phase would be to
implement user fees for County parking facilities in Martinez. The implementation
cost of this phase would be about $800,000, but the potential annual revenue
would be about $2 million (assuming a monthly fee of$35 per space). A direction
to develop a more detailed proposal for the implementation of this measure would
allow County staff to further investigate its feasibility and benefits. The
Municipal Climate Action Plan and Next Steps
December 16, 2008
Page 4 of 4
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) — continued
Transportation Planning Section suggests that this proposal would be developed in
collaboration with all County departments, employee unions, the City of Martinez,
County Connection, neighboring properties and other stakeholders as necessary to
address implementation issues and necessary resources.
2. Climate Protection Charge. Institution of a climate protection charge that would be
passed on to departments in conjunction with other building/facility occupancy
charges could generate revenue for the County to fund further climate protection
efforts. A direction to develop a more detailed proposal for the implementation of
this measure would allow County staff to further investigate its feasibility and
benefits.
Additional MCAP recommendations
The items recommended for consideration by the Board pertain to the following MCAP
recommendations:
• adoption of a GHG reduction target of 50% below baseline emissions levels by 2030,
• use of ranking of proposed measures (based on both GHG reduction potential and
fiscal impact) to guide future implementation,
• development of a community-wide Climate Action Plan, in collaboration with local
cities or with public input.
The MCAP also includes the following recommendations for consideration in the future:
• development of a green building standard for new and remodeled municipal buildings,
• formation of a staff workgroup focused on environmental initiatives to advocate
consistent implementation and facilitate maximum cross-departmental participation in
greenhouse gas reduction measures, and
• use of additional future GHG inventories to monitor progress, and
• allocation of funding for a dedicated staff person to help the County meet its targeted
goals in a strategic and comprehensive manner.
Climate Change/AB32 Task Force Meeting Minutes
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema and County DCD staff have routinely attended the monthly
meetings of the Climate Change/AB32 Task Force, which is comprised of representatives from
the Contra Costa Mayors' Conference, local governments, and the private sector. In July 2008,
the Board directed DCD staff to provide the Board with minutes from these meetings by
submission to the Board's consent calendar. The Task Force does not produce minutes,
however they started providing DCD staff with their "Meeting Notes" following the November 10,
2008 meeting (see Attachment B). The next meeting will likely be held in late January and DCD
staff will submit future meeting notes to the Board whenever they become available.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Contra Costa County Municipal Climate Action Plan — December 2008
B. Climate Change/AB32 Task Force Meeting Notes for November 10, 2008
G:\Conservation\DRi ley\BoS\BO_C li ma to-De c162008.doc
ADDENDUM
December 16, 2008, Agenda Item D.2
On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered adopting the Municipal Climate Action Plan
which includes municipal emission reduction targets, quantifies greenhouse gas reductions from
existing municipal programs as well as identifies potential reductions from the implementation of
additional measures, and directing the Climate Change Working Group to work with the County
Administrator's Office and county departments to identify and evaluate other measures that could
be implemented to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the County.
Deidra Dingman, Conservation and Development Department, introduced the item and noted
that part of today's recommendation includes coming back to the Board within 90 days with
information on what kind of revenue could be generated and the associated implications. She
said the Working Group will have to work closely with General Services to determine what cost
savings will be realized and by whom, in hopes that the information could serve as incentive for
County departments.
Catherine Kutsuris, Conservation and Development Director, thanked the County departments
for their cooperation in this effort.
Supervisor Gioia said we need to be proactive and noted the single largest source of emissions in
the report is from employee commutes. He suggested that parking fees could reduce the amount
of emissions.
Supervisor Piepho expressed support but said she has significant concerns about the current state
of the County's finances.
Supervisor Uilkema said she is'hopeful that the Air District will be providing another round of
grants. She also suggested working collaboratively with the cities.
Supervisor Bonilla also commented on the need for broader partnerships, and added that the best
approach is often to phase changes in over multiple years.
By a unanimous vote of 5-0 with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following
actions:
ADOPTED the Municipal Climate Action Plan which includes municipal emission reduction
targets, quantifies greenhouse gas reductions from existing municipal programs as well as
identifies potential reductions from the implementation of additional measures, and DIRECTED
the Climate Change Working Group to work with the County Administrator's Office and county
departments to identify and evaluate other measures that could be implemented to further reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the County.
3i
a S
F*
i
K
t.
CONTRA • • •
Municipal Climate Action Plan
Measures to Reduce
Municipal Greenhouse Gas Emissions
DECEMBER 2008
�r
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................2
1.1 Climate Change Policy and Local Government...................................................................2
1.2 Contra Costa County's Climate Protection Efforts..............................................................2
1.3 Promoting Community Actions............................................................................................2
2. 2006 Municipal,GHG Emissions Inventory...........................................................3
3. GHG Reduction Targets.........................................................................................4
4. Meeting the Targets................................................................................................4
4.1 Baseline, Projection, and Target Emissions Levels............................................................4
4.2 Target Analysis.....................................................................................................................5
5. Existing and Planned GHG Reduction Measures................................................7
6. Potential GHG Reduction Measures ..................................................................AID
6.1 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.........................................................................12
6.2 Vehicle Fleet........................................................................................................................15
6.3 Employee Commute............................................................................................................17
6.4 Waste Reduction and Recycling ........................................................................................20
6.5 Green Building and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing...........................................21
7. Analysis of Potential Measures...........................................................................23
8. Maintaining Efforts...............................................................................................24
9. Monitoring Progress ............................................................................................25
Appendices ..................................................................................................................26
Appendix A. US Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration...............................................27
Appendix B. Assumptions and Calculations.................................................................................29
Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................46
Bibliography...................:................................................:............................................47
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 1
�. Introduction
Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-the major contributors to climate change—result from
almost every human activity, from lighting and heating buildings to driving cars to disposing of
waste. The decisions that we make as individuals and governments determine the extent of our
impact. Thus, Contra Costa County hopes to mitigate its own contribution to climate change by
identifying and analyzing opportunities to reduce the GHG emissions generated by its municipal
buildings and operations.
1.1 Climate Change Policy and Local Government
California's Assembly Bill No. 32: the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006(AB32) requires
California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Meeting this target will require
that the state government inventory California's GHG emissions and identify and implement
measures to reduce these emissions. Voluntarily and in anticipation of potential future
regulation, many local governments are also monitoring their own GHG emissions and
identifying opportunities for reduction.
1.2 Contra Costa County's Climate Protection Efforts
Contra Costa County's commitment to mitigating climate change began in May 2005, when the
Board of Supervisors convened department heads in a Climate Change Working Group
(CCWG)to identify existing County activities and policies that potentially reduced GHG
emissions. The CCWG is comprised of the Agricultural Commissioner, the Deputy Director of
Building Inspection, and the Directors of Conservation and Development, General Services,
Health Services, and Public Works. In November 2005, the CCWG presented its Climate
Protection Report to the Board of Supervisors, which included a list of existing and potential
GHG reduction measures. To quantify Contra Costa County's current GHG emissions and to
evaluate the impact of these GHG reduction measures, the Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution in February 2007 to join ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability(formerly
known as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) and to conduct a GHG
emissions inventory of Contra Costa County's countywide and municipal emissions. Upon
completion of the inventory and associated report, the Board of Supervisors approved a
resolution in October 2007 to complete a climate action plan for the County's municipal facilities
and operations, funded by a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which
resulted in this report.
1.3 Promoting Community Actions
According to the County's GHG emissions inventory, emissions from County municipal
operations represent less than one percent of total Contra Costa countywide emissions. Thus,
mitigation of GHG emissions in Contra Costa County will require GHG reductions in both
municipal operations and the greater community. However, while countywide GHG reduction
measures may result in greater overall GHG reductions, the County government has greater
control over its municipal emissions. Additionally, the County can take this opportunity to really
lead by example and inspire changes in the greater community by first focusing on development
and implementation of a Municipal Climate Action Plan consisting of reduction measures that
target emissions generated by municipal operations.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 2
2. 2006 Municipal GHG Emissions Inventory
The County completed its GHG emissions inventory in August of 2007 and revised this
inventory in June of 2008. The results of the municipal inventory are illustrated below.
Landfilled Waste
4%
Building Electricity
21%
Employee Commute
44%
Building Natural Gas
14%
Streetlight Electricity
2%
Diesel Fleet Gasoline Fleet
1% 14%
Figure 2.1 Municipal GHG emissions by source in 2006
Municipal GHG emissions in 2006 totaled 54,133 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2e). MTCO2e describes the amount of carbon dioxide that would have the same climate
change impact as the actual variety of greenhouse gases. Employee commute was the largest
source of municipal GHG emissions in 2006, followed by building electricity use, building natural
gas consumption, fleet gasoline consumption, waste disposal, streetlight electricity use, and
fleet diesel consumption. In addition to the sources represented in Figure 2.1, building propane
and stationary diesel consumption, water and sewage electricity use, and fleet biodiesel and
compressed natural gas (CNG) consumption represented less than one percent of total
emissions. This inventory does not include GHG emissions generated by customers of County
services, such as additional transportation emissions when customers visit County facilities.
To most effectively reduce its GHG emissions, the County could focus its efforts on its largest
emissions sources, However, the County should aim to reduce emissions across all sources
according to the following goals:
Employee commute— reduce vehicle miles traveled by County employees
County buildings— reduce energy consumption and utilize renewable energy
County fleet— utilize cleaner fuels and fuel efficient vehicles
Waste— reduce generation of waste and increase diversion
Streetlights— reduce electricity use with energy efficient technologies
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 3
3. GHG Reduction Targets
Contra Costa County has joined over 30 counties in adopting the long-term GHG reduction
target set by the US Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration (see Appendix A). This
declaration calls on the County to work with local, state, and federal governments and other
local leaders to develop a regional plan to reduce countywide GHG emissions to 80% below
baseline levels by 2050. The first step in inspiring these countywide reductions is to set interim
targets that would bring the County closer to meeting this target for its municipal operations.
AB32 requires a statewide greenhouse gas reduction to 1990 levels by 2020. According to the
proposed AB32 Scoping Plan, this is understood to be equivalent to a reduction of 15% below
current levels by 2020. While there are currently no requirements for local governments, the
County should anticipate potential future regulation and analyze its ability to meet this target for
its municipal operations, in order to set an example for the county and the state. Data in this
report (which will be presented in Section 5) shows that the County has exceeded this target for
its municipal operations through programs that have already been planned or implemented.
The California Air Resources Board (ARB), in its proposed AB32 Scoping Plan, recommends
the establishment of reduction targets for years 2020, 2030, and 2050. As the County has
exceeded AB32's 2020 target for its municipal operations, and the 2050 target is far in the
future, the County should establish an interim target for year 2030. A reduction target of 50%
below baseline levels by 2030 for County municipal operations would keep the County on
track toward the long-term target of 80% by 2050.
4. Meeting the Targets
Contra Costa County can achieve these targets by evaluating its existing and planned GHG
reduction measures as well as additional measures for implementation. As time progresses, the
County may exhaust the most cost-effective measures, but opportunities will develop as
technologies improve, mass transit systems expand, and growing demand for environmentally-
friendly products lowers costs.
Contra Costa County has already implemented many measures that have reduced its municipal
GHG emissions. This report will analyze the GHG reductions achieved by these measures as
well as those that could be achieved with the implementation of additional measures. The GHG
reductions from these measures are analyzed below, and the measures themselves will be
explained in detail in Sections 5 and 6. In accordance with the GHG inventory, GHG reductions
are also measured in MTCO2e, or metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.
For the purposes of this report, existing measures are those that were implemented prior to the
2006 inventory. Planned measures are those that will be implemented in the near future without
further consideration. Potential measures are additional measures that are suggested in this
report to further reduce GHG emissions.
4.1 Baseline, Projection, and Target Emissions Levels
The first step in reducing emissions toward the target levels is to determine the County's
baseline emissions level, or the emissions level before anything had been done to reduce
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 4
emissions. This baseline is used to determine business-as-usual (BAU)forecast projections
and target emissions levels for the target years.
In some cases, the initial GHG inventory will represent the baseline emissions level. However,
the County inventoried its emissions for year 2006, at which time many measures had already
been planned or implemented with resulting emissions reductions. Thus, the County's 2006
inventory is much lower than its actual baseline, and using the 2006 inventory as the baseline
would penalize the County for acting early.
In order to give the County credit for its past efforts, a year 2000 backcast level will be used as
the baseline, because most of the County's existing GHG reduction efforts were implemented
after year 2000. This backcast is derived by quantifying emissions growth between years 2000
and 2006 and emissions reductions from measures implemented or planned prior to the 2006
inventory, Emissions growth 2000-2006 is subtracted from the 2006 inventory level, and
avoided emissions due to existing and planned measures are added back to generate the
baseline (see below).
