HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/26/2008 - CLIMATE TASK FORCE (CTF) DATE: February 26, 2008 WORK SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Lucinda Smith FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Climate Task Force (CTF).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1999, Council adopted a community-wide greenhouse gas reduction goal and a plan to meet it.
Biennial progress reports have shown that good progress is being made but that Fort Collins is not
on track to meet the goal "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30%below predicted 2010 levels by
2010." In March 2007,City Council passed Resolution 2007-105,convening a task force to develop
an updated plan for the 2010 goal and to recommend how the city should develop a future direction
for climate protection. The CTF has met thirteen times and developed a"Short-Tenn Provisional
Package"of new measures that can help meet the 2010 goal.
The Short-Tenn Provisional Package would result in 889,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e)avoided in the year 2010 though continuation of existing programs(407,000 tons CO2e)and
new measures that address solid waste reduction, energy conservation and renewable energy, and
transportation(482,000 tons CO2e). The CTF has not discussed a longer-tern direction for climate
protection in Fort Collins yet.
The purpose of this work session is to introduce the "Short-term Provisional Package" to Council
and learn Council perspectives and questions. Following this,public outreach will be conducted and
the CTF will develop its final recommendation to Council, anticipated in May 2008.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the Council have questions or suggestions regarding the work of the Climate Task
Force to date?
2. Does Council agree with the proposed next steps:
(1) develop a proposed implementation plan that considers Council and community
feedback; and
(2) hold a second Council work session on April 22, 2008 for Council to provide
feedback on the recommendations and proposed implementation?
February 26, 2008 Page 2
BACKGROUND
I. Climate Task Force - History
In 1997,the City of Fort Collins joined ICLEI's Cities for Climate Campaign and thereby committed
to develop a greenhouse gas inventory and forecast for 2010, set a greenhouse gas reduction target,
and develop a plan to meet the target. A Staff Technical Team and a Citizen Advisory Committee
met for over a year to identify and recommend a prioritized list of cost-effective actions to reduce
local greenhouse gas emissions that, if fully implemented, would reduce Fort Collins predicted
greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2010 by thirty percent.
In 1999,City Council adopted Resolution 1999-137,setting the goal to reduce citywide greenhouse
gas emissions 30%below worst case 2010 levels,by 2010. The 1999 Fort Collins Local Action Plan
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions (the Plan)outlines how to accomplish that goal. Resolution
1999-137 called for an interdepartmental Energy Management Team to prepare a biennial report to
track progress on the target and identify additional greenhouse gas reducing activities that merit
consideration, in recognition of changing scenarios and advances in technology.
Benefits to the City from implementing the 1999 Local Action Plan have been wide-ranging and
include air pollution reduction,reduced waste in the landfill,increased support for local businesses
and the economy, and generally improved quality of life.
Since adopting the greenhouse gas reduction goal in 1999, three biennial status reports have been
completed. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions avoided has grown steadily, but the total
citywide emissions have continued to grow as well. The most recent progress report (2004)
indicates that the City is not on track to meet the 2010 reduction goal. In 2004, nine percent of
citywide emissions were reduced. The 2004 citywide actual emissions are 2,467,000 tons COZe
which exceeds the desired 2010 emissions limit of 2,466,000 tons.
II. Climate Task Force—Objectives and Formation
In response to concerns that Fort Collins was not on track to meet its 2010 greenhouse gas goal,the
Fort Collins Sustainability Group asked City Council to convene a task force to address this issue.
After reviewing the situation, City Council passed Resolution 2007-015, authorizing the City
Manager to convene a task force to address the issue. City Council Resolution 2007-015 stipulates:
Section 1. That the City Manager shall appoint and convene a task force
consisting of members selected from citizens, the City's boards and commissions,
and staff to elicit public input and develop an updated plan that will describe steps
our community could take to meet the greenhouse gas emissions target established
by Resolution 99-137.
Section 2. That the work of the task force will be coordinated with the
appropriate City boards and commissions such as the Air Quality Board,the Electric
Board, and the Natural Resources Board.
Section 3. That the City Manager authorizes and encourages the task force to
determine the methods most appropriate for gathering information linked to their
February 26, 2008 Page 3
work, including consideration of relevant research from the Colorado Climate
Project.
Section 4. That the plan described under Section 1 shall include measures to
encourage local businesses, governments, utilities, schools, universities, non-profit
organizations,homeowners,and other individuals to develop,provide,and apply(as
appropriate) technologies, services, and practices to promote renewable energy,
energy efficiency, transportation efficiency and waste reduction within the City of
Fort Collins.
Section 5. That in addition to preparing recommendations for an updated 2010
plan, the task force shall also make recommendations on how the City should
develop a future direction for climate protection after 2010, and shall report its
findings on the matter to the City Manager.
The Fort Collins Climate Task Force was convened in May 2007. The following twelve members
are serving on the Task Force:
John Bleem Platte River Power Authority, Div. Mgr. Customer and Environmental
Programs
Bill Farland Colorado State University, Vice President for Research
Bill Franzen Poudre School District, Executive Director of Operations
Phil Friedman Fort Collins Sustainability Group
Stephen Gillette Larimer County, Solid Waste Division Manager
Blue Hovatter Economic Advisory Commission
Jeff Lebesch Electric Board
Eric Levine Air Quality Advisory Board
Liz Pruessner Natural Resources Advisory Board
Garry Steen Transportation Board
Norm Weaver City of Fort Collins, Energy Services Engineer
Steve Wolley Climate Wise Steering Committee, Avago Tech Facilities Manager
III. Climate Task Force- Process
The Brendle Group was hired to provide quantitative analysis and assist in the process. Art Bavoso
was also hired to facilitate CTF meetings. The CTF has met thirteen times between May 2007 and
February 2008,with two additional meetings of the Cost-Benefit Subcommittee and five additional
meetings of the Outreach Subcommittee.
The CTF used the process outlined below to develop the Short-term Provisional Package.
June 26 Public open house to gather input
June 28 Developed an initial list of more than 170 measures based on input from the
public, open house, staff, experts, and themselves.
July I 1 Consolidated this list to 70 measures,favoring those with short-term benefit
and local control
February 26, 2008 Page 4
July 16 Multi-voted,then reached unanimous agreement,on a list of 26 measures for
quantification
August-present Reviewed, discussed, and revised measures to develop a "provisional'
package of short-term strategies
IV. Climate Task Force Work in Context
There are three important points to keep in mind when considering the work of the CTF to date.
1. The CTF has focused its efforts on short-term strategies that can "describe steps our
community could take to meet the greenhouse gas emissions target established by Resolution
1999-137." It have not yet discussed the longer-term issue of"how the City should develop
a future direction for climate protection after 2010."
2. The Short-Term Provisional Package described here is not the final recommendation. The
CTF wishes to gain input from the City Council and Fort Collins citizens as well as develop
a recommendation for a long-term approach before offering a final recommendation.
3. The CTF process provides a screenine level analysis of new measures. The analysis
methodology is data driven and relies on local emission factors and comparable studies. It
parallels the state process and standard local government methodologies, resulting in
credible estimates of benefit and cost. As with all such analyses, there are inherent
uncertainties in the underlying assumptions about level of implementation or magnitude of
benefit that can only be verified after the fact. Because this is a screening level analysis,
several proposed measures will require the development of more comprehensive
implementation plans prior to implementation.
V. Climate Task Force Short-Term Provisional Package
Over the course of the CTF discussion, the following important themes have emerged that have
shaped the formation of the Short-term Provisional Package.
1. The Climate Task Force believes it is a higher priority to begin implementation of
greenhouse gas reduction strategies that set in motion sustainable, long-term GHG
reductions that will grow over time than it is to "meet the goal in 2010." Many of the
recommended measures will result in increasing greenhouse gas reductions with time.
2. The Climate Task Force generally believes the Short-Term Provisional Package, in its
entirety, can satisfy the objective of"describing an updated plan to meet the 2010 goal',
keeping in mind that some uncertainties exist in the underlying assumptions and that it is still
provisional at this point and may undergo some changes.
3. Most important of all is the need to develop and implement a"Public Engagement Plan"to
build public awareness about the importance and benefits of climate protection that will led
to increased acceptance and implementation of recommended strategies.
The "Short-Term Provisional Package" is presented in Attachment 2.
February 26, 2008 Page 5
Community Benefits
If implemented, the Short-Term Provisional Package will result in 889,000 tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) avoided in 2010, after"double-counting" among measures has been removed.
The projected 2010 benefits of existing measures will avoid 407,000 CO2e, and the 2010 benefit
of new measures contained in the provisional package is 482,000 tons CO2e. Cumulatively by
2020,the new measures alone will result in avoiding over seven million tons of CO2e.
There are multiple other benefits that will accrue to the community if these measures are
implemented.
• Economic Development Potential
Many of the measures offer significant potential for economic development, including the
provision of building energy assessments and retrofits and the provision of expanded
recycling services for the community.
• Reduced Vulnerability to Fossil Fuel Shortages or Price Fluctuations
According to Chevron and energy experts around the world,the era of easy oil is over. Oil
prices will become volatile and progressively higher as demand increases and supply can't
keep up. All local effort to reduce consumption of oil and natural gas will reduce our
vulnerability to changes in the oil market.