2006 inventoried emissions level = 54,133 MTCO2e
Emissions growth 2000 to 2006 = 646 MTCO2e
Reduction achieved from existing and planned measures = 18,619 MTCO2e
2000 baseline emissions level = 72,106 MTCO2e
This baseline is used to calculate BAU projections and target emissions levels. BAU projections
account for future growth and are based on an average annual employment growth since year
2000 of 0.2% per year. Target emissions levels represent the levels needed in the target years
and are measured as a percent reduction from the baseline emissions level (see below).
2020 BAU projected emissions = 75,046 MTCO2e
2020 AB32 target emissions (15% reduction from baseline level) = 61,290 MTCO2e
Total reduction needed by 2020 = 13,756 MTCO2e
2030 BAU projected emissions = 76,560 MTCO2e
2030 proposed target emissions (50% reduction from baseline level) = 36,053 MTCO2e
Total reduction needed by 2030 =40,507 MTCO2e
4.2 Target Analysis
The next step is to analyze the ability of reduction measures to meet these targets. These
reduction measures will be explained in detail in Sections 5 and 6.
Reduction achieved from existing and planned measures = 18,619 MTCO2e = 26%
Additional reduction needed by 2020 = 0 (target achieved and exceeded)
Additional reduction needed by 2030 = 21,888 MTCO2e
Total possible reduction from potential measures = 26,919 MTCO2e = 37%
Total reduction from existing, planned, and potential measures = 45,538 MTCO2e = 63%,
The potential reductions from the measures proposed in this report would allow the
County to meet and surpass the proposed target of 50% by 2030 and would bring the
County even closer to its long-term goal of 80% by 2050.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 5
Figure 4.1 illustrates past and future paths for municipal emissions, including BAU projections
based on average employment growth, existing and possible reductions from implementation of
the existing, planned, and potential reduction measures, and the additional reductions needed
to meet the 2020 target required statewide by AB32 and the proposed 2030 target.
BAU — — Measures - - - 2020 target — - 2030 target
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
N 50,000
O
L) -
40,000
30,000 `
20,000
10,000
0
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Figure 4.1 Municipal GHG emissions through 2030
Figure 4.1 illustrates that existing and planned measures have already exceeded the statewide
target required by A632, and that the potential measures identified in this report can exceed the
proposed target of 50% by 2030 to achieve a total reduction of 63% below baseline levels.
Further reductions to meet the long-term target of 80% by 2050 can be achieved with the
identification of additional measures that will become more feasible with new technology and
funding opportunities.
As the 2030 target is over 20 years away, the County can stay on track by striving for the
following milestones along the path toward the 2030 target:
• 26% reduction already achieved with existing and planned measures
• 29% by 2010–an additional reduction of about 3,000 MTCO2e
• 34% by 2015–an additional reduction of about 3,800 MTCO2e
• 40% by 2020–an additional reduction of about 3,800 MTCO2e
45% by 2025–an additional reduction of about 3,800 MTCO2e
• 50% by 2030–an additional reduction of about 3,800 MTCO2e
By following these milestones, the County can meet the proposed 2030 target with
reductions of only 3,800 MTCO2e every 5 years.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 6
5. Existing and Planned GHG Reduction Measures
Many of the following measures were originally identified in the November 2005 Climate
Protection Report and were updated by the CCWG staff designees for this report. Appendix B
lists existing and planned measures and their associated annual GHG reductions, where activity
data (such as kilowatt hours of electricity reduced)was available or could be extrapolated.
Appendix B also includes a detailed description of the calculations and assumptions used to
extrapolate activity data. The annual GHG reductions associated with these reductions in
activity data were modeled using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) software.
This analysis has demonstrated that Contra Costa County's existing and planned
municipal GHG reduction measures result in an annual reduction of 18,600 MTCO2e,
about 26% below a business-as-usual scenario. Of this reduction, 23% has already been
achieved through existing measures, while the remaining 3%will result from planned measures.
This means that the County has exceeded the statewide target required by AB32 (equivalent to
a 15% reduction)for its municipal operations through existing and planned measures. While
this is a significant accomplishment and puts the County well on its way to achieving the .
additional reduction targets, many of these existing and planned measures can be feasibly
expanded to further reduce emissions, such as increasing employee participation in commute
programs, purchasing additional clean fleet vehicles, or expanding energy efficiency efforts to
additional buildings.
Analysis of existing measures also provides an opportunity to investigate the relative success of
different reduction measures. Of the total reduction, 60% results from measures that target
employee commute, 25% from building energy use, 9% from environmentally preferable
purchasing, 3% from vehicle fleet, and 3% from waste reduction and recycling. Commute
measures showed the single greatest impact, and the County has a great opportunity to expand
its commute programs because actual employee participation is much lower than expressed
willingness in the County's commute survey.
Additionally, the County found particular success in reducing its municipal emissions from the
following measures (as described by County staff), listed in order of greatest reduction:
Employee carpool and vanpool programs (9,668 MTCO2e or 52% of the total reduction from
existing and planned measures)—The County's support for employee carpools and vanpools
was initiated in response to the energy crises of the 1970's and expanded to help reduce traffic
congestion in the 1980's. The County currently offers a subsidy to County employees who
participate in the Enterprise Rideshare Program. Employees who lease a vehicle from
Enterprise Rideshare for carpooling or vanpooling are eligible for a 25-percent subsidy of the
monthly lease payments, up to a maximum of$75 per employee. This subsidy is funded by
proceeds from the sale of the County's vanpool fleet which occurred in 2005. The County also
provides preferential parking for employees that carpool to the downtown Martinez offices.
Participating employees must apply for a parking permit from the Community Development
Division to be eligible to use 30 parking stalls in the lot located on Pine Street between Marina
Vista and Escobar Street in Martinez.
Direct digital control for HVAC systems in 33 buildings (1,620 MTCO2e or 9%)— Direct
digital control (DDC) on HVAC systems provides precise control over heating and cooling
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 7
systems, which optimizes operation and reduces simultaneous heating and cooling while
maintaining comfort. Initially, DDC was targeted in the largest County buildings. DDC is now a
County building standard and is installed in all new, remodeled, or improved buildings.
Flexible employee work schedules (1,412 MTCO2e or 8%)— In 1991, the Board of
Supervisors authorized all County Departments to implement flexible work schedules, including
compressed work weeks, flextime, and staggered work schedules. It is up to each Department
to determine how to implement these schedules, as long as public service is not compromised.
GHG emissions are reduced when employees work more hours per day but fewer days per
week, thereby eliminating commute trips.
Purchase of energy efficient computers (1,252 MTCO2e or 7%)—The selection of Dell
computers was achieved through an evaluation process in 2008. Cost reduction was the main
motivating factor, as energy efficiency promotes cost savings to the General Services
Department. The County preferred a manufacturer that sold Energy Star compliant products, as
these standards are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Cogeneration plants for 4 buildings that operate 24 hours per day(735 MTCO2e or 4%)—
Cogeneration is on-site power generation that also utilizes waste heat to reduce energy required
for heating and hot water systems. These systems are most economical in facilities that operate
24 hours per day and have year-round heat and hot water needs for laundry, kitchen, and
bathing. These systems were installed using a combination of funding sources, including low-
interest loans from the California Energy Commission, lease purchases, and County Energy
Settlement funds from a 2000-2001 statewide lawsuit against energy companies.
Contra Costa County has also met with a third party that will implement the installation of
cogeneration units at the Regional Medical Center and Juvenile Hall. There will be no upfront
funding by the County for these projects, and the third party will handle permitting, contracting,
procurement, and construction management for the projects. The annual utility savings will
exceed the annual debt service payments resulting in a net annual savings.
LED traffic signals (558 MTCO2e or 3%)— LED traffic lights are 85-percent more efficient than
those with incandescent lamps. Ten and 25-watt LEDs replace 69 and 150-watt incandescent
lamps and last five times longer, thereby reducing replacement costs as well as maintenance
labor. This project was implemented as a maintenance project funded through the maintenance
program.
Paper recycling program (520 MTCO2e or 3%)—The County's paper recycling program was
initiated in 1981 in the County's Administration Building and currently operates in about 200
County facilities. The program was developed in an effort to reduce waste sent to the County's
landfills, thereby reducing the County's impact on natural resources and also generating
revenue. The County's Department of Conservation and Development was tasked with
publicizing and support of the program, while the General Services Department is responsible
for collection of office recycling containers and consolidation in the main container for pick-up by
private hauler. The early program was designed for white paper only, but the current program
accepts a wider range of paper types and sorts by grade to maximize return.
Purchase of energy efficient copiers (491 MTCO2e or 3%)—The process leading to the
selection of the copiers was similar to that of the computers, but the copier decision was made
earlier.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 8
HVAC re-commissioning in 15 buildings (479 MTCO2e or 3%)— Re-commissioning tests
system operation and calibrates control sensors to ensure that the systems are operating as
efficiently as possible. This measure was part of an overall state-funded program which offers
"Public Goods"funds (generated by a small fee on utility bills)to implement re-commission
projects to reduce energy use, so there was no cost to the County.
Installation of thermally resistant window films on select buildings (300 MTCO2e or 2%) —
Thermally resistant window films reduce heat gain and balance HVAC, thereby reducing energy
use and increasing comfort for occupants. This program is more effective for existing buildings
that do not have other built-in mechanisms for efficiency. Film specifications have been
accepted and will be funded through maintenance at the request of building occupants.
Lighting improvement projects in 21 buildings (298 MTCO2e or 2%)—The County
commissioned a lighting consultant to develop lighting improvement strategies that apply to over
95-percent of County-owned lighting systems. Improvements were initially done at the 21
largest County buildings, implementing the latest in fluorescent lighting technologies. Projects
were funded with internal funds, rebates, incentives, and various financing vehicles.
Change to B20 biodiesel fuel for diesel fleet(247 MTCO2e or 1%)—The County
implemented the change to B20 biodiesel in September 2006. The change was motivated by a
desire to pursue clean air and environmentally responsible fleet operations. The use of B20
displaces petroleum fuel consumption by 20-percent versus standard diesel. In 2007/2008, the
General Services Department dispensed approximately 80,000 gallons of B20 biodiesel,
displacing consumption of 16,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The change to B20 biodiesel was
accomplished by drawing down the existing diesel in the underground storage tank, washing
and evacuating any remaining residue, and refilling the tank with B20 biodiesel. All filters were
changed at this time, and filter changes for fuel dispensing equipment and diesel vehicles were
changed twice as frequently for six months to eliminate any possible fuel delivery issues.
Purchase of 86 hybrid vehicles for fleet (206 MTCO2e or I%)—The purchase of the 86
hybrid vehicles currently in use with the County fleet has taken place over the past eight years
and was intended to reduce County vehicle emissions and fuel expenditures. Vehicle use
applications that are compatible with the capabilities of hybrid vehicles were identified, and
hybrids were assigned as appropriate. The hybrid vehicles were purchased incrementally as
equipment was replaced and also as additional vehicle requests where new vehicles were
added to the fleet. With fuel prices at record highs, fuel savings now rapidly offset the additional
procurement costs very early in the equipment lifecycle. The hybrid vehicles in use (Toyota
Prius, Honda Civic, and Ford Escape)were selected based upon superior fuel economy and
minimal tailpipe emissions. The selected hybrids were then placed on County procurement
contracts following development of specifications and passage through the County's bid
process. As of Summer 2008, the County has operated hybrid vehicles over 3,700,000 miles
while saving an estimated 95,000 gallons of fuel.
Currently, the County's Fleet Department strives to purchase clean vehicles in all possible
vehicle replacements. The County's fleet was recently recognized as the#5 Best Green
Government Fleet in North America by the 100 Best Fleets organization.
The measures listed above represent 98% of the total reduction achieved from existing and
planned measures. The additional measures that represent the remaining 2% of the total
reduction are listed in Appendix B, which includes a full list of measures.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 9
6. Potential GHG Reduction Measures
To further reduce emissions toward the recommended reduction targets, the County can
expand upon existing measures and identify additional measures for implementation.
Many of the potential measures included below were initially identified in the November 2005
Climate Protection Report and were originally selected by looking to climate action plans from
other local governments and selecting measures that fit Contra Costa County conditions. The
subset of these measures that is highlighted in this report represent those measures that were
identified by County staff to be the most operationally feasible and expected to have the
greatest GHG reductions based on information available. Additional measures were identified
based on further examination of climate action plans from other local governments.
GHG reductions were modeled using the CACP software, and anticipated implementation costs
and processes were provided by County staff and consultants. GHG reductions and costs were
derived when direct data was not available. See Appendix B for a detailed description of the
calculations and assumptions used to derive GHG reductions and costs, including general
metrics that can be used by other local governments.
It should be noted that this analysis does not consider qualitative criteria, such as educational
value or ability to generate awareness. Additionally, this report does not analyze lifecycle
emissions in the evaluation of measures—as this would be inconsistent with the inventory and
CACP software—but lifecycle analysis may be an important factor in prioritization for
implementation.
The following symbols are used to compare the GHG reduction potentials of the measures;
- Potential reduction less than or equal to 100 MTCO2e
- Potential reduction between 101 and 500 MTCO2e
- Potential reduction between 501 and 1,000 MTCO2e
- Potential reduction between 1,001 and 5,000 MTCO2e
- Potential reduction greater than 5,000 MTCO2e
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 10
Table 6.1 presents evaluation criteria for the potential measures, including GHG reduction
potential, implementation cost, and payback period in years.
Table 6.1 Evaluation criteria for potential measures
Measure#and name MTCO2e reduction Rating Imp. Cost Payback(years) Add'I. $
needed
1 HVAC re-commissioning 1,475 $500,000 1
2 Lighting improvement 207 $300,000 5 X
3 Energy awareness 951 Low -
d
Lu` 4 LED streetlights 7041 Unknown - X
5 Solar PPA 212 None -
6 Window films 410 $800,000 3-5
7 Hybrid fleet 240 $300,000 4-5, resale
d 8 CNG fleet 64 $400,000 3-12, resale
LL
9 E85 tank 490+ $100,000 - X
10 Parking fee 9,553 Revenue - X
E11 Pre-tax transit 6,687 ! $50,000 - X
E 12 Compressed weeks 1,203 1 Low
0
U
13 Telecommuting 4,6191 Low
d 14 Duplex printing 87 None
N
3 15 Compost 171 $35,000 2 years HX
The total GHG reduction potential of these measures is about 27,000 MTCO2e or 37% of
baseline levels. The total cost to the County for implementing these measures would be about
$3 million, not accounting for the revenue that could be generated by implementing a user fee
for parking.
The last column indicates whether the measures would definitely require funding beyond
existing departmental and maintenance budgets. The measures that are marked in this column
should not be expected to be funded within existing budgets, and additional funding will be
required. However, funding opportunities are available for most measures and are described in
the following sections.
The following sections provide elaboration of the information in Table 6.1.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 11
6.1 Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1. Expand HVAC re-commissioning program to 50 additional County buildings.
Annual GHG Reduction: 1,475 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: $500,000
Payback Period: 1 year
Implementation Scenario: This program has been successfully implemented in 15 buildings,
and all buildings with HVAC controls can benefit significantly from re-commissioning. This
program yields excellent returns per investment. Minor upgrades and re-commission of
systems has yielded on average $0.18 per square foot in savings on an investment of about
$0.185 per square foot, yielding a payback of less than 1 year.
This program can be included in the annual Facilities Maintenance budget or funded through
state programs. The state channels "Public Goods"funds (generated by a small fee on utility
bills) to utilities to administer numerous third parties (such as the California Energy Commission,
Quantum Consulting, Cogent Energy, and the Association of Bay Area Governments' Energy
Watch program)to provide their own incentives to reduce energy use. The third party can pay a
commissioning agent(typically a mechanical engineering or energy engineering company)to
calibrate instrumentation and modify operations in County buildings at no cost to the County.
2. Expand lighting improvement program to 30 additional County buildings.
Annual GHG Reduction: 207 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: $300,000
Payback Period: 5 years
Implementation Scenario: The County has an existing procurement process for lighting retrofit
projects. Lighting retrofits cost$0.30 to $0.50 per square foot.
There are also excellent rebate programs to offset some initial costs. The State of California
has funded electric utilities through the "Public Goods" charge on utility bills for a host of energy
efficiency and renewable energy programs. Extensive lighting rebates are available from most
electric companies to replace older technologies, where the rebate amount depends on the
specific products being replaced (all available rebates are listed on PG&E's website). The
California Energy Commission also offers low-interest loans to public entities for energy
efficiency through its Energy Efficiency Financing Program, which could help fund
implementation costs. Additionally, Energy Service Companies (ESCos) can fund the upfront
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 12
implementation costs of lighting projects as part of a wider energy efficiency effort at the site
and then share future cost savings with the County.
3. Create an employee energy awareness program to promote energy conservation and
efficient use of County facilities.
Annual GHG Reduction: 951 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: Low cost, and usually offset by energy savings
Implementation Scenario: As part of its Federal Energy Management Program, the US
Department of Energy offers a handbook on the design and implementation of a facility energy
awareness program—including instructions on creation of staff surveys, formation of focus
groups, identification of desired behaviors, identification of motivations, and development of
messaging. It provides examples of desired behaviors, communication channels, and specific
messaging strategies. This measure requires only a small cost for staff labor, materials, and
administrative costs.
This handbook is available at hftp://wwwl.eere.energy.aov/femp/pdfs/step2 hndbk.pdf.
4. Install LEDs in all county-owned streetlights (if pilot studies are successful).
Annual GHG Reduction: 704 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: Unknown as still in preliminary test phase
Implementation Scenario: The Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy recently adopted
by the County's Board of Supervisors includes a direction to replace street lighting with energy-
efficient equipment. This measure should be implemented upon successful completion of pilot
studies. LEDs for street lighting are still in the early adopter phase and refinement in product
offerings are still forthcoming. This project will be implemented by the Public Works
Department. LEDs streetlights will initially be expensive to implement but, depending on
success of the technology, utility-wide or state-wide loan and rebate programs may be created
to assist in the funding and conversion of the streetlight system to this new technology. If this
technology proves to be successful, the County will also have to determine responsibility of the
system between the County and the utility, and consider the creation of new lower streetlight
tariffs to reflect the reduced energy use of LEDs.
The city of Ann Arbor, Michigan is replacing over 1,000 streetlights in its downtown area with
LEDs. The city estimates that this project will take two years to complete and cost about
$600,000 to implement. The LEDs will save about $100,000 a year in energy savings and will
significantly decrease maintenance and replacement costs. Ann Arbor has committed to
eventually replacing all city streetlights with LEDs (Gantert 2007).
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 13
5. Install additional solar systems at the West County Detention Facility, the Buchanan
Airport Field, the Pleasant Hill Library, and the Elections Office.
Annual GHG Reduction: 212 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: No up-front cost
Payback Period: Immediate with PPA
Implementation Scenario: The appropriate installed capacity of these potential systems would
be 300 kW for the West County Detention Facility and the Buchanan Airport Field, 100 kW for
the Pleasant Hill Library, and 85 kW for the Elections Office. Solar power generated at the
Buchanan Airport could be delivered to adjacent facilities on County-owned land.
Solar installations are expensive with paybacks in the 15-year time frame even when including
incentives. Rebates from the "California Solar Initiative"are offered in varying amounts that are
dependent on the expected performance of the system. More information is available on the Go
Solar California website. This measure can also be funded by a Power Purchase Agreement
(PPA)with no upfront cost to the County. A PPA is a lease from a private company that installs
and owns the system, and there are many companies currently offering PPAs. The County
pays for electricity generated by the system to a leaser and, after the lease term, the County
acquires ownership of the system.
6. Install thermally resistant window films on 30 additional existing County facilities.
Annual GHG Reduction: 410 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: $800,000
Payback Period: 3 to 5 years
Implementation Scenario: Reducing heat gain at perimeters balances HVAC, reduces energy
use, and increases comfort to occupants. This program is more effective in existing buildings
that do not have other built-in mechanisms for energy efficiency. Facilities will install film upon
request by building inhabitants, but the County should also install window film as a general
program at appropriate sites.
This measure can be included in maintenance and building budgets as film specifications have
been accepted.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 14
6.2 Vehicle Fleet
7. Purchase 100 more hybrid vehicles for the fleet.
Annual GHG Reduction: 240 MTCO2e
(Additional) Implementation Cost: $300,000
Payback period: 4 to 5 years; time of resale
Implementation Scenario: At the current replacement rate of 25 hybrid vehicle purchases per
year, the County will achieve this goal in 4 years. Each hybrid sedan adds approximately
$3,000 over the cost of a standard non-hybrid vehicle. Since the vehicles are being procured to
replace older retired vehicles, the additional cost to add hybrids to the fleet may be estimated at
$3,000 per vehicle. However, the hybrid resale values are approximately $3,000 higher than a
comparable sedan, thereby offsetting the additional procurement expense at the time the
vehicle is sold. The higher fuel economy also results in about$700 in fuel savings for every
10,000 miles driven with gasoline estimated at$3.60 per gallon. Thus, it will take 43,000 miles
of operation to offset the additional procurement cost, which yields a payback period of about 4
years at the average annual mileage of 10,000 miles. Each hybrid SUV adds about$6,000 over
the cost of a comparable non-hybrid SUV. The higher fuel economy of the hybrid results in
about $900 in fuel savings for every 10,000 miles of operation with gasoline estimated at $3.60
per gallon. Thus, it will take 67,000 miles of operation to offset the additional procurement cost,
which yields a payback period of about 5 years at the average annual mileage of 14,000 miles.
This measure could be funded through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) Vehicle Incentive Program or Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) County
Program Manager Fund. These grants are funded by a $4 surcharge on vehicles registered in
the Bay Area. These grants are available to public agencies within the BAAQMD's jurisdiction.
More information is available on the BAAQMD's website. There is also the possibility of funding
through the California Energy Commission to be made available next year under 2007 California
Assembly Bill 118 (AB118). Additionally, funding that is reserved in an Internal Service Fund for
vehicle replacements can cover the purchase of hybrid vehicles at the current replacement rate.
8. Purchase 50 more CNG vehicles for the fleet.
Annual GHG Reduction: 64 MTCO2e
(Additional) Implementation Cost: $400,000
Payback period: 3 to 12 years; time of resale
Implementation Scenario: This program would likely include 30 dedicated CNG sedans and 20
dedicated CNG vans. Purchase of CNG sedans add about $3,000 over a non-hybrid sedan.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 15
CNG vehicle resale values are currently very high due to low CNG prices, various incentive
programs, and tax credit programs. Increased resale values may continue to at least partially
offset'the majority of the additional procurement cost upon resale. Additionally, CNG fuel is
cheaper than gasoline per gallon equivalent and the CNG sedan has better fuel efficiency than
a standard gasoline sedan. This reflects a substantial operational savings of about$900 for
every 10;000 miles of operation (with CNG estimated at $2.00 per gallon and gasoline
estimated at$3.60 per gallon). Thus, it will take 33,500 miles of operation to offset additional
procurement cost, which yields a payback period of about 3 years at the average annual
mileage of 10,000 miles. CNG vans add $17,500 over the purchase of a standard gasoline van
and save approximately $1,000 in fuel costs for every 10,000 miles driven. Thus, it will take
175,000 miles of operation to offset additional procurement cost, which yields a payback period
of about 12 years at the average annual mileage of 14,000 miles.
This measure could be funded through the BAAQMD Vehicle Incentive Program or TFCA
County Program Manager Fund. These grants are funded by a $4 surcharge on vehicles
registered in the Bay Area. These grants are available to public agencies within the BAAQMD's
jurisdiction. More information is available on the BAAQMD's website. If the California Air
Resources Board (ARB)Alternative Fuel Vehicle Incentive Program (AFVIP) receives additional
or transferred funding, CNG Civic sedans may be eligible for additional incentives under this
program. More information can be found on the ARB's website. There is also the possibility of
funding through the California Energy Commission to be made available next year under
ABI 18. Additionally, funding that is reserved in an Internal Service Fund for vehicle
replacements can cover the purchase of CNG vehicles at the current replacement rate.
9. Install an above-ground 5,000-gallon E85 ethanol fuel tank for the County's 70 FlexFuel
vehicles as well as other users (CHP and CALTRANS).
Annual GHG Reduction: 490 MTCO2e and growing(with additional FlexFuel cars)
Implementation Cost: Up to $100,000
Implementation Scenario: The tank and dispenser equipment have been quoted at $45,000, but
the actual cost of the complete project is dependent upon several factors—such as permitting,
site improvements, and environmental impacts—that will not be finalized until a formal proposal
is complete. It is estimated that the County will have close to 70 E85 capable Flex Fuel
Vehicles (FFV) in service by the end of 2008. Local government fleets such as CALTRANS and
a California Highway Patrol station have indicated an interest in fueling with E85 if the County
implements this proposal.