• Reduced Air Pollution
All of the measures in the Short-Term Provisional Package have the benefit of reducing
ozone-forming pollutants, especially important now that Fort Collins is in non-attainment
of the federal ozone health standard. Lowering the consumption of fossil fuel reduces air
pollutants that contribute to visibility degradation and certain air toxics as well.
• Support for existing City policies and desired results
The measures support many of the City's desired results identified through the BFO process
including improved environmental health,economic development,improved transportation,
community safety, high performing government and the overall sustainability of the
community.
Cost and Savings
The CTF took seriously its charge to "develop an updated plan that will describe steps our
community could take to meet the greenhouse gas emissions target". The measures in the Short-
Term Provisional Package were developed to meet the goal and were not fiscally constrained.
Moving forward, City Council and the community will have the opportunity to determine the
relative priority of climate protection activities in the context of the whole range of City services,
based upon credible estimates of benefits and costs provided in the final recommendations.
February 26, 2008 Page 6
As currently configured, the Short-Term Provisional Package is estimated to cost the City about
$14,500,000 in one-time funding for things like enhanced energy demand side management
programs (i.e., installation and maintenance of smart meters in all homes and high efficiency
lighting) and bicycling infrastructure. They are estimated to cost the City about $3,000,000 in
annual operating costs, primarily for staff and program dollars.
"Participant" (defined as citizen or business)one-time costs over several years are estimated to be
about $20,500,000, primarily for existing building energy efficiency upgrades and installation of
local renewable energy. Participants' annual costs are estimated to be 414,000,000, largely from
voluntary programs such as the purchase of carbon offsets, Climate Wise partner investments, and
employer support for transportation efficiency programs, as well as investments in recycling
programs. Participants are expected to receive— $15,000,000 in annual cost savings so there is a
net annual savings of—$1,000,000 for participants.
The average cost-effectiveness of the measures in the Short-Term Provisional Package is-$33/tons
CO2. In other words,the measures end up saving$33 for every ton of CO2e avoided. The weighted
cost-effectiveness of these measures is about$10/ton CO2 avoided.This is significantly lower than
the $50/ton threshold identified in the 2007 national McKinsey report* on options to reduce U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions. . It is also significantly lower than the net cost of inaction,estimated by
the Stern Report at 4-19%of global GDP. Based on this, some experts place the cost of inaction of
$70/ton. (See htip://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ecsi/€-yreenhouse=as asp)
Potentially Controversial Measures
Potentially controversial measures in the Short-Term Provisional Package may include:
• Purchase of RECS (Renewable Energy Certificates) to increase percentage of renewable
Energy. REC purchase is proposed as 95%of renewable energy purchased in 2010,shifting
to 45% in 2015 and dropping to 0% by 2020.
• Alternative residential electricity rate structures that promote conservation.
• Time of Sale Energy Conservation Ordinance for residential and commercial buildings that
would require upgrades if a certain minimum threshold is not met.
• Change in natural gas rate structure through increased franchise fee or other approach.
• Embedding a recycling fee into commercial trash rates (as it currently is for residential
rates). This is anticipated to be the most effective measure in increasing community
recycling.
• Requirement for trash haulers to collect yard waste for an added fee.
Input from stakeholders on all strategies will be sought, recorded and carefully considered as the
CTF develops its final recommendations.
Progress on Goal
As adopted in Council Resolution 99-137, the City's policy goal is to:
"Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 30%below predicted 2010 levels,by
2010, while achieving cost-effectiveness in each program."
February 26, 2008 page 7
Early on in the process, the CTF recognized the difficulty in accurately identifying a projected
emission levels for 2010 and at that time determined to stick with the reduction target identified in
the original plan and focus their efforts on the development of measures to reduce emissions.
Uncertainty remains over the 2010 projection.The Climate Task Force generally believes the Short-
Term Provisional Package, in its entirety, can satisfy the objective of"describing an updated plan
to meet the 2010 goal,"keeping in mind that some uncertainties exist in the underlying assumptions
and that it is still provisional at this point and may undergo some changes.
FUNDING
A range of potential funding approaches is presented below. Please note,the list provided here is
simply a list of possible alternatives that has not been evaluated yet. As the process moves forward,
staff will evaluate the pros and cons of funding options.
Voluntary
• Seek tax deductible donations for Fort Collins projects through the Colorado Carbon Fund
• Promote voluntary purchase of carbon offsets to fund Fort Collins projects through the
Colorado Carbon Fund
Grant Funding
• The federal energy bill passed in late 2007 authorized $2 million for an Energy and
Environment Block Grant program. 68% of these funds will be made directly available to
local governments to reduce fossil-fuel emissions and total energy use, as well as improve
energy efficiency and conservation in the transportation and building sectors.
• Federal funding(i.e.,CMAQ)for transportation capital projects including alternative modes
is available through a competitive grant process. The next round of CMAQ funding will be
awarded for 2009/2010.
• The Colorado Governor's Energy Office is offering a number of grants to communities for
activities such as energy efficiency, renewable energy, and solid waste reduction.
• Seek grant funding to expand the ZILCH program to reduce costs of building energy
retrofits.
General Fund
• During the 2010/2011 BFO process, the unfunded measures can be proposed for
consideration of funding.
• Fort Collins could ask voters to approve a tax to fund GHG-reducing programs.
Electric Utility Rate
• A number of electricity-related projects in the draft provisional package could be funded
through an electric rate structure. Tiered electric rates and other rates structures are being
considered and implemented to fund DSM programs in other locations including Denver and
the State of Colorado under the Governor's Climate Plan.
February 26, 2008 Page 8
Fees
• Fees could be created to fund specific programs. Fees can be enacted by City Council but
must demonstrate nexus between the fee and the benefit.
• The Short-Term Provisional Package suggests exploration of a natural gas franchise fee.
• The Trash Services Study scope of work will include evaluation of an environmental fee to
fund waste diversion efforts.
V. CTF Next Steps
After learning Council perspectives on the Short-Term Draft Provisional Package and gathering
general public input,the CTF will complete its final recommendations regarding the existing 2010
goal and will develop a recommendation on a future direction for Fort Collins. The final
recommended plan will include a proposed implementation plan developed with City staff input.
Currently, a second work session is scheduled for April 22, 2008 and Council action is scheduled
for May 20, 2008.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Summary of Short-Term Provisional Package.
2. Short-Term Provisional Package.
3. Council Advisory Board Feedback to Date.
4. Power Point presentation.
ATTACHMENT 1
Fort Collins Climate Task Force
Short-Term Provisional Package Summary(2/20/08)
City Policy Goal
In 1999 , City Council adopted Resolution 99- 137, setting the goal to reduce citywide greenhouse
gas emissions 30% below predicted 2010 levels, by 2010 . Since adopting this policy, Fort
Collins has made good progress reducing emissions but still is not on track to meet the 2010
goal . Reductions of between 800,000 and 1 , 100,000 tons CO2e are needed in 2010 to meet the
policy goal.
Fort Collins
Fort Collins Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2006, Fort Collins generated approximately 2.57 Million Tons
2, 566,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e' ) ,
The largest source is electricity use. Existing Waste
buildings ' use of electricity and natural gas represent Transport _ —
30% A Electricity
almost two-thirds of the total community-wide 48%
inventory.
Natural Gas
18%
Fort Collins Climate Task Force
The Fort Collins Climate Task Force was convened to develop an updated plan that will describe
steps our community could take to meet the greenhouse gas emissions target established by
Resolution 99- 137 , and make recommendations on how the City should develop a future
direction for climate protection after 2010 .
Short-Term Provisional Package 2010 Measures Distribution
The Task Force has developed a package (889,000 tons CO2e avoided)
of measures to address the 2010 goal. Energy Transport
16o/ 2
Measures were selected that could be
implemented in the short-term and that are
in local control. The combined Existing Mixed Existing
and New measures in the package sum to
11 % j 46%
889 ,000 tons CO2e avoided in the year
2010 .
Recycling
25%
Measures in Short-term Provisional Package*
1 CO2e — Carbon dioxide equivalent. Since methane is 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,
the relative global warming potential of CO2 = 1 and of methane = 21 . When methane and carbon dioxide emissions
are summed, they are referred to as CO2e, indicating methane has been converted to CO2 equivalent.
ATTACHMENT 1
2010 Tons Cost
CO2e effectiven
Measure name Reduced ess *
EXISTING
Existing and pending measures 407 , 000
RECYCLING
Push to meet 50% Waste diversion goal 226 , 000 $26
MIXED
Expand Climate Wise 1302000 $0 . 5
Local Carbon Offset Program 58 , 000 $39
Government Organizations Establish GHG Goals 22 , 000 $2
Community-wide Climate Challenge 91000 $ 107
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Residential Electric Rate Structure 17 , 000 $3
Smart Meter Program 11 , 000 ($56 )
Low Cost Residential Home Energy Assessments 7 , 000 ($27 )
Enhanced Demand Side Management Programs for Electricity 13 , 000 ($30 )
Increase Xcel Franchise Fee to Encourage Natural Gas
Conservation 61000 $ 12
Time-of-Sale Energy Conservation Ordinance 17 , 000 ($68 )
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Renewable Energy Growth Above Existing EESP 74 , 000 $24
On -the-Ground Renewable Incentives 2 , 000 $378
TRANSPORTATION
VMT Reduction Summary 13,000 ($ 211 )
Modern roundabouts for new or majorly redeveloped
intersections 17000 ($282 )
Economic and parking incentives for low emissions vehicles 31000 ($232 )
TOTAL ( Double counting removed) 8899000 ($33)
" Cost-effectiveness Calculation
The costs and savings associated with each measure implemented through 2010 were calculated
out through 2020 and summed. Typically, capital costs would stop at the year 2010 , but O&M
costs might be required into the future (i. e . smart meters) . Likewise, the greenhouse gas benefits
of measures was also calculated through 2020 and summed. The total greenhouse benefit (2008
through 2020) was divided by the total net cost (2008 through 2020) to determine the cost-
effectiveness .
Cost Estimates of New Measures in Short-Term Provisional Package
Cost Category Amount
City Capital Cost $ 1457313000
City Annual Cost $ 34531697
City Annual Savings $ 113 , 500
Participant Capital Costs $ 2055235000
Participant Annual Costs $ 1359851000
Participant Annual Savings 1 $ 15 , 5967000
Next Steps
The Climate Task Force will obtain City Council and citizen feedback before developing their
final recommendation later this spring.
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Fort Collins Climate Task Force
Short- Term Provisional Package
Page
FORT COLLINS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
EXISTING MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
NEW MEASURES
Expand Climate Wise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Develop a Voluntary Local Carbon Offset Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Local Government Organizations Set Greenhouse Gas Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Implement a Community-wide Climate Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Lolid Waste Reduction--- ----- ---------
Push to meet City' s 50% Diversion Goal for Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Lnergy Efficiency--
Promote ResidentialResidential Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
■ Residential Electric Rate Structure to Promote Conservation . . , , lee 1 " , , , 11
■ Smart Meter Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
■ Offer Low Cost Home Energy Assessments ' . . , . . " . " . " . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Time of Sale Energy Conservation Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Increase Energy Efficiency Programs Above Existing Policy Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Natural Gas Energy Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
kenewable Energy--
Achievel5 % Renewable Energy by 2010 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Provide Incentives for Individual Renewable En er Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
;Transportation— ----------------------------�
Reduce Vehicle Mile of Travel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
■ Walking and Cycling Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
■ Employer-Based TDM-type Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
■ School Transport Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 21
■ Transit Service Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Incentives for Purchase of Low Emission Vehicles , 22
Modern Roundabouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ROLE OF STATE ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
NEW MEASURES SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
COST ESTIMATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Fort Collins Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In 2006, Fort Collins generated approximately 2 , 566,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2e1 ) . By comparison, 1 ,366,000 tons of CO2e were generated in 1990 , the baseline year
against which Fort Collins ' climate protection efforts are measured.
Figure 1 . 2006 Emissions by Sector
Fort Collins
2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.67 Million Tons
Waste
4%
Transport
30% � � Electricity
48%
Natural Gas
18%
Figure 2 . 2006 Emissions by End User
Fort Collins
2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2 . 57 Millions Tons CO2e
Waste Residential
0
Transport ---- - 23%
30%
Com + Ind
43%
1 CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent. Since methane is 21 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide,
the relative global warming potential of CO2 = 1 and of methane = 21 . When methane and carbon dioxide emissions
are summed, they are referred to as CO2e, indicating methane has been converted to CO2 equivalent.
2
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Total community-wide greenhouse gas emissions have been rising since the baseline year of
1990, but it is encouraging to note a slight reduction in per capita emission from 2005 to 2006 .
This is attributable to a real drop in natural gas use (weather normalized data) and a reduction in
the amount of trash sent to the landfill.
Figure 3 . Fort Collins Per Capita GHG Emissions
Fort Collins Per capita GHG
20 .00
19 .89 19.82
18 .00 5.56 16. 19
16 .00
14 .00
p 12 .00
U 10 .00
N
0 8 . 00
H
6. 00
4. 00
2 . 00
0 .00
1990 2000
2005 2006
3
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Existing Measures
The first effort of the Climate Task Force was to estimate the 2010 benefit of existing or pending
measures . Pending measures are those measures considered highly likely to happen in the
absence of the Climate Task Force effort and include methane capture at the landfill . These
benefits are summed below. They represent 46% of the total greenhouse gas reductions in this
Short-Term Provisional Package .
Table 1 . Existing and Pending 2010 Measures
Measure name Tons CO2e
Reduced in
2010
Business and residential recycling * 1341202
Renewable Energy Programs ( EESP) 80 , 375
Climate Wise* 507000
Energy Demand Side Management Programs ( EESP) * 38 , 946
Landfill methane capture 26 ,450
Carbon sequestration by trees in Fort Collins 267212
Distributions stem improvements 14 , 804
2004 Residential Energy Code 127572
E-waste ban 61001
HB1037 - DSM program support for natural gas and electricity 45813
Methane flaring and heat recovery 43000
FortZED Jum start 35377
PSD SMS greenhouse gas goal 13802
Commercial energy code 968
City facility upgrades 608
VAN GO 588
ZILCH 450
Mason Corridor 270
Test Ride Transit 122
Colorado State University Industrial Assessment Center 110
FC Bikes 2
*= Double-counting removed from measures 406, 671
4
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
New Measures
Expand Climate Wise
Description--A--
Climate Wise is a successful voluntary business outreach program that helps build local capacity
for climate protection and other environmental benefits for the community. It offers technical
assistance, recognition, and on-going business support to business partners who reduce their
emissions and report progress . This measure proposes to increase Climate Wise program savings
from 62 ,000 tons CO2e avoided in 2006 to 232,000 tons in 2010 by adding 130 new partners
above 2007 levels and providing additional resources to assist existing partners implement and
report more projects . This model adds new FTE and resources to provide direct hands-on
assistance for partners . It is anticipated that as more partners and resources are added, the
efficiency of the program will increase even further, due to economies of scale.
L.reenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings---
1329000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
27 .4% Percent of Total New Measures
19586,000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
$0.48/ton Net Cost-Effectiveness
$3409000 Total Net Implementation Cost (present through 2010)
Cily Pay Ci Save User Pay User Save
X X X
(User = Climate Wise partners in this case .)
Expected Participation Level-
This measure calls for adding 130 new Climate Wise partners above the 2007 levels of 70
partners, for a total of 200 partners in 2010 . Climate Wise partners currently employ nearly
20 ,000 people .
Potential Funding Mechanism------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund additions in 2010 ($277,000 additional needed for staffing plus program funding) ;
Possible introduction of small fee to partners for Climate Wise membership
relationship to Other Programs---
The Colorado Climate Action panel recommended implementation of a state-wide voluntary
business program offering free technical assistance and continuous support as a means of
reducing carbon emissions from energy, water, transportation, and solid waste, emulating Fort
Collins ' successful Climate Wise program.
Climate Wise also helps promote participation from the business community in other existing
programs and services, leveraging the benefits of both efforts . For example, Climate Wise
businesses typically implement energy efficiency projects, taking advantage of available
incentive programs . Similar leveraging takes place for voluntary purchases of green energy,
increases in recycling and reductions in transportation.
The final carbon accounting for this measure reduces the savings by 50% to account for double-
counting because of related measures (enhanced energy efficiency and renewable energy) .
5
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
6
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Develop a Voluntar Local Carbon Offset Program
Description-------This measure proposes to develop a voluntary program to identify and fund local carbon-
reduction programs and projects . It recognizes there is likely large untapped potential for local
citizens and businesses that prefer to purchase carbon offsets from Fort Collins-based projects .
This win:win approach allows all those interested in purchasing carbon offsets to obtain those
offsets from local projects, thus redirecting dollars back into our local economy. The measure
creates a funding source for those wishing to build local carbon offset projects and enhances
local economic development. The measure stops the leakage of revenue that currently leaves our
community when people purchase travel offsets, etc.
The analysis is based on the assumption that 5% of Fort Collins households would purchase
enough offsets (20 tons CO2) to go "carbon neutral" each year, at a cost of $39/ton. It assumes a
mixed portfolio of projects to select from including renewable energy and solid waste reduction.
A May 2007 World Bank report estimates that the U. S . demand for carbon offsets under a
voluntary market could increase from 20 MtCO2e in 2006 to 250 MtCO2e in 2011 (almost a
doubling every year) . While market analysis data on potential Fort Collins revenue are not
available, the recent survey by Fort Collins Utilities suggests that the community is interested in
expanded green programs .
Vreenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings
-
58,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
12% Percent of Total New Measures
8571000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
$39/ton Net Cost-Effectiveness
$215895000 Implementation cost for voluntary purchase of carbon offsets (cost will go down
if carbon offset price drops below $39/ton)
Cily Pay Ci Save User Pay User Save
X
Expected Participation Level---
2900 households offset 20 tons CO2 ($780/household), or 10% households offset 10 tons ($390/
household), or all households offset I one ton (at $39/ton)
(Potential Funding Mechanism-- -------------- ...... .. -----�
This is a voluntary program. Revenue is generated through voluntary citizen and business
purchase of carbon offsets and/or direct donations .
kelationship to Other Programs---
In May 2008 , the Governor' s Energy Office (GOE) plans to start a Colorado Carbon Fund to
offer this service. Fort Collins can partner with GEO . In this model, GEO would develop
certification standards for new projects, evaluate projects, and administer payment collections
and disbursements . The City would create and maintain a local identity for the carbon fund,
promote the fund, and develop and support projects .