Installation of alternate fuel infrastructure projects may be suitable for BAAQMD TFCA County
Manager Funds. Additionally, the ARB has made alternate fuel infrastructure funding available
through the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District(SMAQMD)for Northern
California locations outside the originally proposed Sacramento area, but current grants are
limited in funding and deadlines. There is also the possibility of funding through the California
Energy Commission to be made available next year under AB118.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 16
Additional Considerations
While E85 ethanol fuel reduces GHG emissions from vehicle fuel consumption, scientists warn
that the production of ethanol fuel could actually increase lifecycle GHG emissions and could
otherwise harm the environment and the world population. Growing production of ethanol fuel
from corn crops could increase GHG emissions from the corn industry and the transportation of
crops from the corn-producing Midwest states, and could intensify world food crises resulting
.from the increased price of corn (Berenstein 2008). As a result, some scientists and politicians
are encouraging the use of other energy-intensive, non-corn crops for the production of ethanol
fuel, but many of the suggested crops are invasive species that could threaten native plants and
crops (Rosenthal 2008). Thus, the County should consider awaiting the selection of a truly
environmentally-friendly crop before expanding its use of ethanol fuel.
In addition to the measures listed above, the County should investigate an opportunity to utilize
alternative fuels through Kroll Green Leasing (KGL), which operates a new"Lease to Own"
program for electric vehicles. This program is currently targeting businesses and individuals,
but opportunities for local government are anticipated in the future. More information can be
found at www.krolipreenleasing.com. The impact of this program could intensify in the future if
the County powered its electric vehicles with electricity generated from clean sources.
6.3 Employee Commute
10. Institute a user fee for parking spaces owned or leased by the County and allocate
the surplus revenue to incentives for use of commute alternatives.
Annual GHG Reduction: 9,553 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: $800,000
Annual Operating Cost: $300,000
Annual Revenue: $2 million
Implementation Scenario: Currently, the County owns or leases thousands of off-street parking
spaces and provides this parking free to County employees and visitors. The 2007 Employee
Commute Survey shows that only 10-percent of County employees that drive to work cite
parking costs as one of the top three cost elements for their commute. Parking costs become
more of a factor for employees working in downtown Martinez, where the County does not offer
sufficient parking and employees must pay for metered spaces on-street or in City parking lots.
Consequently, the 2007 Employee Commute Survey found that 29-percent of employees in
downtown Martinez cited parking costs as one of the top three cost elements for driving to work,
which may contribute to the lower drive-alone rate for downtown work sites. This suggests that
additional parking fees could further reduce the drive-alone rate for County employees.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 17
Based on the 2007 Employee Commute Survey, about 50-percent of all County employees
work in Martinez, so Martinez facilities were evaluated for initiation of a user fee for off-street
parking. It is assumed that parking for small and isolated facilities would not be included in the
user fee program. Based on a review of the inventory of County facilities in Martinez, user fees
for parking could be applied to 29 County buildings, affecting 3,388 unrestricted off-street
parking spaces and 4,770.employees.
County staff considers multi-space parking stations as a cost-effective method to collect user
fees for off-street parking spaces. These pay stations are currently being used in downtown
Walnut Creek for on-street parking. To collect parking charges, the County would number each
parking stall and have employees record their parking stall at the pay station and pay the
required fee for the specified length of time. This is similar to the system BART uses for
collecting,parking charges at BART stations. The pay stations can differentiate between spaces
dedicated for short term visitor parking and spaces dedicated for long-term employee parking.
The pay station can transmit to enforcement personnel, via a wireless handheld device, a
diagram of the parking facility that highlights unpaid parking stalls. Enforcement personnel can
inspect these stalls and ticket cars that occupy these spaces. Pay stations are solar-powered
and require no power hook-up. Vendors can provide support ranging from technical support to
full program administration. It may be possible to establish prepaid accounts for employees that
pay stations could recognize through employee identification numbers. A minimum of two pay
stations should be located close to each County building to ensure at least one is working at all
times, and a ratio of one pay station per 50 parking spaces would avoid excessive queuing as
employees arrive to the workplace.
Currently, the County's cost to provide off-street parking is charged to each County department
on a fair share basis and paid through each department's budget. The annual cost for the user
fee program could be addressed in two ways. The cost for the user fee program could similarly
be charged to each County department on a fair share basis and paid through each
department's budget. This would allow all revenue generated by the user fee to be allocated to
encourage the use of commute alternatives. Alternatively, the cost of the user fee program
could be paid by the revenue generated by the pay stations. With this approach and based on
the "market rate" for parking in Martinez, the program would still provide a $1.5 million annual
surplus that could be used to encourage the use of commute alternatives. All surplus funding
should be directed toward commute alternatives and not redirected to support other activities.
The 2007 Employee Commute Survey suggests that factors like convenience are more
important to commuters than factors like commuting costs. Thus, revenue could be used to
increase the convenience of commute alternatives, such as funding more convenient bus
service to County buildings. Martinez is located in the County Connection bus service area.
County Connection budgets $28 million annually to operate bus routes in its service area, and
some of this revenue comes from developers and cities that contract with County Connection to
provide enhanced bus service. The estimated revenue the County would receive from user fees
on parking in Martinez would range from $1.5 million to $2 million annually, which represents
between 5 and 7-percent of County Connection's budget.
Additionally, a guaranteed ride home for emergencies was identified by 47-percent of solo
commuters as a significant factor that would encourage use of commute alternatives. This
service is currently offered by 511 Contra Costa to all employers in the county, free of charge.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 18
The financial impact on employees could be reduced if the County allowed employees to pay
this user fee with pretax dollars using the same tax code provision that is currently used for the
Health Care Spending Accounts offered to County employees.
The County should initiate a broad education campaign informing affected employees of
commute alternatives prior to the institution of parking charges. The Human Resources
Department should be included in the planning for distribution of materials related to commute
alternatives and parking options to all existing employees and new hires.
While significantly reducing GHG emissions, imposing parking charges at this scale would be a
complex undertaking—requiring cooperation and consultation with all County departments,
employee unions, the City of Martinez, County Connection, and neighboring properties.
11. Allow County employees to use pre-tax dollars to pay for mass transit or carpool
expenses.
Annual GHG Reduction: 6,687 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: $50,000
Implementation Scenario: The concept of allowing employees to use pre-tax dollars to pay for
commute expenses is similar to the Health Care Spending Accounts currently offered by the
County to employees. The program is currently administered by the Human Resources
Department, although they are considering hiring a contractor to administer the program.
Employers who provide the benefit for commute expenses call these programs Commuter
Spending Accounts (CSAs). CSAs take advantage of tax savings available through Section 125
of the Interval Revenue code, which is the same provision enabling the establishment of our
Health Care Spending Account benefit. The money an employee allocates to the CSA is not
subject to federal, state, or Social Security or Medicare (FICA)taxes. Eligible expenses include
costs for transit fare, vanpool fees, and parking.charges. If the County pursues a user fee for
County parking facilities, CSAs could be an important component to streamline the collection of
fees from County employees that use these parking facilities and to minimize parking costs for
employees that drive to work.
12. Institute compressed work weeks in all County departments.
Annual GHG Reduction: 1,203 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: Low Cost
Implementation Scenario: Board policy authorizes implementation of compressed work weeks
in all County departments. Currently, compressed work weeks are not offered to about 30-
percent of the workforce, likely due to the policies of individual Departments or the demands of
certain County services. The County should identify the barrier to increased use of compressed
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 19
work weeks through discussions with staff. If the barrier is at the manager level, the County
should consider sponsoring training for these managers to address their concerns about
compressed work weeks. The County should also send a message to all staff to make sure that
employees are aware of opportunities to utilize compressed work schedules.
13. Expand the telecommuting program by identifying opportunities to increase
employee participation to 30%.
Annual GHG Reduction: 4,619 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: Low Cost
Implementation Scenario: Board policy authorizes implementation of telecommuting in all
County departments. According to the Employee Commute Surveys, actual employee
participation is much lower than expressed willingness to telecommute. The extent of
telecommuting is dependent on the policies of individual departments or managers. The
County's telecommute procedures provide guidance to managers who are considering this
practice. The County should identify the barrier to increased telecommuting through
discussions with staff. If the barrier is at the manager level, the County should consider
sponsoring training for these managers to address their concerns about telecommuting. The
County should also send a message to all staff to make sure that employees are aware of
opportunities to utilize the telecommuting program. The GHG reduction above is based on a
telecommuting rate of two days out of every week for participating employees.
6.4 Waste Reduction and Recycling
14. Set the default on all copying/printing machines to duplex (double-sided) mode for
all print jobs and possibly copy jobs.
Annual GHG Reduction: 87 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: No implementation cost but could increase charges
Implementation Scenario: The County leases its copying and printing machines from Caltronics
Business Systems. Caltronics will send technicians to change all copying and printing
machines to default duplex at no additional cost, as maintenance fees are included in the lease.
This default could be set upon installation for future machine purchases.
However, duplex defaults could generate an additional cost to the County on single-page copy
and print jobs, as the machine will process (and charge for)the blank backside of the page.
The County's Purchasing Manager estimates that about half of copy and print jobs are single-
paged, so this could represent a significant cost to the County. When defaults are set to duplex,
users can still switch their preference to single-sided printing for individual documents. Thus, to
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 20
resolve this problem, the County could send a notice or provide a training asking staff to
manually change the settings to single-sided when copying or printing a single-page document.
To increase the impact of this measure, the County could also eliminate desktop printers, which
are less likely to print duplex and cost more per print.
15. Divert organic waste from parks and landscaping to on-site compost.
Annual GHG Reduction: 17 MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: $35,000
Payback Period: 2 years
Implementation Scenario: After a thorough study of the County's waste practices, CalRecovery,
Inc. estimates that the County's General Services Department produces about 170 tons of
greenwaste from groundskeeping each year. CalRecovery concludes that this greenwaste
could be composted using simple and inexpensive technology, specifically a turned-windrow
composting process. This would require about 2,000 to 3,000 square feet of vacant land and a
small chipper/grinder and small turner. At this scale of facility, even the smallest capacity
processing equipment would still have processing capacity much greater than 170 tons per
year. Thus, if the General Services Department has equipment that is not used full time, it could
be dedicated to composting this small amount of greenwaste for one day each week.
Alternatively, if new equipment must be purchased, it could also be used for other purposes.
CalRecovery suggests that the County evaluate this project as a pilot study, and the additional
capacity of this system leaves room for feasible expansion.
The capital costs associated with a 170 tons per year turned-windrow composting operation
would be about$35,000. This includes site preparation, a small chipper/grinder, and a small
turner. CalRecovery concludes that the avoided disposal costs would offset the capital costs
within approximately 1.5 to 2.5 years. Additionally, the capital costs would be considerably less
if the County can borrow existing equipment for this measure.
6.5 Green Building and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
Both environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP)and green building will be instrumental in
reducing the County's municipal greenhouse gas emissions. However, the GHG inventory does
not include a lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions from procurement activities, and future GHG
projections cannot forecast emissions increases from the construction of additional buildings, so
it would be inconsistent to include GHG reductions from EPP and new green building projects in
calculations toward the reduction targets. (Reductions from the purchase of products with the
potential to reduce energy use are included in the existing measures because energy use is
included in the GHG inventory.) While these reductions will not be included in the calculations
in this report, EPP and green building efforts have great potential to reduce GHG emissions and
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 21
tools are available to quantify GHG reductions and costs. Additionally, the County currently has
many opportunities to implement EPP and green building policies for its municipal operations.
The County should develop green building standards for all new and remodeled municipal
buildings, and can pilot these standards in the building that is currently being planned for the
Department of Conservation and Development. The County Board of Supervisors has provided
a strong foundation for implementation of a green building policy for municipal buildings. In
August 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved a recommendation to consider lifecycle
costing and other green building policies for County buildings. In April 2008, the Board of
Supervisors adopted an EPP Policy that includes a direction to follow Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines in County building and renovation projects, where
appropriate. The County should move,to implement these policies by setting a standard of
LEED Silver designation for new municipal buildings, noting that there is a growing tendency
to build to LEED standards but save the money that would be spent on LEED third-party
certification for the actual construction of sustainable building features. Many US cities,
including Los Angeles, have passed ordinances that require LEED building standards without
requiring actual LEED certification (Wendt 2008).
Since 44% of the GHG emissions from our municipal operations are generated by transportation
of building inhabitants to and from buildings, the County's lifecycle costing and green building
policies for new facilities should be revised to address building site locations. Locating new
County facilities within easy walking distance to transit and related uses (including supporting
County offices and business, eating establishments, and personal services) can minimize the
associated transportation emissions.
The County's EPP Policy also provides justification for future climate-friendly procurement
activities as a separate initiative. Thus, this report will not individually list projects, but rather
recommend enthusiastic support and implementation of the EPP policy and all relevant
activities. The County's EPP Policy includes a broad package of policies and standards
targeting the purchase of recycled-content and recyclable products, the purchase of energy
efficient vehicles and equipment, the request that vendors minimize packaging, the use of
sustainable landscaping techniques, and the elimination of toxics in procured products.
Implementation of this policy has already begun with the initiation of the County's Recycled
Paper Program effective July 15, 2008, which will substitute all paper orders with recycled-
content paper.
The County approved this policy with an understanding that, as commercial markets and
demand for"green" products has grown, the cost for these products has become more
competitively priced and will continue to do so. Thus, it is critical to support local recycling
markets to maintain and improve the feasibility of this policy.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 22
7. Analysis of Potential Measures
Table 7.1 ranks the potential measures based on GHG reduction potential and implementation
cost, in order to evaluate their effectiveness. These two ranks are added together to generate
an overall rank that weighs both GHG reduction potential and implementation cost equally.
Table 7.1 Ranking of potential measures
Measure#and name Rank according to Rank according to Sum of ranks Overall rank
GHG reduction implementation cost
1 HVAC re-commissioning 4 13 17 8
2 Lighting improvement 12 10 22 11
3 Energy awareness 6 4 10 4
4 LED streetlights 7 - - 15
2,1 5 Solar PPA 11 2 13 6
d
w 6 Window films 9 14 23 13
7 Hybrid fleet 10 10 20 10
iu
8 CNG fleet 14 12 26 14
LL 9 E85 tank 8 9 17 8
10 Parking fee 1 1 2 1
d 11 Pre-tax transit 2 8 10 4
5
E 12 Compressed weeks 5 4 9 3
13 Telecommuting 3 4 7 2
P 14 Duplex printing 13 2 15 7
R 15 Compost 15 7 22 11
Measure 10, to charge a user fee for parking, ranks number one in both GHG reduction
potential and implementation cost, as it generates revenue that greatly exceeds costs (although
it still requires seed money to implement). Measures 11, 12, and 13, the other commute
measures, rank next as they have high GHG reduction potential and only a small cost for
existing staff time. Thus, the County has a great opportunity to reduce its GHG emissions by
targeting employee commute, but commute measures may also provide unique challenges as
they involve individual behavior.
Measure 3, to create an employee energy awareness program, ranks next as it also has high
GHG reduction potential and only a small cost for existing staff time. Measure 5, to enter into a
PPA for solar systems, and Measure 14, to set copying/printing machines to default duplex,
rank next as there is no upfront cost to the County for either project. Measure 9, to install an
E85 ethanol fueling tank, ranks next as it has high GHG reduction potential. This measure also
provides an opportunity to offset costs with purchases from other agencies, but it has
controversial side effects. Measures 1, 2, and 6,the other energy measures, will pay
themselves off within 5 years. Measure 15, to compost municipal landscaping debris, will also
pay itself off within 2 years. Measures 7 and 8, the other fleet measures, have internal funding
available and will offset their costs at the time of vehicle resale.
This analysis suggests that all the measures proposed in this report are feasible for
implementation, with the possible exception of Measure 4, which requires additional research.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 23
8. Maintaining Efforts
The MCAP is only the beginning of the County's climate protection process. The County's next
steps include the implementation of the MCAP and the development of a community-wide
climate action plan to include measures that would reduce countywide emissions.
The County should consider establishing an internal staff workgroup that would meet on a
regular basis and report to the County's Climate Change Working Group. This workgroup could
promote the implementation of the municipal measures in this report and identify additional
measures, track progress in reducing municipal GHG emissions, identify necessary changes in
policies to more effectively reduce emissions, and implement educational trainings, campaigns,
and competitions for County staff.
A separate workgroup could focus on designing and implementing a community-wide climate
action plan. The County should consider involving the local community in the development of
this plan to strengthen its support and applicability, possibly looking to the City of Berkeley's
process of including public workshops and online comment periods.
The County should also identify a formal structure for collaboration with the local cities on
countywide climate protection efforts. Collaboration with cities could include the sharing of
ideas and resources, partnership on grant applications, or a countywide outreach and education
campaign. To achieve countywide collaboration, Marin County created the Marin Climate and
Energy Partnership (MCEP), which is composed of one staff person from each jurisdiction and
meets once a month. Marin County is also hiring a Climate Action Director to oversee project
implementation, apply for funding for projects and staff, and report to the MCEP. The MCEP
received grant funding to pay for the Climate Action Director and for ICLEI involvement, and
each jurisdiction will contribute additional funds beyond these grants. Sonoma County took a
different approach with its Climate Protection Campaign (CPC). The CPC structure is focused
on a non-profit group that organizes public meetings, coordinates outreach efforts, and applies
for funding. Jurisdictions initially contributed funds for this effort, and further funding will be
provided by grants. The County's approach can build on these models, utilizing both internal
capacity and opportunities for involvement of the public and the private sector.
The County should consider establishing a revolving fund for climate protection activities. As
many GHG reduction projects will eventually lead to financial savings, these savings could be
placed in a revolving fund to pay for implementation of measures or climate staff-time for further
research and planning. The County could also consider creating a climate protection charge
on the departments to fund these efforts.
Ultimately, a dedicated staff person would be necessary to provide the leadership needed to
help the County meet its targeted goals in a strategic and comprehensive manner. This staff
person would lead efforts to coordinate project implementation, work with appropriate staff to
develop policies and design strategies and programs to reduce emissions, monitor progress
toward the GHG reduction targets adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and track state and
federal policy and its implications for local government. This staff-time could be funded initially
by a grant, but ultimately should be permanent and internally-funded. If the BAAQMD decides
to offer another round of Climate Protection grants, the County could apply to fund staffing that
would identify grants and other funding sources and work with the Climate Change Working
Group to develop permanent, ongoing funding.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 24
9. Monitoring Progress
The County should conduct interim inventories of municipal GHG emissions to monitor
progress toward the reduction targets, possibly every 5 years in accordance with the 2030
target milestones. Additional research proves that the County possesses the ability to quickly
monitor municipal GHG emissions using only data and software kept internally.
The 2006 municipal emissions inventory was completed using two methods: a method based on
usage data, which generated the data shown earlier in this report; and a method based on cost
data (which can be obtained easily from the County's own Auditor's Office and the software
program Utility Manager) coupled with price assumptions. This "cost method" was completed in
less than one week, and generated results that were very similar to those generated by the
more detailed "usage method."
Table 9.1 compares the results derived by these two data collection methods. The municipal
GHG emissions total derived by the cost method is only 2% less than that derived by the usage
method. Furthermore, the most policy-relevant data from the inventory is the source
composition (or the percentage of emissions that come from each source), as this informs which
sources should be the focus of reduction efforts. The similarity of the source composition
between the two methods suggests that the cost method can predict the results of the usage
method with acceptable accuracy. This implies that the cost method can be used for future
municipal inventories to easily and accurately monitor progress toward the reduction target.
The cost method is consistent with the alternate methods described in the Local Government
Operations Protocol designed by ICLEI and the ARB. While Table 9.1 does not include
emissions from employee commute, the Transportation Planning Section has the data and tools
necessary to estimate the cost of employee fuel purchases for commute.
Table 9.1 2006 municipal GHG emissions derived by the usage and cost methods
Source Usage Usage Cost Cost
MTCO2e % of total MTCO2e %of total
Energy Use 20,128 66% 19,706 66%
Electricity 12,227 40% 12,729 42%
Natural gas 7,667 25% 6,751 22%
Propane Qail kitchens) 207 1% 211 1%
Diesel (generators) 27 0% 16 0%
Vehicle Fleet 8,502 28% 8,582 29%
Gasoline 7,460 24% 7„477 25%
Diesel 696 2% 799 3%
B20 biodiesel 218 1% 228 1%
CNG 127 0% 78 0%
Landfilled Waste 1,976 6% 1,726 6%
Total 30,606 100% 30,014 100%
Thus, the County could supplement periodic usage method inventories with more frequent cost
method inventories to measure its progress toward its reduction targets.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 25
Appendices
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 26
Appendix A. US Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration
IN THE MATTER OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ADOPTING THE US COOL COUNTIES
CLIMATE STABILIZATION DECLARATION:
WHEREAS, there is a consensus among the world's leading scientists that global warming
caused by human emission of greenhouse gases.is among the most significant problems facing
the world today;
WHEREAS, documented impacts of global warming include but are not limited to increased
occurrences of extreme weather events (i.e., droughts and floods), adverse impacts on plants
and wildlife habitats, threats to global food and water supplies—all of which have an economic
•impact on communities and their local governments;
WHEREAS, leading scientists have projected that stabilization of climate change in time to
minimize such impacts will require a reduction of global warming emissions to 80 percent below
current levels by the year 2050;
WHEREAS, currently the United States is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of
the world's global warming pollutants;
WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction
programs to demonstrate corporate and operational responsibility have also publicly expressed
preference for the federal government to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and
timetables as a means by which to provide a uniform and predictable regulatory environment to
encourage and enable necessary and long-term business investments;
WHEREAS, state, regional and local governments throughout the United States are adopting
emissions reduction targets and programs and that this effort is bipartisan, coming from
Republican and Democratic leadership;
WHEREAS, the US Conference of Mayors has endorsed the US Mayors Climate Protection
Agreement, which commits cities to reduction of global warming emissions to 7 percent below
1990 levels by 2012, and calls for a federal limit on emissions;
WHEREAS, the State of California has mandated statewide reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050;
WHEREAS, more than 100 county leaders signed a letter written by Dane County, Wisconsin,
that was sent to the President in March 2006 calling for increased energy investment and
development of jobs focused on clean energy technologies;
WHEREAS, counties have a unique role to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and
preparing for the impacts of climate change through their regional jurisdiction over policy areas
such as air quality, land use planning, transportation, zoning, forest preservation, water
conservation, and wastewater and solid waste management;
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 27
WHEREAS, the economic arguments for implementing climate solutions are compelling, from
the near-term economic gains of energy efficiency to the long-term climate stabilization that can
prevent irreparable harm from catastrophic climate change impacts;
WHEREAS, many counties throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing global
warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as
reducing energy bills, preserving green space, implementing better land use policies, improving
air quality, promoting waste-to-energy programs, expanding transportation and work choices to
reduce traffic congestion, and fostering more economic development and job creation through
energy conservation and new technologies;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the County of Contra Costa declares that we as
Cool Counties will take immediate steps to help the federal, state, and our governments within
our county to achieve the 2050 climate stabilization goal by making the following commitments:
i. Create an inventory of our county government(operational) greenhouse gas ("GHG")
emissions and implement policies, programs and operations to achieve significant,
measurable and sustainable reduction of those operational GHG emissions to help
contribute to the regional reduction targets as identified in paragraph ii;
ii. Work closely with local, state, and federal governments and other leaders to reduce
county geographical GHG emissions to 80 percent below current levels by 2050, by
developing a GHG emissions inventory and regional plan that establishes short-, mid-,
and long-term GHG reduction targets, with recommended goals to stop increasing
emissions by 2010, and to achieve a 10 percent reduction every five years thereafter
through to 2050.
iii. Urge Congress and the Administration to enact a multi-sector national program of
requirements, market-based limits, and incentives for reducing GHG emissions to 80
percent below current levels by 2050. Urge Congress and the Administration to
strengthen standards by enacting legislation such as a Corporate Average Fuel
Economy("CAFE") standard that achieves at least 35 miles per gallon (mpg)within 10
years for cars and light trucks.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the County will take immediate steps to identify regional
climate change impacts; we will draft and implement a county plan to prepare for and build
resilience to those impacts.
The above resolution was adopted by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on
October 2, 2007.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 28
Appendix B. Assumptions and Calculations
In the following lists, existing and planned measures are indicated by letter and potential
measures by number. Existing measures are also indicated by their number from the
November 2005 Report (or by a dash if they were assigned no number) in parentheses.
Measures that are not followed by a description of methods were not included in calculations,
but are still listed in order to present a full list of measures that may reduce GHG emissions.
While activity data could be obtained directly for some existing measures, many existing
measures and all proposed measures required assumptions and calculations to extrapolate
their associated reductions in activity data.
The detailed descriptions below are meant to aid other local governments in calculating the
associated costs and GHG reductions for their own municipal GHG reduction measures.