For reference, other carbon offset programs cost estimates include $20/tons CO2e — Colorado
Carbon Fund (anticipated price) ; $20/ton CO2e -Aspen Canary Tags ; $ 10-$20/ton - Other retail
offset providers such as Terra pass and Native Energy. The final carbon accounting for this
7
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
measure reduces the savings by 62% to account for double-counting because of related measures
(solid waste diversion and enhanced energy efficiency) .
Local Government Organizations Set Greenhouse Gas Goals
Wcription------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
This measure provides for Colorado State University, City of Fort Collins, and Larimer County
to achieve a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas emission below the 2006 baseline level, by 2010 .
These organizations are each Climate Wise partners who have not yet established a greenhouse
gas goal . CSU has a goal in sight through Governor Ritter' s Greening Government Executive
Order and the Colorado Climate Action Plan.
The analysis costs and savings are based on historic Climate Wise data showing an average
initial cost to reduce 1 ton CO2 is $ 18 , and the average savings per ton reduced is $20.
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings.....
22 ,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
4. 6% Percent of Total New Measures
2629000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($2/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness — SAVINGS
$395000 Total Net Implementation Cost (present through 2010)
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X X X
(User = Larimer County and CSU in this case .)
Expected Participation Level--- ------
Colorado State University, City of Fort Collins, Larimer County
kotential Funding Mechanism-
All organizations may consider General Fund, lease purchase, performance contract, or bond
issue for facility upgrades.
Relationship to Other Programs- --- ---
Poudre School District has already established a greenhouse gas reduction goal in their
Sustainability Management System. , and this is included in the "Existing" measures .
The final carbon accounting for this measure reduces the savings by 50% to account for double-
counting because of related measures (enhanced energy efficiency, renewable energy and solid
waste reductions) .
8
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Implement a Community-wide Climate Challenge
Description--------------------------- -------------
The City of Fort Collins has had a long-standing commitment to addressing global warming.
Most recently, Fort Collins citizen surveys suggest that a majority of citizens believe that
governments should do more about global warming by empowering citizens and businesses to
make choices to reduce global warming and by enacting legislation and regulations to reduce
global warming.
This measure would develop a Fort Collins climate challenge for citizens and businesses to
promote actions to reduce per capita GHG emissions .
Campaign details still need to be developed. The Task Force envisions the community climate
challenge would be launched with a goal to install an average of two compact fluorescent bulbs
(CFLs) in every household, above current levels. The CFLs would be paid for by the Utility and
provided free of charge. CFLs have the advantage of being relatively low cost, easy to install,
and deliver a very quick pay back. The task force felt that focusing a community campaign on
CFLs provides a simple tangible way for everyone to get involved in efforts to reduce personal
or household GHG emissions . However, other approaches could be considered such as a
campaign to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions by focusing on consumption reduction.
The campaign ultimately could include waste reduction, purchase of renewable energy, support
for multi-modal transportation, etc .
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings------------
9 ,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
1 . 9% Percent of Total New Measures
1111000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($ 107/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness — SAVINGS
- $602 ,000 Total Net Implementation Cost (present through 2010) - SAVINGS
Cily Pay Ci1y Save User Pay User Save
X X
Expected Participation Level---- All homeowners
Potential Funding Mechanism -- Electric Utility Rate Structure
Relationship to Other Programs--
Many other communities are implementing community climate challenges. Denver has proposed
a community climate challenge that they believe will achieve 28% of their GHG goal.
Burlington, VT has the " 10% Challenge", a voluntary program to raise public awareness about
global climate change and to encourage households and businesses to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions by at least 10 percent.
9
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Push to meet city' s 50 % diversion goal for waste
Description------------ ----- ......................
Many successes and improvements to recycling have occurred in recent years, yet only 25 -30%
of Fort Collins' waste stream is being diverted from landfill disposal . According to a recent
study, examples of programs that produced cost effective carbon reduction include :
-residential single stream
-require recycling bins for commercial users producing more than 10 cubic yards of waste
-enhancements to the pay-as-you-throw rate structure for residential
-construction and demolition deposit
-construction and demolition wood waste drop-off.
In 2006, a study was done to analyze and recommend strategies to help Fort Collins meet its
2010 waste diversion goal. (Draft Strategic Plan for 50% Waste Diversion) Based on several
criteria, twenty top strategies were selected from the long list as having special value for also
advancing climate protection efforts . These twenty strategies were then analyzed for potential
waste diversion (tons), program costs and tons CO2 avoided for 2010, 2015 and 2020 .
(Advancing Climate Protection Through Municipal Solid Waste Programs) .
Based on modeled costs, benefits and practical considerations, thirteen strategies were selected
from this list of twenty as the optimal approach for advancing waste diversion and greenhouse
gas reduction. These strategies include :
Residential Customers :
• Adopt a requirement for service providers to collect single stream recycling from
residential customers as soon as market trends allow.
• Implement on-going curbside recycling program improvements, including more
designated materials and standard options for larger recycling containers .
• Amend Fort Collins PAYT residential trash rates ordinance so that rate design further
enhances waste reduction efforts.
• Start by providing a residential yard waste drop-off site . (3 ) Also, provide customers,
upon request to their trash haulers, with optional curbside yard waste collection service on a
weekly basis. Ultimately, ban yard waste from Fort Collins curbside collection.
Commercial Customers
• Amend Fort Collins PAYT ordinance to include all commercial customers;
• Help form recycling cooperatives for small businesses.
All customers
• Enhance short-term education around new measures .
• In absence of appropriate private sector facilities, create City-sponsored C&D drop-off
site.
City Government
• Establish contact preferences to encourage recycling and waste reduction for City C&D
jobs .
• The City would encourage private partnerships for constructing multiple community drop-
offs to collect more recyclables (paper, glass, etc .)
10
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
This scenario assumes the above strategies would be able to achieve the implementation levels
and benefits modeled for 2015 by 2010, assumin more aggressive implementation.
r3reenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Saving.-
226,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
46 . 8% Percent of Total New Measures
212335000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
$26/ton Net Cost-Effectiveness
$59232,000 Net Implementation Cost in 2010
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X X
Expected Participation Level-------
Citizens and businesses
Potential Funding Mechanism-----
GeneralFund, fee, other?
Aelationship to Other Programs------
Onerecommendation of the Colorado Climate Action Panel is to divert 75 % of waste from
landfills by 2020 through source reduction, recycling and composting.
The State of Colorado will issue waste diversion and recycling grants to communities totaling
$ 1 .2 million using funds raised from new landfill "surcharges" that are now collected as a result
of legislation passed in 2007 called Colorado ' s Recycling Resources Economic Opportunity Act
(HB 07- 1288) .
11
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Promote Residential Electricity Conservation
In 2006, 48% of community wide greenhouse gas emissions came from electricity use, making it
the largest source of local greenhouse gas emissions . The residential sector electric use accounts
for 15% of the community wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory. This recommendation
combines a number of important strategies that are designed to work synergistically to promote
energy conservation in homes and save home-owners money.
Alternative Residential Electricity Rate Structures To Promote Conservation
escription----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This strategy proposes to revise the residential electricity rate to promote conservation and
potentially raise revenue, with provisions to be developed for low income households and all-
electric homes . Initially the Climate Task Force explored a revenue neutral tiered electricity rate
structure with low income provisions. However, when they moved to support a program to
install smart meters in homes, they felt this opened up a larger range of rate structures than solely
revenue neutral tiered rates.
The greenhouse gas benefit of this measure is based upon achieving a 5 .4% reduction in
residential electricity use. The costs and savings are analyzed to reflect a revenue neutral tiered
rate structure, one of a few possible structures . For example, one scenario for tiered rates would
have 80% of residential customers (those who use under 1 , 000 kWh/month) paying less or the
same, while those using above 1 ,000 kVAVmonth would pay more. The scenario analyzed here
would charge low electricity users $ . 039/kWh and higher-end users $0. 197/kWh.
These structures are only examples based on other models . If City Council wishes to pursue this
strategy, the Utilities will develop a residential rate structure proposal. Commercial and
industrial electricity customers were not considered in this analysis because they already are
charged according to their electricity use.
reenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Saving
171000 Annual Tons Co2e avoided in 2010
3 . 5 % Percent of Total New Measures
2511000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
$3/ton Net Cost-Effectiveness
$2791000 Total Net Implementation Cost (present through 2010)
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X X
Expected Participation Level---
All residential home owners .
Potential Funding Mechanism---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential Electricity Rate Structure
Relationship to Other Programs---------- ---------
The Colorado Climate Action Panel (9/07) recommendations call for tiered electric rates for all
customers, starting in 2010 to promote conservation and provide revenue for DSM programs.
The Denver Climate Plan (5/07) also proposes tiered electric rates for all customers, to
encourage conservation and provide revenue for DSM programs.
12
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Smart Meter Program
Description-- --------- -------------------- ----------------
A smart meter refers to a type of advanced meter that identifies consumption in more detail than
a conventional electric meter. Smart meters enable families to see in-home energy use in real-
time or in electric displays, track hourly energy usage and reduce their bill by reducing and
shifting energy use . Smart meters can also aid the utility by allowing remote meter reading and
pinpointing outages . Coupling immediate feedback about home electricity use levels with
information on how to reduce energy use and a rate structure to promote conservation, it is
conservatively anticipated that smart meters will reduce an average 8% of home electricity use .