Whenever possible, an annual reduction metric is provided (and marked by an asterisk), in the
form of a per-unit average that can be applied to the individual data of other local governments.
Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Green Building
Existing Measures
A. (6a) Performed seven facility-level and two county-wide energy assessments.
B. (3a) Installed direct digital control systems for HVAC systems in 33 major County
facilities and new County buildings & remodels.
Based on electricity and natural gas reductions from DDC systems in County data, the average
annual reduction is about 1.21 kWh per square foot and 0.116 therms per square foot.
1.21 kWh per square foot of building
0.116 therms per square foot of building
The sum of the total or partial square footage of all 33 buildings with DDC systems, depending
on the extent of the system, is about 1,799,069 square feet. Based on the above metrics, this
yields an°annual reduction of 2,167,724 kWh and 208,143 therms.
Total annual reduction of 1,620 MTCO2e
C. (3b) Improved, retrofitted and replaced HVAC systems in 15 selected County
buildings.
County data shows an annual reduction of 1,017,568 kWh and 45,004 therms.
* See Measure 1 for metrics
Total annual reduction of 479 MTCO2e
CCC Municipal Climate Action plan 2008 29
D. ( - ) Implemented heat recovery projects for the Regional Medical Center and the
Pittsburg Health Center.
County data shows that heat recovery projects at the Regional Medical Center, which has a
total GSF of 228,000, resulted in an annual reduction of 44,351 kWh and 2,592 therms.
*0.195 kWh per square foot of building
*0.011 therms per square foot of building
The Pittsburg Health Center has a total GSF of 130,900. Using the above metrics, this yields a
total annual reduction of 69,814 KWh and 4,080 therms for the two buildings.
Total annual reduction of 38 MTCO2e
I
E. (4a) Installed state-of-the-art lighting technology and systems in 7 selected County
facilities.
County data shows an annual reduction of 1,271,421 kWh.
* See Measure R for metrics
Total annual reduction of 298 MTCO2e
F. (13a) Participate in energy demand response programs for 20 selected County
facilities.
This program covers 20 buildings and has the capability of reducing 1000 kW. The County's
Energy Manager estimates that it actually reduces about 400 kW in each of 12 six-hour-long
events each year. This yields an annual reduction of 28,800 kWh.
*28.8 kWh per kW reduction capacity
Total annual reduction of 7 MTCO2e
G. (5a) Installed variable frequency motor drive technology in 9 County(most possible)
buildings.
County data shows an annual reduction of 245,421 kWh.
*27,269 kWh per building
Total annual reduction of 57 MTCO2e
H. (5b) Installed vending misers on 60 vending machines.
County data shows an annual reduction of 87,600 kWh.
* 1,460 kWh per vending machine
Total annual reduction of 20 MTCO2e
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 30
I. ( -) Install LEDs in about 50-percent of building exit signs.
County data shows an annual reduction of 404,615 kWh. Also, LEDs use 85-percent less
energy than conventional alternatives (Kho 2008).
* 85-percent of sign electricity use
Total annual reduction of 95 MTCO2e
J. (17/18) Use LEDs in traffic and pedestrian signals.
LEDs have been installed in almost all traffic signals and in 70-percent of pedestrian signals,
with the remaining pedestrian signals being replaced with LEDs as they fail. In 2006, after most
LED installation, the annual electricity use for signal accounts was about 421,028 kWh. LEDs
use 85-percent less energy than conventional alternatives (Kho 2008). This yields an annual
reduction of 2,385,825 kWh of electricity use (see calculations below).
* 85-percent of signal electricity use
Current kWh represents the current electricity use for LED signals
Baseline kWh represents the electricity use for the same signals before LED replacement
An 85% reduction means that current kWh = 15% of baseline kWh
421,028 kWh = 0.15X where X is baseline kWh
X = 421,028/0.15 = 2,806,853 kWh
Annual reduction = baseline kWh—current kWh
Annual reduction = 2,806,853—421,028 = 2,385,825 kWh
Total annual reduction of 558 MTCO2e
K. (7a) Designed and installed cogeneration plants for the Martinez Detention Facility and
the West County Detention Facility.
County data shows an annual reduction of 1,788,000 kWh.
*See Measure U for metrics
Total annual reduction of 418 MTCO2e
L. (8a) Installed solar panels on the rooftops of the Martinez Detention Facility and 50
Douglas.
County data shows an annual reduction of 346,928 kWh.
*See Measure 5 for metrics
Total annual reduction of 81 MTCO2e
M. (2a) Design energy usage in 3 new County buildings to be at least 10% below
California's Title 24 requirements.
N. (10a) Use cool roofing systems for selected County buildings.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 31
On average, cool roofing systems reduce building air conditioning electricity use by 10 to 30-
percent, or total building electricity use by three to 10-percent(Stern 2006). The total electricity
usage of the affected buildings (based on a building list from the County's General Services
Department) in 2006 was 2,075,112 kWh. Assuming a seven percent reduction in building
electricity use, this yields an annual reduction of 156,191 kWh of electricity use (see calculations
below).
Seven percent of total building electricity use .
Current kWh represents the current electricity use for the affected buildings with cool roofs
Baseline kWh represents the electricity use for the same buildings before cool roofing
A 7% reduction means that current kWh = 93% of baseline kWh
2,075,112 kWh = 0.93X where X is baseline kWh
X = 2,075,112/0.93 = 2,231,303 kWh
Annual reduction = baseline kWh —current kWh
Annual reduction = 2,231,303-2,075,112 = 156,191 kWh
Total annual reduction of 37 MTCO2e
O. (10b) Standard for cool roofing systems in new County buildings and remodels.
P. (12a) Install thermally resistant window films on selected County facilities.
Thermally resistant window films reduce total building energy use by 10 to15-percent (Piper
2004).
12-percent of total building energy use
The total energy usage of the affected buildings (based on a building list from the County's
General Services Department) in 2006 was 4,925,419 kWh and 196,213 therms. Assuming a
12-percent reduction in energy use, this yields an annual reduction of 671,648 kWh and 26,756
therms of energy use (see calculations below).
Current kWh represents the current electricity use for the affected buildings with window films
Baseline kWh represents the electricity use for the same buildings before window films
A 12% reduction means that current kWh = 88% of baseline kWh
4,925,419 kWh = 0,88X where X is baseline kWh
X = 4,925,419/0.88 = 5,597,067 kWh
Annual reduction = baseline kWh—current kWh
Annual reduction = 5,597,067—4,925,419 = 671,648 kWh
Current therms represents the current natural gas use for the affected buildings
Baseline therms represents the natural gas use for the same buildings before window films
A 12% reduction means that current therms = 88% of baseline therms
196,213 therms = 0.88X where X is baseline therms
X = 196,213/0.88 = 222,969 therms
Annual reduction = baseline therms—current therms
Annual reduction = 222,969— 196,213 = 26,756 therms
Total annual reduction of 300 MTCO2e
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 32
Q. (25) Use water conserving landscaping and irrigation systems.
Planned Measures
R. Expanding lighting improvement program to 14 additional County facilities.
In Measure E, seven buildings with a total GSF of 1,076,616 experienced a total annual
reduction of 1,271,421 kWh.
1.18 kWh per square foot of building
This measure expands this program to another 14 buildings with a total GSF of 633,425.
Total annual reduction of 175 MTCO2e
S. Will install LEDs in the remaining 50% of building exit signs.
This is the same as the associated existing measure, resulting in an annual reduction of
404,615 kWh.
*See Measure I for metrics
Total annual reduction of 95 MTCO2e
T. Conducting pilot studies on LED streetlight technology.
U. Designing and installing cogeneration plants for the Regional Medical Center and the
Juvenile Hall, which operate 24-hours per day.
In Measure K, two buildings with a total GSF of 421,642 experienced a total annual reduction of
1,788,000 kWh.
4.24 kWh per square foot of building
This measure expands this program to two additional facilities with a total GSF of 319,412. This
metric yields an annual reduction of 1,354,487 kWh.
Total annual reduction of 317 MTCO2e.
Potential Measures
1. Expand HVAC improvement and retrofit program to 50 additional County buildings.
In Measure C, 15 buildings with a total GSF of 811,625 experienced an annual energy use
reduction of 1,017,568 kWh and 45,004 therms.
* 1.25 kWh per square foot of building
*0.055 therms per square foot of building
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 33
This measure would expand this program to 50 additional buildings, each with an assumed GSF
of about 50,000 (based on the GSF of the buildings already included in the program), for a total
of 2,500,000 GSF.
Potential annual reduction of 1,475 MTCO2e
Implementation cost: $0.185/SF x 50,000 SF/building x 50 buildings = $462,500
2. Expand lighting improvement program to 30 additional County buildings.
In Measure E, seven buildings with a total GSF of 1,076,616 experienced a total annual
reduction of 1,271,421 kWh.
1.18 kWh per square foot of building
This measure would expand this program to another'30 buildings with the average County
building GSF of 25,000, yielding an annual reduction of 885,706 kWh.
Total annual reduction of 207 MTCO2e
Implementation cost: $0.40/SF x 25,000 SF/building X 30 buildings= $300,000
3. Create an employee energy awareness program to promote energy conservation and
efficient use of County facilities.
Assume'that this program could reduce building energy use by five percent.
Five percent of total building energy use
Five percent of GHG emissions from building energy use
Potential annual reduction of 951 MTCO2e
4. Install LEDs in all county-owned streetlights (if pilot studies are successful).
LEDs use 85-percent less energy than conventional alternatives(Kho 2008).
85-percent of lighting electricity use
85-percent of GHG emissions from streetlight energy use
Potential annual reduction of 704 MTCO2e
5. Install additional solar systems at the West County Detention Facility, the Buchanan
Airport Field, the Pleasant Hill Library, and the Elections Office.
In Measure L, two buildings with a total installed capacity of 300 kW reduced annual electricity
use by 346,928 kWh.
1,156 kWh per kW of installed capacity
According to the County's Energy Manager, the appropriate installed capacity of these potential
systems would be 300 kW for the West County Detention Facility and the Buchanan Airport
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 34
Field, 100 kW for the Pleasant Hill Library, and 85 kW for the Elections Office, for a total of 785
kW. This yields a potential annual reduction of 907,795 kWh.
Potential annual reduction of 212 MTCO2e
6. Install thermally resistant window films on 30 additional existing County facilities.
Thermally resistant window films reduce total building energy use by 10 to15-percent(Piper
2004).
* 12-percent of total building energy use.
The average building energy use of County buildings is 288,068 kWh and 8690 therms.
Reducing the energy use of 30 average buildings by 12-percent would yield an annual reduction
of 1,037,043 kWh and 31,284 therms.
Potential annual reduction of 410 MTCO2e
Implementation cost: $7.25/SF x 6,250 SF/building x 0.6 x 30 buildings = $815,625 (see below)
According to the County's Energy Manager, installation of window film costs about $7-10/SF of
window area with rebates of$1.25/SF, yielding a final price of about $7.25/SF of window area.
Window film is usually only applied on sun-facing sides of building for about 60-percent of
building window area. According to the County's Energy Manager, window area is usually
about 15 to 30-percent of floor area (assume 25-percent), so an average County building with a
floor area of 25,000 GSF would have about 6,250 SF of window area. This measure would
affect 60-percent of this area on 30 buildings for a total of 112,500 SF of window area.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
As the GHG inventory does not include a lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions from procurement
activities, it would be inconsistent to credit emissions reductions from the purchase of products
with recycled-content materials or otherwise environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes.
However, it should be noted that environmentally preferable purchasing holds great potential to
reduce emissions from the manufacturing process. Emissions reductions from the purchase of
products with the potential to reduce energy use are credited because energy use is included in
the GHG inventory.
Existing•Measures
V. (41) Include pricing for environmental specifications in the process of requiring bids
for building materials.
W. (42a) Require contractors/vendors to provide recycled-content/recyclable products.
X. (38) Standard for Allsteel 50% recycled-content, 99% recyclable office furniture.
Y. (40) Purchased 100,000 square yards of 50% recycled-content, 100% recyclable
carpeting for County buildings.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 35
Z. (37c) More than 100 items on the county office supply contract have been replaced
with recycled-content equivalents.
AB. (37b) Purchased recycled-content office paper(35% of paper).
AC. (37a) Purchased recycled-content toner cartridges (45% of cartridges).
AD. (36a) Require that all County business cards produced by General Services be
printed on recycled-content paper.
AE. ( - ) Adopted an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy.
Planned Measures
AF. Purchasing high efficiency motors, appliances, and equipment as they fail.
AG. All county copier contracts require the placement of Energy Star copiers.
According to County buyers, there are about 1500 copiers used in County buildings. The
average large copier uses about 2800 kWh per year, assuming 10 hours of operation per day.
According to the Energy Star website, Energy Star copiers use about 50-percent less electricity
than standard models due to imaging efficiency and shut-off mode.
*50-percent of copier electricity use
This yields an annual reduction of 1500 * 2800 * 0.5 = 2,100,000 kWh.
Total annual reduction of 491 MTCO2e
AH. Standard for EPEAT certified Dell desktop computers.
According to the County's Purchasing Manager, there are about 7000 computers used in
County buildings. Using the EPEAT Electronics Environmental Benefits Calculator,
replacement of these computers with EPEAT alternatives reduces energy use by 5,350,000
kWh.
* Calculator available at http://www.epeat.net/FastBenefits.aspx
Total annual reduction of 1,252 MTCO2e
Vehicle Fleet
Existing Measures
Al. (34) Minimize purchase of sport utility vehicles.
AJ. (35) Capture evacuated mobile air conditioning emissions.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 36
The emissions factors used for vehicle transportation in ICLEI's tool do not include emissions
from mobile air conditioning, so emissions from mobile air conditioning are not included in the
GHG inventory. Thus, it would be inconsistent to include reductions from measures aimed to
reduce mobile air conditioning emissions.
AK. ( - ) All 168 diesel fleet vehicles changed to B20 biodiesel fuel in September 2006.
Assume all 2006 diesel and 620 biodiesel consumption (98,233 gallons) changes from diesel to
B20 biodiesel.
Total annual reduction of 247 MTCO2e
* 1.47 MTCO2e per diesel vehicle
AL. (29) Purchased 12 electric vehicles
Dividing the total annual fleet gasoline consumption by the number of gasoline vehicles (991)
yields an average of about 831.5 gallons per vehicle. Multiplying this by the 12 vehicles in this
measure yields a total of 9,978 gallons of fuel switched from gasoline to electric. According to
ICLEI, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline is 35 kWh, so this is equivalent to 349,230
kWh of electricity.
* 832 gallons of gasoline reduced per electric vehicle
*35 kWh of electricity per gallon of gasoline
* 29,103 kWh of electricity added per electric vehicle
Total annual reduction of 9 MTCO2e
AM. (30a) Purchased 86 hybrid (gasoline and electric) fleet vehicles.
The County's Fleet Manager estimates that 22,722 gallons of gasoline fuel are avoided per year
due to hybrid use, based on the exact hybrid models and the vehicles that they replaced.
* See Measure 7 for metrics
Total annual reduction of 206 MTCO2e
AN. (32a) Install a "fast fill" CNG fueling facility.
AO. (31a) Purchased 39 compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.
A total of 17,561 gallons of fuel switched from diesel to CNG.
*See Measure 8 for metrics
Total annual reduction of 50 MTCO2e
Planned Measures
AP. Purchased 29 FlexFuel vehicles, and 13-14 patrol cars will be replaced with FlexFuel
equivalents each year.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 37
Potential Measures
7. Purchase 100 more hybrid vehicles fog the fleet.
In Measure AM, the purchase of 86 hybrid vehicles led to an annual reduction of 206 MTCO2e
(based on an estimate by the County Fleet Manager of 22,722 gallons of gasoline fuel avoided).
*2.40 MT602e per hybrid vehicle
Potential annual reduction of 240 MTCO2e
Additional implementation cost: (90 sedans x $3,000/sedan) + (10 SUVs x $6,000/SUV) _
$330,000
Assume a mixture of 90 hybrid sedans and 10 hybrid SUVs. Each hybrid sedan adds about
$3,000 over the cost of a standard non-hybrid vehicle. Since the vehicles are being procured to
replace older retired vehicles, the additional cost to add hybrids to the fleet may be estimated at
$3,000 per vehicle. Each hybrid SUV adds about$6,000 over the cost of a comparable non-
hybrid SUV.
8. Purchase 50 more CNG vehicles for the fleet.
In Measure AO, the purchase of 39 CNG vehicles led to an annual reduction of 50 MTCO2e.
This yields an average annual reduction of 1.28 MTCO2e per CNG vehicle.
* 1.28 MTCO2e per CNG vehicle
Potential annual reduction of 64 MTCO2e
Additional implementation cost: (30 sedans x $3,000/sedan) + (20 vans x $17,500/van) _
$440,000
Assume a mixture of 30 dedicated CNG sedans and 20 dedicated CNG vans. CNG sedans add
about $3,000 over a non-hybrid sedan. CNG vans add $17,500.over the purchase of a standard
gasoline van.
9. Install an above-ground 5,000-gallon E85 ethanol fuel tank for the County's 70
FlexFuel vehicles as well as other users (CHP and CALTRANS).
Based on County fuel consumption and vehicle inventory data from baseline year 2006, the
average County gasoline fleet vehicle consumes 832 gallons of gasoline each year. For each
FlexFuel vehicle, this gasoline would be replaced with the 832 GGEs of E85 ethanol fuel.
* 7 MTCO2e per E85-fueled FlexFuel vehicle
It is estimated that the County will have close to 70 E85 capable Flex Fuel Vehicles in service
by the end of 2008.
Potential annual reduction of 490 MTCO2e (and growing with additional Flex Fuel vehicles)
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 38
Employee Commute
Analysis for the following measures is based on results from the 2003 Contra Costa County
Employee Commute Survey, which was conducted by the Transportation Planning Section in
conjunction with 511 Contra Costa. An additional survey was conducted in 2007, and the
preliminary results available at the time of this report illustrated very similar results to the 2003
survey. Thus, the 2003 values are considered to be stable and accurate for current conditions.
The potential reductions from many of these measures are based on assumptions which may
differ from actual conditions and presume that all other variables remain the same.
Existing Measures
AQ. (51 a) Offer financial incentives to County employees for using transit or forming a
new carpool.
According to Table 1 of the 2003 Employee Commute Survey, 9% of employees carpool and
2% of employees take public transit to work. Assume that this will reduce the VMT of the
participating employees by 75% (with an average carpool/transit size of 4 individuals as verified
by Transportation Planning). Assume that all personal commuting uses gasoline fuel. In 2006,
employee commute was responsible for a total of 47,818,925 VMT. This yields an annual
reduction of 15,780,245 VMT (see calculations below).
This affects 11% of total employee VMT
Current affected VMT = 0.11'47,818,925 = 5,260,082 VMT
Current.affected VMT represents the VMT for employees who use carpool or transit
Baseline affected VMT represents the VMT for the same employees before carpool or transit
A 75% reduction means that current affected VMT = 25% of baseline affected VMT
5,260,082 VMT = 0.25X where X is baseline affected VMT
X = 5,260,082/0.25 = 21,040,327 VMT
Annual reduction = baseline affected VMT—current affected VMT
Annual reduction = 21,040,327— 5,260,082 = 15,780,245 VMT
See Measure 11 for metrics
Total annual reduction of 7,764 MTCO2e
Note: The County also provides 30 free preferred parking stalls for County employees' vehicles
used for carpooling (55a), which could also encourage the commute patterns described in the
survey above.
AR. (50a) Provide financial incentives to County employees participating in a vanpool
(25% off,,month ly costs).
According to Table 1 of the 2003 Employee Commute Survey, 1% of employees vanpool to
work. Assume that this will reduce the VMT of the participating employees by 89% (with an
average vanpool size of 9 individuals as verified by Transportation Planning). In 2006,
employee commute was responsible for a total of 47,818,925 VMT. This yields an annual
reduction of 3,868,986 VMT (see calculations below).
This affects 1% of total employee VMT
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 39
Current affected VMT = 0.01*47,818,925 =478,189 VMT
Current affected VMT represents the VMT for employees who vanpool
Baseline affected VMT represents the VMT for the same employees before vanpool
An 89% reduction means that current affected VMT = 11% of baseline affected VMT
478,189 VMT = 0.11X where X is baseline affected VMT
X =478,189/0.11 = 4,347,175 VMT
Annual reduction = baseline affected VMT—current affected VMT
Annual reduction = 4,347,175—478,189 = 3,868,986 VMT
Total annual reduction of 1,904 MTCO2e
* 1,904 MTCO2e per% of employees
*22.6 MTCO2e per employee
f
AS. (56a) Provide bicycle lockers and/or racks at work sites to encourage County
employees to bike to work.
According to Table 1 of the 2003 Employee Commute Survey, 0.5% of employees bike to work.
Assume that this will reduce the VMT of the participating employees by 100%. In 2006,
employee commute was responsible for a total of 47,818,925 VMT. This yields an annual
reduction of 239,095 VMT (see calculations below).
Annual reduction = 0.005*47,818,925 VMT = 239,095 VMT
Total annual reduction of 118 MTCO2e
*236 MTCO2e per% of employees
*2.80 MTCO2e per employee
Note: The County also provides shower facilities at certain work sites to encourage County
employees to bike, walk or run to work (57a), which could also encourage the commute patterns
described in the survey above.
AT. (52a)Allow County employees to work using flex schedules and compressed work
weeks.
According to Table 12 of the 2003 Employee Commute Survey, 54% of employees work flex
schedules, most with 9-80 schedules. Assume that this will reduce the VMT of the participating
employees by 10% (one day out of every ten work days). In 2006, employee commute was
responsible for a total of 47,818,925 VMT. This yields an annual reduction of 2,869,136 VMT
(see calculations below).
This affects 54% of total employee VMT
Current affected VMT = 0.54*47,818,925 = 25,822,220 VMT
Current affected VMT represents the VMT for employees who use flex schedules
Baseline affected VMT represents the VMT for the same employees before flex schedules
A 10% reduction means that current affected VMT = 90% of baseline affected VMT
25,822,220 VMT = 0.9X where X is baseline affected VMT
X = 25,822,220/0.9 = 28,691,355 VMT
Annual reduction = baseline affected VMT—current affected VMT
Annual reduction = 28,691,355—25,822,220 = 2,869,136 VMT
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 40
* See Measure 12 for metrics
Total annual reduction of 1,412 MTCO2e
AU. (49a) Implement Telecommuting Program for employees to reduce vehicle trips.
According to Table 1 of the 2003 Employee Commute Survey, 0.2% of employees telecommute.
Assume that this will reduce the VMT of the participating employees by 40% (two days out of
every week or five work days). In 2006, employee commute was responsible for a total of
47,818,925 VMT. This yields an annual reduction of 63,759 VMT (see calculations below).
This affects 0.2% of total employee VMT
Current affected VMT = 0.002*47,818,925 = 95,638 VMT
Current affected VMT represents the VMT for employees who telecommute
Baseline affected VMT represents the VMT for the same employees before telecommuting
A 40% reduction means that current affected VMT = 60% of baseline affected VMT
95,638 VMT = 0.6X where X is baseline affected VMT
X = 95,638/0.6 = 159,396 VMT
Annual reduction = baseline affected VMT—current affected VMT
Annual reduction = 159,396—95,638 = 63,759 VMT
*See Measure 13 for metrics
Total annual reduction of 31 MTCO2e
Potential Measures
Note that over sixty percent of County employees commute more than 10 miles to work, and
thirty percent commute over 20 miles. This should be taken into consideration before the
metrics for measures 10- 13 are used by other local governments.
10. Institute a user fee for parking spaces owned or leased by the County and allocate
the surplus revenue to incentives for use of commute alternatives.
Researchers who have analyzed case studies in the United States and Canada suggest that at
least 20-percent of commuters who now drive alone would choose to carpool or use public
transit if employers required them to pay market rates for parking they now receive free. Thus,
assume that this measure would increase use of mass transit and carpooling by 20% of
employees. In existing measure 51 a, participation by 11% of employees led to an annual
reduction of 5,254 MTCO2e.
*478 MTCO2e per% of employees
*5.67 MTCO2e per employee
An increase in use by 20% of employees would yield a potential annual reduction of 9,553
MTCO2e
Implementation Cost: $786,375
56 pay stations at $9,000 (including installation): $504,000
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 41
Painting numbers on parking stalls 50,000
100 Parking Signs @ $250 each 25,000
3 Handheld enforcement devices (two included) 3,500
Total Materials: 582,500
Program Design/Engineering @ 10% 58,250
Contingency @ 25% 145,625
Total Implementation Cost: $786,375
Annual Operating Cost: $324,300
Software maintenance charge $4,440
Wireless communication charge 36,960
Warranty 32,900
Maintenance Tech (1) 100,000
Enforcement/Collections Tech (2) 150,000
Total Operating Cost $324,300
Annual Revenue: $1,981,980
In downtown Martinez, parking meters charge $0.25 per hour. The fee amounts to $2.25 per
day for employees that work 8 to 5. This translates into monthly revenue of$48.75, or$585
annually for each parking space. Applying this fee structure to all County-owned or leased off-
street parking spaces involves the following assumptions.