Estimates of energy conservation potential for smart meters reach as high as 25 % .
This measure proposes to have Fort Collins Utilities pay for and install smart meters in homes,
allowing flexibility in the start-up installation rate, but achieving complete installation in all
homes by 2015 . The measure also stipulates required installation of smart meters in all new
homes . Each meter will cost $ 130 . Energy savings tips for homeowners will also be provided.
Under this scenario, 19,000 homes would have smart meters installed by 2010 .
;reenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings
-
11 ,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
2 . 3 % Percent of Total New Measures
3459000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($56/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness - SAVINGS
($3 ,442 ,000) Total Net Implementation Cost — SAVINGS
(2009 thru 2015 when installations are complete)
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X
Expected Participation Level------
Allhomes by 2015
Potential Funding Mechanism-
Residential Electricity Rate Increase
Relationship to Other Programs---
A Canadian utility, Hydro One, piloted the use of Smart Meters in 2004 . Four hundred homes
received free meters with in-home displays and tracked their electricity use for 2 . 5 years .
Average energy use reduction was 6 . 5 %, and that was in the absence of receiving any
information about what they could do to reduce energy use. Hydro-One is now giving 30 ,000 in-
home displays to customers.
Electricity smart metering with time-of-use rates and in-home or in-office displays for all
residential customers was recommended by the Colorado Climate Action Panel. This was the
largest and most cost-effective strategy of all nine strategies recommended in the RCI
(Residential, Commercial, Industrial) section.
13
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Offer Low Cost Home Energy Assessments
Description---------- ----------------- --------- -----�
Fort Collins Utilities currently offers free energy assessments to local businesses . This measure
would offer low cost energy assessment for residences . The cost of the home energy assessment
would be split 50 : 50 between homeowner and Fort Collins Utilities, at $ 128 each.
If the measure continued at 600 homes/yr thru 2010, it would achieve 1 , 800 homes audits (2 . 3 %
of 2020 residential customers) with the net savings in 2020 = $2 . 3 million ($2 . 6 million in costs
and $4. 9 million in savings) .
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings-- ---
71000 Annual Tons Co2e avoided in 2010
1 . 5 % Percent of Total New Measures
881000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($27/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness- SAVINGS
$ 114701000 Total Net Implementation Cost (present through 2010)
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X X
Expected Participation Level----------- ------------------------------------------------
1800 homes by 2010
Potential Funding Mechanism------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential electric rates, plus home-owner investment in one half of audit cost and home energy
improvements (estimated at $ 1172 per home) .
�Zelationship to Other Programs--
Free home energy assessments are an important component of Boulder' s Climate Plan, in their
case funded by the carbon tax.
14
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Time-of-Sale Enemy Conservation Ordinance
Pescription------J--------------------- --------- ---------------------------
This measure would require energy efficiency upgrades at the time of sale for residential and
commercial structures that do not meet a certain level of energy efficiency, as determined by an
energy audit. The costs of the audit and upgrades are carried through the sale, either by buyer or
seller.
Natural gas and electricity use in existing building is responsible for over 60% of community-
wide greenhouse gas emissions . This measure addresses the fact that most of our building stock
is already in place, and that mandated efficiency requirements can play an important role in
steadily reducing emissions related to the built environment. Utility demand-side management
(DSM) programs could be designed in a way that helps customers comply with the requirement.
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings--------
17 ,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
3 . 5 % Percent of Total New Measures
2061000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($68/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness - SAVINGS
$418091000 Total Net Implementation Cost through 2010
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X X
�xpected Participation Lever-------
2407 homes/yr=7221 homes by 2010
35 businesses/yr = 105 businesses by 2010
kotential Funding Mechanism-
City staffing through General Fund or grant, or?
Buyer or Seller funds upgrades and cost of audit
Relationship to Other Programs- --- ---
Relationshipto Other Programs
Several cities have a time of sale energy efficiency ordinance in place, including Berkeley, and
San Francisco, CA and Burlignton, VT, and the state of Minnesota (for multi-family housing) .
Austin, TX has just passed a requirement for time of sale efficiency upgrades . Time of Sale
conservation is also included in Denver' s Climate Action Plan and a pilot project has been
developed in cooperation with the local realtors to assess older homes according to a
standardized checklist. The City of Boulder and Boulder County are evaluating a time of sale
approach.
The final carbon accounting for this measure reduces the savings by 50% to account for double-
counting because of related voluntary efficiency measures (residential assessments and enhanced
energy efficiency) .
Note : An alternative proposal suggested by a member of the task force would be to require
"energy labeling" of homes and commercial properties at the time of sale. This would be similar
to the "miles per gallon" labels on automobiles or typical energy use labels on home appliances .
15
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Increase Energy Efficiency Programs above Existing Policy Levels
Description---------------------------�----------------�-----
The City of Fort Collins ' Electric Energy Supply Policy currently has a goal to reduce per capita
electricity use 10% below the 2002 levels by 2012 . One percent of electric rates funds existing
energy efficiency and conservation programs to achieve that goal. 2007 energy efficiency
programs results from Fort Collins Utilities reduced total electricity use by 0 . 6% .
This measure proposes to increase energy efficiency and conservation programs, above the
existing policy, to achieve a 1 % annual reduction of total electricity use, resulting in a net
savings to program participants
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings-
13 ,000 Annual Tons Cote avoided in 2010
2 . 6% Percent of Total new Measures
15090000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($30/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness - SAVINGS
$3 ,395 ,000 Total Net Implementation Cost (present through 2010)
Cily Pay Cijy Save User Pay User Save
X X X
�xpected Participation Level-----------
Citizens and businesses will achieve a total of an additional 18 ,000 MWh in on-going annual
avoided electricity use through Demand Side Management programs for citizens and businesses
between 2008 through 2010 .
Potential Funding Mechanism-
Electricity rate increase, possibly supplemented with grant funding to provide DSM program
incentive for upgrades covering 50% of cost; citizens and businesses fund 50% of the upgrade
themselves .
kelationship to Other Programs- --- --- -------------------------------
The Colorado Climate Action Panel recommends ramping up electricity and natural gas DSM
programs as a cost-effective strategy to reduce emissions, but does not identify a funding
approach.
Platte River Power Authority, Fort Collins power provider, has aggressive efficiency goals
articulated in their Integrated Resource Plan. This measure complements the expansion of
programs and services envisioned by Platte River.
The Colorado Governor' s Energy Office (GEO) has a number of matching grant programs that
also complement the goals of this measure.
16
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Natural Gas Energy Conservation
Description-------
Natural gas use comprises 17% of Fort Collins greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Residential
natural gas use comprises 8% of the community wide inventory. This measure is intended to
achieve a three percent reduction in natural gas usage in the residential sector by 2010 by
implementing a rate increase that encourages conservation and also creates a funding source for
local natural gas DSM programs. The measure specifically targets a rate increase from Xcel,
the largest natural gas provider to Fort Collins residents . Because the City cannot directly
control Xcel residential rates, this measure is based on three options for the City to influence a
rate increase by Xcel, two of which would lead to a funding source at the City for administering
natural gas DSM services . It specifies that any revenue generated must be used to fund local
GHG reduction programs . The task force considered several approaches, discussed below.
Tax - The City, with approval of the voters, could levy a higher "Gas Company Occupation Tax"
on Xcel Energy for the opportunity to sell natural gas to citizens and businesses . The increased
tax would likely be passed on to customers in the form of higher natural gas rates and would
provide an incentive for natural gas efficiency. Currently, the City levies a Gas Company
Occupation Tax to natural gas providers of $445 ,000/year (See Chapter 25 , Article VI of the
Code http ://www. colocode . com/ftcollins/municipal/chapter25 .htm#articleVI )
Fee - Alternatively, the City could seek to replace the current "Gas Company Occupation Tax"
with a franchise fee, as is done in other communities in Colorado . In 1988 , the City
unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a franchise agreement with Xcel .
Persuasion - The City could lobby the Public Utilities Commission or Xcel to charge
proportionally more for increasing natural gas use (tiered rate) to provide an incentive for energy
conservation.
The task force has recommended that the City first investigate the feasibility of imposing a
franchise fee on Xcel that would result in a rate change that promotes natural gas conservation
and raises revenue for natural gas DMS programs . They recommend investigating this option
with a limited investment of City resources and time . If that approach does not appear feasible,
then they recommend that the City should investigate a ballot initiative asking voters to raise the
"Gas Company Occupation Tax" for Xcel, noting that it has not been raised since 1988 . It is
anticipated that if the voters approved this tax increase, funds would be used for natural gas
DMS programs .
The task force was initially interested in seeking a revenue neutral tiered rate structure but
ultimately determined that the City could not dictate that level of implementation detail .
Vreenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings
-
6,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
1 .2% Percent of Total New Measures
86 ,000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
$ 12/ton Net Cost-Effectiveness
$ 1 , 8155000 Total Net Implementation Cost (present through 2010)
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X
17
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Expected Participation Level----------------------------------------------------------------------------�
All residential home owners .
Potential Funding Mechanism----------------------
Residential Natural gas rate-payer rate increase
Relationship to Other Programs---
Two otherother programs are already in place to increase natural gas efficiency in Colorado . HB1037
directs the Public Utilities Commission to develop rules and programs for investor-owned natural
gas utilities (including Xcel) to spend at least 0 . 5 % of revenue on DSM programs . The rules
must be developed by 9/ l /07 and program implementation must begin by 9/ 1 /08 . SWEEP
(Southwest Energy Efficiency Project) estimates that HB1037 will save 2 . 6 billion cubic feet of
natural gas per year by 2010, and 15 .4 billion cubic feet per year by 2020, an amount equal to
about 8% of natural gas use by all residences and commercial buildings in the state.
http ://www. swenergy. or4/legislative/2007/colorado/index.html These savings were apportioned,
based on population to Fort Collins, and are addressed under "Existing measures .
Secondly, through a settlement agreement between Colorado customers and PUC, Xcel is
committed to achieve 100 GWh/yr of energy savings between 2006 and 2013 . This level of
savings is equal to about 3 — 3 . 5 % of projected sales .
Thirdly, the Colorado Climate Action Panel has recommended achieving a total of 1 % reduction
in natural gas use by 2013 . This total is to be achieved through the H1310-37, the Xcel settlement
agreement, and additional programs .
Therefore, this measure would increase natural gas conservation above the three strategies
discussed above to a total of 1 %/year reduction in natural gas use .
18
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Achieve 15 % Renewable Enemy by 2010
Description----------------------- ----- -----
The City of Fort Collins ' existing policy goal is to achieve 15% renewable energy for all
electricity use by 2017 . In 2007, 6% of the City' s electricity use was provided by renewable
energy. This measure would accelerate the goal to achieve 15% renewable energy by 2010
starting with the purchase of RECs* and moving to delivered renewable energy as soon as
possible . This measure addresses utility-scale energy supply.
The analysis assumes the City would purchase 95% RECs and 5% wind/hydro in 2010 and that
this mix would shift to 0% RECs and 100% wind/hydro in 2020 . The recommendation includes
only a small percentage of delivered renewable energy initially because of the anticipated
difficulty in building large amounts of delivered renewable energy in the short-term. The REC
price is estimated at $ 16/ton and the wind/hydro mix at $31 /ton.
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Salings W ----------
74 ,000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
15 . 3 % Percent of Total New Measures
813 ,000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
$24/ton Net Cost-Effectiveness
$ 1 ,238 ,000 Total Net Implementation Cost in 2010
(Annual cost estimate ranges from $ 1 .24 million in 2010 to $2 . 24 million in 2020)
Cily Pay Ci Save User Pay User Save
X
Expected Participation Level---=001WW--------
NA
Potential Funding echanism---------------------
Electric Rate Increase
Kelationship to Other Programs- --- ---
Theexisting Renewable Portfolio Standard for Colorado specifies that municipally-owned
utilities with > 40,000 customers must achieve 10% renewable energy by 2020 .
The Colorado Climate Action Panel recommended that muni-utilities achieve 15 % renewable
energy by 2020, with no more that 85 % coming from large-scale wind projects .
RECs are Renewable Energy Certificates, also known as Green tags, Renewable Energy
Credits, or Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs) . RECs are the property rights to the
environmental benefits from generating electricity from renewable energy sources . These
certificates can be sold and traded and the owner of the REC can legally claim the environmental
benefits associated with generation of renewable energy. While traditional carbon emissions
trading programs promote low-carbon technologies by increasing the cost of emitting carbon,
19
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
RECs incentivize carbon-neutral or lower carbon renewable energy by providing a subsidy to
electricity generated from renewable sources.
Provide Incentives for Individual Renewable Enemy Proiects
description......................................................................................................
This measure provides incentives to all customers (residential, commercial, etc .) of Fort Collins
Utilities for installation of renewable energy projects . It specifies photovoltaics, solar thermal,
and ground source heat pumps because these technologies readily available today. As analyzed,
the measure is funded through a surcharge on utility bills and calls for preferential use of local
contractors to provide the renewable energy systems. The incentives are split 50 : 50 , half
provided by Fort Collins Utilities and half by the customer.
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings----------
21000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
0.4% Percent of Total New Measures
271000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
$378/ton Net Cost-Effectiveness
$ 1016031000 Total Net Implementation Cost in 2010
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X
�xpected Participation Level-------
The analysis is based upon 80 photovoltaic systems per year, 312 solar hot water systems per
year, and 75 ground source heat pump systems per year to fully use the rebates (covering 50% of
system cost) from a two percent surcharge on electricity bills .
Potential Funding Mechanism-
2% surcharge on electricity bills, grants to fund 50% of system cost; user pays other 50% .
Relationship to Other Programs---
Xcel Energy currently provides rebates for solar electric systems that are roughly equivalent to
50% of the installed cost (at $4 . 50 per watt) . The Governor' s Energy Office will be offering
matching grants starting in 2008 to local jurisdictions for solar thermal and solar electric
incentive programs .
20
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)
Description---------- ------------- ----- ----------------
Transportation demand management (also called mobility management or VMT reduction)
includes a range of strategies that improve travel options and encourage people to use more
efficient forms of travel. Reducing travel demand is in the public interest, provides multiple
community benefits, and is worthy of community support and investment.
This measure recommends four key strategies to reduce Fort Collins VMT by just under two
percent. Since the City of Fort Collins is already implementing efforts in all of these areas, these
measures refer to efforts beyond the current level . The relative anticipated VMT reduction from
each program area is identified in the table below.
Table 2 . VMT Reduction by Program Area
Percent of Total Ft.
Program VMT Avoided Collins VMT
Walking and Bicycling 115951873 1 . 00 %
Employer TDM Programs 81565 , 785 0 . 74 %
School Transport Programs 11066 , 635 0 . 09 %
Transit Programs 520N6 0 . 04 %
21 ,74%269 1 . 88%
Collectively, these approaches would avoid 13 ,000 tons CO2e/year in 2010, above the business
as usual scenario. Accomplishing these objectives will require the provision of adequate funding
and increased partnership and collaboration with other organizations throughout the community.
Walking and Bicycling Improvements
According to some estimates, 5 to 10 percent of automobile trips can reasonably be shifted to
non-motorized transport in a typical urban area, and nonmotorized improvements can have
leverage effects that increase their importance. This analysis assumes that through a combination
of pedestrian and bicycle programs, I % of total Fort Collins VMT could be avoided by 2010, or
approximately 11 , 600,000 VMT/year reduced.
Transportation Demand Management-type program with Employer Focus
Historically, the Fort Collins SmartTrips program has worked with businesses, schools and
organizations to reduce VMT . More recently, City Transportation Services has implemented
several elements of TDM programs including Fort Collins Bikes, transit promotions, Test Ride
Transfort, Safe Routes to School as well as the updated Passfort employer bus pass program.
The NFRMPO is handling VanPool and carpool activities in the region.
This recommendation calls for a special focus on increasing employee commuter outreach.
Employee commute trip reduction programs have achieved noteworthy success elsewhere
including the Seattle area and Utah. Denver' s Greenprint plan has established a goal to increase
employee transit ridership 10% over the 2005 baseline level, by 2011 . They assume that 20% of
employees approached with a program will participate, and that those participating reduce 0. 55
tons CO2/employee/year (about 1000 miles/year/employee) .
21
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
If a Fort Collins commuter outreach program achieved the same level of effectiveness, this
would result in , 8 ,5661000 VMT reduced.
School Transport Management Program
School Transport Management Programs encourage parents, students, and staff members to
reduce automobile trips and use alternative modes for travel to and from schools . These
programs generally include walking, cycling, and ridesharing encouragement. In addition, these
programs may have significant long-term impacts by helping children establish more multi-
modal travel habits that continue later in life . (from Mobility Mgmt Report at
http ://fcgov. com/airquality/Pdf/mm-best-practices06.pdf
This analysis assumes that at least 1 ,000,000 miles could be avoided through car pooling, Walk a
Child to School, Safe Route to School, and prize-based competitions encouraging student to use
and document alternative modes . The number of avoided VMT could grow through increased
efforts to decrease travel by single-occupancy vehicle to school campuses.
Transit Service Innovations and Improvements
It is recognized that the Mason Corridor will serve as a key backbone to an enhanced transit
system in Fort Collins . The City is optimistic about receiving federal funding to build the Bus
Rapid Transit element of the corridor, with completion anticipated by late 2010. Since the focus
of climate task force is to recommend strategies that will achieve benefits by the end of 2010 , the
recommendation is to continue to implement transit promotion programs to the extent possible .
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings------------ -
139000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
2 . 7% Percent of Total New Measures
411000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($211 /ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness - SAVINGS
($8 ,066,000) Total Net Implementation Cost in 2010 - SAVINGS
Cily Pay Cijy Save User Pay User Save
X X X
Expected Participation Level------ ------------ -------------------�
9000 employees participating in employer-based TDM programs; participation in other modes
unspecified
Potential Funding Mechanism
General Fund, federal and other grants
lZelationship to Other Programs---
The Colorado Climate Action Panel recommended a strategy requiring all employers with > 100
employees to offer a commuter benefits program by 2010 .
22
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Incentives for Low Emission Vehicle Purchase
Description--------------------------------M-------------------- -----
This measure would offer $2,000 of financial incentive for the purchase of a low emission
vehicle (LEV), for example a hybrid, in Fort Collins . It assumes 817 total hybrid vehicles will
be purchased and registered in Fort Collins by 2010 as a result of this local incentive . If each of
these vehicles drives 11 ,400 miles/year, and the hybrids have a fuel economy improvement of
19 . 7 MPG (up to 37 .4 from 17 . 7) this will result in 2, 871 tons CO2 avoided.