3,388 parking spaces x $585/space = $1,981,980 annual revenue
11. Allow County employees to use pre-tax dollars to pay for mass transit or carpool
expenses.
Based on expressed employee willingness in the 2003 Employee Commute Survey to switch
.commute alternatives based on pre-tax payroll deductions, assume that this would increase use
of mass transit and carpooling from 11% to 30% of employees, a difference of 19%of
employees. In existing measure 51a, participation by 11% of employees led to an annual-
reduction of 5,254 MTCO2e.
t
*478 MTCO2e per% of employees
*5.67 MTCO2e per employee
An increase in use by 19% of employees would yield a potential annual reduction of 9,075
MTCO2e
Note that this reduction may not be additional to the reduction in Measure 10, as the same
employees could be influenced by both measures. It should also be noted that expressed
willingness to change behavior can be higher than actual behavior upon implementation.
12. Institute compressed work weeks in all County departments.
This would increase use of flex schedules from 54%to 100% of employees, a difference of 46%
of employees. In existing measure 52a, participation by 54% of employees led to an annual
reduction of 1,412 MTCO2e.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 42
*26.2 MTCO2e per% of employees
*0.310 MTCO2e per employee
An increase in use by 46% of employees would yield a potential annual reduction of 1,203
MTCO2e
13. Expand the telecommuting program by identifying opportunities to increase
employee participation to 30%.
Based on expressed willingness to telecommute in the 2003 commute survey, this could
increase use of telecommuting from 0.2% to 30% of employees, a difference of 29.8% of
employees. In existing measure 49a, participation by 0.2% of employees led to an annual
reduction of 31 MTCO2e.
* 155 MTCO2e per% of employees
* 1.84 MTCO2e per employee
An increase in use by 29.8% of employees would yield a potential annual reduction of 4,619
MTCO2e
Note that expressed willingness to change behavior can be higher than actual behavior upon
implementation.
Waste Reduction and Recycling
As the baseline GHG inventory only considers methane production from landfilled waste, for
consistency, the reductions in the waste sector only include avoided methane. However, it
should be noted that recycling and waste reduction also hold other reduction potentials,
including the carbon sequestration of trees that are not consumed for paper production, the
avoided energy use of new paper production, and the avoided transportation to landfill sites.
Existing Measures
Av. (47a) Recycle paper from about 200 County buildings.
County data shows an annual reduction of 1,634 tons in 2005.
*8.17 tons per building
Total annual reduction of 520 MTCO2e
AW. (47b) Collect and Recycle beverage containers from over 50 County buildings and
parks.
County data shows an annual reduction of 3 tons in 2005. Note that the program has grown
significantly since 2005, so the actual reduction is probably higher.
*0.06 tons per park or building
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 43
Total annual reduction of 1 MTCO2e
AX. (44a) Conduct an ongoing program to facilitate reuse and recycling of office furniture
and equipment from County buildings.
County data shows an annual reduction of 41 tons in 2005.
Total annual reduction of 3 MTCO2e
AY. (48) Recycle municipal landscaping debris
Recyclers pick up 20 cubic yards of greenwaste three times per month. Based on a volume to
weight conversion factor provided by ICLEI (one cubic yard = 600 pounds), this yields an annual
reduction of 196 tons of waste.
Total annual reduction of 16 MTCO2e
AZ. (45b) Direct consulting architects and engineers to reuse as much of the existing
structures and building materials as possible.
BA. (45a) Require contractors to recycle waste from building/remodeling projects
whenever feasible.
Potential Measures
14. Set the default on all copying and printing machines to duplex (double-sided) mode.
This measure would decrease paper disposal by half. The County's Purchasing Manager
estimates that the annual amount of white copy paper purchased for copying and printing
machines exceeds 50 tons. Thus, this measure would reduce paper waste disposal by at least
25 tons.
According to County buyers,.there are about 1500 copying and printing machines used in
County buildings.
0.033 tons of paper per copying/printing machine
Potential annual reduction of 87 MTCO2e
15. Divert organic waste from parks and landscaping to on-site compost.
Research conducted by CalRecovery, Inc. estimates that the generation of green waste from
the grounds-keeping activities of GSD is approximately 170 tons per year.
StopWaste.Org's 2007 Climate Action Plan Template, which was developed for Alameda
County, estimates that this type of measure could avoid twelve 50-mile trips by heavy diesel
trucks or 600 VMT annually.
Potential annual reduction of 16 MTCO2e (avoided landfill) + 1 MTCO2e (avoided VMT)
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 44
Total Reductions
Reduction from existing measures = 16,289 MTCO2e = 23% of baseline
Reduction from planned measures = 2,330 MTCO2e = 3% of baseline
Reduction from existing and planned measures = 18,619 MTCO2e = 26% of baseline
Reduction from potential measures = 26,919 MTCO2e = 37% of baseline
Reduction from existing, planned, and potential measures =45,538 MTCO2e = 63% of baseline
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 45
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared for the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors by Dana Riley,
Climate Protection Planner, and reviewed by the County's Climate Change Working Group and
its staff designees.
09
`q COUI3'�
This report was prepared as apart of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Climate
Protection grant program and ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Campaign.
A special thanks to the following individuals for their help in compiling this report:
Contra Costa County
Richard Battersby, Fleet Manager
Robin Bedell-Waite, Green Business Program Coordinator
Kevin Berenson, Purchasing and Materials Manager
Jason Crapo, Senior Deputy County Administrator
John Cunningham, Senior Transportation Planner
Deidra Dingman, Conservation Programs Manager
Steven Goetz, Deputy Director-Transportation Planning
Andy Green, Energy Program Manager
Vonley Honey, Buyer
Steve Jordan, Senior Capital Projects Manager
Catherine Kutsuris, Director of Conservation and Development
Kevin Lachapelle, Assistant Facilities Services Manager
Terry Mann, Deputy Director of General Services
Keven Ormiston, IT Manager
Doug Yates, Lead Carpenter
Other AgencjQs and Organizations
Abby Young, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
George Savage, CalRecovery, Inc.
Timothy Burroughs, City of Berkeley
Alden Feldon and Xico Manarolla, ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability
Richard Schorske, Marin Climate& Energy Partnership
Cover image of Briones Regional Park in Contra Costa County
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 46
Bibliography
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. "Transportation Fund for Clean Air." .
<http://www.baaq md.gov/pin/gra nts_and_i ncentives/tfca/index.htm>.
Borenstein. "Scientists advise halt to biofuels." Associated Press. April 2008.
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/30/MN6110DS13.DTL >.
California Air Resources Board. "Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan." October 2008.
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf>.
California Air Resources Board. "Incentive Program for Alternative Fuels." July 2008.
<http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/a ltfuels/incentives/incentives.htm>.
California Air Resources Board: Mobile Source Control Division. "Alternative Fuel Vehicle
Incentive Program." February 2007.
<http://www.a rb.ca.gov/fue Is/a ltfu els/incentives/afi p_att_ea.pdf>.
California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission. "State Alternative Fuels
Plan." December 2007. <http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600-2007-
011/C EC-600-2007-011-CM F.PD F>.
California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI — Local Governments
for Sustainability, and the Climate Registry. "Local Government Operations Protocol."
September 2008.
<http://www.a rb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/final_Igo_protocol_2008-09-25.pdf>.
California Energy Commission. "Energy Efficiency Financing." November 2008.
<http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/financing/>.
California State Assembly. "AB118 Bill Analysis." <hftp://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-
08/bill/asm/ab-01 01-0150/ab118 cfa 20070604 201512 asm floor.html>.
CalRecovery, Inc. "Study to Improve Waste Management Operations and Diversion Rate at
County-Owned Buildings and Grounds." July 2008.
City of Bellingham. "Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Climate Protection Action Plan." May 2007.
<http://vwvw.cob.org/documents/pw/e nvi ron me nt/2007-04-12-G ree n ho use-gas-i nv-rpt-
and-action-plan.pdf>.
Contra Costa County. "Climate Protection Report: Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions." November 2005. <http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2255>.
Contra Costa County. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report." June 2008.
<hftp://www.cccounty.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2253>.
Contra Costa County. "Resolution - US Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration."
October 2007. <http://www.cccounty.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2245>.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 47
Contra Costa County Community Development Department. "Background: Contra Costa County
White Office Paper Recycling Program." November 1988.
Contra Costa County Internal Operations Committee. "Sustainable County Buildings."
Presentation to the Board of Supervisors. August 2001.
Fontspace. 'AYEOgarden Font." <http://www.fontspace.com/>.
Gantert. "Ann Arbor to install LED street lights downtown." The Ann Arbor News. October 2007.
<hftp://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/1 0/ann_arbor_to_install_led_stree.html>.
Go Solar California. "The California Solar Initiative."
<http://www.gosolarcalifornia.org/csi/index.html>.
Kho. "Which bulbs will light the way?" Special to the San Francisco Chronicle. February 2008.
<http://www.sfgate.com/cg i-bin/article.cg i?f=/c/a/2008/02/20/HOVOUV7B H.DTL>.
Kroll Green Leasing. <www.krollgreenleasing.com>.
Nunez. "Assembly Bill No. 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." September
2006. <http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm>.
Piper. "Avoiding Common Window and Window Film Mistakes." Building Operating
Management. October 2004.
<http://findarticies.com/p/articles/mi_qa3922/is-20041 0/ain9464298>.
Rosenthal. "New biofuel crops could become invasive." New York Times. May 2008.
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/a rticle.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/21/M N9G 10PV9G.DTL>.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. "Ethanol E85 Program."
<http://www.airquality.org/E85/index.shtml>.
Stern. "Making the Case for Cool Roofs Cool Roof Rating Council. February 2006.
<hftp://www.facilitymanagement.com/articles/roof02O6.html>.
StopWaste.Org. "Climate Action Plan Template 2007."
<hftp://stopwaste.org/docs/accap_template_0507—final.doc>.
US Department of Energy Federal Energy Management Program. "Creating an Energy
Awareness Program: A Handbook for Federal Energy Managers, Step 2."April 2006.
<http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/step2_hndbk.pdf>.
Wendt. "Cities Mandate LEED But Not Certification." GreenSource. July 2008.
<http://greensource.construction.com/news/08073OCitiesMandateLE E D.asp>.
CCC Municipal Climate Action Plan 2008 48
Attachment B
AB 32/Climate Change Task Force
11/10/09
Meeting Notes
Present: Don Blubaugh, Bob Brown, David Gold, Ed Shaffer, Brandt Anderson, Dana
Riley, Gayle Uilkema, Sue Rainey, Antonio Inserni, Dana Riley, Gary Craft, Miles
Imwalle, Linda Best, Terry Shoaff
Sue Rainey called the meeting to order. An Alameda/Contra Costa counties forum is
scheduled on January 22 to hear updates from the League of Cities and the AB 32
Implementation Group on AB 32 and SB 375. (Note: meeting will be rescheduled due
to scheduling conflicts, hopefully in the following week.)
Discussion continued with Gary Craft on the Action Plan of the East Bay Green
Economy Cluster Study. Highlights of the discussion:
• There are opportunities to develop four industry clusters in the East Bay,
consisting of companies producing green products and/or services
• Green economy is market-driven,not regulatory-driven
• Public sector can help drive the market by being early adopters, including
developing Sustainability Master Plans, environmentally preferable purchasing,
green building, alternative fuel fleets and renewable energy
• . AB 32 currently encourages the public sector to move forward; will probably
evolve into mandates:
■ Developing an inventory and plan to reduce emissions
■ Adopt climate action plans with focus on GHG emissions
• Cities should look ai their entire operation for change, which can also lower costs.
Two good examples are Sacramento and Manhattan Beach
It was agreed that a coordinated effort between the cities, the County and eventually other
public agencies in Contra Costa would be beneficial to all. It would promote the
County's economy and would be helpful to local government and lower costs. It was
emphasized that such a coordinated effort should not get bogged down in planning,
though that should occur,but should also focus on getting things done in the short term.
It was agreed that a smaller group would get together to lay our a scope of work,budget
and sources of funding. The scope would initially focus on those jurisdictions in the
County that are early adopters.
The next meeting was scheduled for December 4, to avoid the conflict that Tom Butt has
every Monday. On the 4'h, we will establish a regular time convenient for all.
(Note: The December meeting is being cancelled due to scheduling conflicts.)