This measure would also offer the incentive of preferential parking of low emission vehicle
(LEVs) in Fort Collins in hopes of further promoting the purchase of these vehicles . The City
could offer reduced parking garage rates for LEVs and raise the rate for others (revenue neutral).
The City could also partner with organization to provide up-front LEV spaces or could promote
turning one of several handicapped space into a handicap-LEV space . LEED already has a LEV
parking point. It assumes that 16 LEVs were purchased because of the additional parking
incentive .
Thought the use of financial incentive and parking incentives, this measure assumes that 833
LEVs would be purchased in Fort Collins, above "business as usual" levels.
Preenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings-----
39000 Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
0. 67% Percent of Total New Measures
351000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($232/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness - SAVINGS
$ 81000 Total Net Implementation Cost through 2010
City Pay City Save User Pay User Save
X X
Expected Participation Level------
833 Low Emission Vehicles by 2010
Potential Funding Mechanism-- --
The City could offer "rebates ' for the purchase of low emission vehicles or the City could
provide a local tax exemption for the purchase of low emission vehicles without requiring voter
approval.
Relationship to Other Programs--
Many federal tax credits for hybrid vehicles have expired. A Colorado income tax credit is still
available for the purchase of a an alternative fuel vehicle, including hybrids . The tax credit can
range from $ 1900 - >$3000. http ://www. eere .energy. gov/afdc/progs/view_ind.cgi?afdc/5246/0
Albuquerque offers free metered parking for LEVs.
23
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Modern Roundabouts for New or Maior Redeveloped Intersections
Description--�------ -----
An alternative to the standard traffic signal, roundabouts provide a safer, more efficient,
economically advantageous , and environmentally friendly way to move traffic along the roadway
system. The numerous benefits of roundabout are highlighted on the City' s web page .
Roundabouts save lives...
Up to a 90% reduction in fatalities
76% reduction in injury crashes
30-40% reduction in pedestrian crashes
75 % fewer conflict points than a 4-way intersection
Slower vehicle speeds mean...
Drivers have more time to judge and react to other cars or pedestrians
An advantageous situation for older and novice drivers
A reduction in the severity of crashes
A safer situation for pedestrians
Efficient traffic flow...
30-50% increase in traffic capacity
Reduction in pollution and fuel use . . .
Improved traffic flow for intersections that handle a high number of left turns
Reduced need for storage lanes
Money saved...
No signal equipment to install and repair
Savings estimated at an average of $ 5 ,000 per year in electricity & maintenance costs
Service life of a roundabout is 25 years, compared to 10 years for a traditional traffic signal
This measure recommends that the City install five roundabouts at new or significantly
redeveloped intersection by the end of 2010 . The quantification is based on a recent study of 10
Virginia intersections that demonstrated 200,000 gallons of fuel savings annually, from the
construction of roundabouts.
(http ://www. sciencedirect. com/science? ob=ArticleURL& udi=B6VH8-4465FJ5 -
4& user-- 10& coverDate=01 %2F31 %2F2002& rdoc= l & fmt=& orig=search&_sort=d&view
=c& acct=C000050221 &_version= l &_urlVersion=0& userid= 10&md5=2e4386970799e2f922
5954dc10e6ed5e)
Greenhouse Gas Benefit, Costs, Savings----------
1MOO Annual Tons CO2e avoided in 2010
0 .2% Percent of Total New Measures
121000 Cumulative Tons CO2 avoided in 2020
($282/ton) Net Cost-Effectiveness - SAVINGS
($ 874,000) Total Net Implementation Cost in 2010 - SAVINGS
Cily Pay Ci Save User Pay User Save
X X
Expected Participation Level---
Five new new roundabouts by 2010
Potential Funding Mechanism-- ----
24
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
General Fund, federal and other grants
State Actions
In 2007 , the Colorado Climate Action Panel (CAP) was charged with developing
recommendations to reduce Colorado ' s contribution and vulnerability to climate change . Mayor
Hutchinson was one of 10 project directors for this project. In October 2007 , the CAP released
a set of recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emission across Colorado . The 55 quantified
recommendations would reduce 40 million metric tons of CO2 by 2010, and would save
Coloradoans $2 . 6 billion cumulatively by 2020. Subsequently, Governor Ritter released a
Colorado Climate Action Plan calling for statewide greenhouse gas reductions 20% below 2005
levels by 2020, and 80% below 2005 levels by 2050 . Many of the recommendation from the
CAP are identified in the Governor' s Climate Plan.
The Brendle Group analyzed these state level strategies and identified several that would result
in greenhouse gas reduction in Fort Collins if implemented. The list below provides a
preliminary assessment of additional local GHG benefit if state recommended strategies were
implemented. Approximately 86,000 tons CO2e would be avoided in Fort Collins if all these
strategies were implemented by 2010 .
Table 3 . Local Benefit of Strategies Recommended by Colorado Climate Action Panel
25
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
Supplemental Tons
# Policy Recommendation CO2 in 2010
Expand demand side management programs of all electric and gas
RCI - 1 utilities , ramped up to reduce energy use by 1 % per year by 2013 . 31868
RCI -4 Targets and programs for beyond -code reductions in energy use in new
(total ) government , residential , and commercial buildings . 93670
Low interest loans to fund energy efficiency retrofits for commercial and
RCI -6 industrial buildings . 43835
Electricity smart metering with time-of-use rates and in-home or in-office
RCI -7 displays for all residential , commercial , and industrial consumers . 15 ,472
Promote commercial and industrial combined heat and power (CHP)
RCI -9 Isystems . 53802
Adopt structural changes to facilitate large businesses and universities to
invest in combined heat and power (CHP) and distributed generation
ES-7 ( DG ) systems . 71736
Reduce light-duty vehicle miles traveled 2 % by 2020 by promoting
"smart growth" land use planning and development. Require that GHG
TLU - 1 emissions be considered in long-range transport plans by 2010 . 11547
Adopt a low carbon fuels standard that will reduce carbon intensity of
TLU -5 I passenger vehicle fuels by 10 % by 2020 . 73349
TLU-6 Adopt California GHG emission standards for cars and trucks . 133538
Move toward basing motor vehicle insurance on the distances vehicles
TLU -8 are driven . 63189
Incentives for the production of biodiesel fuel from oilseed crops , waste
vegetable oil , or other sources to offset 40 % of fossil diesel fuel use by
AFW-4 12020 . 387
Increase in-state ethanol production , using GHG-superior feedstocks
and production methods , to 400 million gallons per year above BAU by
AFW -5 2020 . 73543
Increase the use of biomass from forest health and fire risk treatment for
AFW-7 energy production , using 20% of harvested wood by 2020 . 13547
Plant 3 .4 million new trees statewide by 2020 through expanded urban
AFW - 10 forestry programs . 580
TOTAL ,
New Measures Summary
Mixed measures and recycling measure comprise the largest portion of the measures identified in
the Short-term Provisional Package . Transportation comprise a small percent of the pie, owing
to largely to the short time of the 2010 goal and the long-term nature of many transportation
strategies .
Figure 4 . Distribution of new
New Measures Distribution measures .
Transport
Energy 3%
21 % Mixed
38%
Recycling
38% 26
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
The two tables below present the new measures sorted by descending order of 2010 CO2e
benefit and by cost-effectiveness .
Table 4 . New Measures Sorted by 2010 CO2 Benefit
2010 Tons Cost
CO2e effectiven
Measure name Reduced ess
Push to meet 50% Waste diversion goal 226 , 000 $26
Expand Climate Wise 130 , 000 $0 . 5
Renewable Energy Growth Above Existing EESP 741000 $24
Local Carbon Offset Program 583000 $39
Government Organizations Establish GHG Goals 22 , 000 ($2 )
Time-of-Sale Energy Conservation Ordinance 171000 ($68 )
Residential Electric Rate Structure 175000 $3
VMT Reduction Summary 13, 000 ($ 211 )
Enhanced Demand Side Management Programs for Electricity 131000 ($30 )
Smart Meter Program 115000 ($56 )
Community-wide Climate Challenge 9 , 000 ($ 107 )
Low Cost Residential Home Energy Assessments 71000 ($27 )
Increase Xcel Franchise Fee to Encourage Natural Gas
Conservation 61000 $ 12
Economic and parking incentives for low emissions vehicles 31000 ($232 )
On-the-Ground Renewable Incentives 21000 $378
Modern roundabouts for new or majorly redeveloped
intersections 15000 ( $282 )
TOTAL 889 ,000 ($33 )
Table 5 . New Measures Sorted by Cost-Effectiveness "
27
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
2010 Tons Cost
CO2e effectiven
Measure name Reduced ess
Modern roundabouts for new or majorly redeveloped
intersections 11000 ($282)
Economic and parking incentives for low emissions vehicles 31000 ($232)
VMT Reduction Summary 13, 000 ($211 )
Community-wide Climate Challenge 9 , 000 ($ 107 )
Time-of-Sale Energy Conservation Ordinance 17 , 000 ($68)
Smart Meter Program 11 , 000 ($56 )
Enhanced Demand Side Management Programs for Electricity 13 , 000 ($ 30 )
Low Cost Residential Home Energy Assessments 71000 ($27 )
Government Organizations Establish GHG Goals 22 , 000 ( $ 2 )
Expand Climate Wise 130 , 000 $0 . 5
Residential Electric Rate Structure 17 , 000 $3
Increase Xcel Franchise Fee to Encourage Natural Gas
Conservation 6 , 000 $ 12
Renewable Energy Growth Above Existing EESP 74 , 000 $24
Push to meet 50% Waste diversion goal 2261000 $26
Local Carbon Offset Program 58 , 000 $ 39
On -the-Ground Renewable Incentives 21000 $378
TOTAL 8893000 ($33 )
" Cost-effectiveness Description
Cost-effectiveness is calculated by the total measure cost, divided by the greenhouse gas benefit
in tons CO2 . The costs and savings associated with each measure implemented through 2010
were calculated out through 2020 and summed. Typically, capital costs would stop at the year
2010, but O&M costs might be required into the future (i . e. smart meters) . Likewise, the GHG
benefits of measures was also calculated through 2020 and summed. The total GHG benefit
(2008 through 2020) was divided by the total net cost (2008 through 2020) to determine the cost-
effectiveness . Interest rates were not accounted for in the cumulative cost calculation. The year
2020 was selected to account for the fact that measures implemented to meet the City' s 2010
goal will continue to accrue benefits well beyond 2010 and to coincide with the work of the
state ' s Climate Action Plan. The cost effectiveness value facilitates relative comparisons
between measures . A positive cost effectiveness indicates a net cost to the community while a
negative cost effectiveness indicates a net savings.
Cost Estimates
Costs as well as benefits have been estimated for the new measures for the purpose of providing
a general sense of how much the Short-Term Provisional Package might cost the city and
citizens. It is important to keep in mind that these cost estimates may change as detailed
implementation plans are developed for each measure . Table 6 provides the costs and benefits
associated with each new measure.
Table 6 . Benefit and Cost Summary of New Measures
28
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
O O O O O 0
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD
— q o O o rn (N o O o 0) a'
0 AF* 4fi 69 69 O O 00 00 O 69 l0 06 N LQ
> V N m V 00 00 00 � OD V Ln
> A N 609 N 4 R 6N9 r
N 69 69 69 69
C
C O
O
O
U iC C:)
O O O 0 CD CD 0
O O 0 6
C C 20 6; O O C O O O O O C1 O O co
O A y LO 00 4L- «+• �A 69 69 r 69 c- O 69 69
T co UOi kO) ko
N In UM) r� if 1 cri
d V N N bt
0 ^ 69 69 69 69 69 {p
O O O cm) CD O
.O. m CD O O O O
E O o 0 0 o M
d e O o o O o 0 0
C U 0 �++ 69 69 (fl 69 69 69 V CN V 6Q> ccoo - _ V> O uNi.
a; a cn 1� (O V c+
a O CV (V 00 Lf"7 N
E 69 69 69 69 .A
0
y d O C) O
c o a C) Co
m O O C, O O O O O O L[7 O M
`y «+» 69 69 69 e=i Eff 6s �a F,v 69 ffl 69 N 69
V1 > 69
469
CD
f`
O O O O r� O O 0)
V q 4 O O O O O O O O O
a' E O O O O c`? (+') O O p O
is a+ W 69 69 69 O W 69 m 69 69 R
A >
U 4) 6N9 69 m 69 6�9 LO 69 69 to
O
p O O
d O O O O O O
A E o 0 0
C:, CD CDm O O C) CD CD CDO Co C) M
E 17, 69 69 69 cry NT 69 N 69 69 69 69 O 69 69 r
0 ° m N O
n 69 69
E 69 69 69
CD CD
>_ N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
C A p O O O O O O O 0 O O O p O O O
N = m O 1• N O Lrj 00 O (O O cn r ,--i N 4f) O
E N lfl 117 (O lt) V 0O L ) 00 O N m
U H N 00 N N m N 00
e o o R 6 � OR � � 0 0
O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O
w 0 Ln W m O 00 L() CD co N lf) U-) N N m
00 0 u-i (v o o o (o C o 6
N
e
Cf co CD r (0 1� CD04 00 00
N CD U-) N m (G R r- +--� 00 m M
U 6N9CN
69 69 69 69 b9 6) yNq N 69 69 Vf
d
CD
N 7 O CCD O O O O CCDO CCDO CCDO O CCD O O
p O O O O O O
p U d m LO N
N N O (0N .M-i (*; O
C (O
0) - N Q
L F-
C a O LD j O
E w
RS cn C.L N O� (!1 a)df cno O m N 0 c c 0 } (�6 coC V
Co
_ a) a co cn Z � E c� N L (D d (D a� Z E a
LLIx ( � 0 W c O_ E a� 1
O gn (o 0 � i -4 " L C W W C iO N Z 00) � H [/0l O 10 N
Lr) 01 ( 7 U � O a) A j L C W L Q o Q C
m + D 0 (> 3 L d O) o w � W W a C H 0
g Z aa) O E c _ LL w L a� 3 a� Z c a� J w N +p c 0 c
_ _ O C W ,a; c c Q O ip CO a) w O O u 7 v
a� p w x +� a� o a)
J E U L C } }, a) a.- a) N 0I m V1 U ¢ LU V O) d L L L'
} o ° U c can c c �_ o N � L o co3 (1) c _ E
L N E 41 �_ L U N N L N N co 0 to a) W a) J-! C Z a) L 0 0
U (n 0) `� `�° > E R3 W cn 1° � ( L 01 a) L O Z v, �i N Q H c —
W � � x o oNo � Z a) E ocn o � � c0 FLU aa) XC: oc6 0o
OG a � w J (.]' wUU w � cn JQ -. cl wUF0' � ELO0 - H > Z E w �
29
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
The seven tables below illustrate one distribution of costs, based upon certain assumptions about
which programs might be potentially funded through the General Fund, Fort Collins Utilities,
etc.
SUMMARY
Cost category Amount
General Fund Capital cost $ 750 , 000
General Fund annual cost $ 259499314
Utility capital cost $ 13 , 9801507
Utility annual cost $2 , 9295628
Citizen capital cost $ 18 , 8761670
Citizen annual cost ($4 , 8829792 )
Natural Gas Capital cost $ 1 , 6455632
Natural Gas Annual cost $ 569596
GENERAL FUND CAPITAL
General Fund Capital Annual Cost
Bicycle Infrastrucutre $ 750 , 000
GENERAL FUND ANNUAL
General Fund Annual Annual Cost Annual Savings
Time of Sale Energy Conservation 0 . 75 FTE $475900
Expand Climate Wise (staffing + resources $ 280 , 000
Municipal GHG Goal $ 101 , 000 $ 111 , 000
50 % Waste Diversion Goal $ 573 , 000
VMT Reduction Staff + program $ $ 132835966
Roundabouts $ 21500
LEV Incentives $ 2k for 272 vehicles/ r $ 5495948
Total $2 , 835 , 814 ($ 113 , 500 )
Net $2 , 949 , 314
UTILITY CAPITAL
Utility Capital Costs Amount
Electric Rate Strructure $ 5/customer plus 5 % $ 278 , 952
Smart meters $ 137/home $ 10 , 642 , 817
Increased Energy Efficiency $ 217261738
Community-wide Climate Challenge
$ 5 . 85/household for CFL program ) $ 3325000
Total $ 13 , 980 , 507
30
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
UTILITY ANNUAL
Utility Annual Costs Amount
Electric Rate Structures 10 % of capital costs $30575
Low Cost Home Energy Assessments ($ 77K for
assessments and $ 14K for . 15 FTE ) $905300
Increased Energy Efficiency ($200K annual
operating plus $257K lost revenue ) $495 , 397
Increase Renewabel Energy $ 11512 , 000
On the ground Renewables Incentives (2 %
surcharge to fund 50 % of programs $ 1 , 7925150
Total $ 3 , 920 ) 421
PARTICIPANT CAPITAL
Citizen/Business Capital Costs Amount
Low Cost Home Energy Assessments ($ 128 /
home / assessment + $ 1172/ home / retrofit ) $2 , 3403400
Increased Energy Efficiency $217261738
Time of Sale Energy Conservation
($ 100/home/assessment plus $ 1 Whome for retrofit ;
$250/biz/assessment + $2700/biz/upgrade ) $ 854477920
On the Ground Renewables ( 3 yr sum of individual
investment at 50 % match ) $ 5 , 3615612
TOTAL $ 18 , 8763670
Natural gas $ 1 , 6455632
TOTALI $ 20 , 5223302
PARTICIPANT ANNUAL
Citizen/Business Annual Annual Cost Annual Savings
Smart Meters $274997106
Low Cost Home Energy Assessments $380 , 310
Increased Energy Efficiency $ 171817586
Time of Sale Enegy conservation $ 1 , 891 , 298
Enhanced Climate Wise $2 , 510 , 000 $214501000
Local Gov GHG Goals $2983000 $3277000
Communitywide Climate Challenge $ 9347000
Local Carbon offset Program $255895000
On the ground renewables incentives $447913
50 % Waste Diversion Goal $45659 , 265
VMT Reduction 4 programs ) $5685754 $4 , 7685649
Roundabouts $2897000
LEV incentives $ 7415949
TOTAL $ 1016251019 $ 1575077811
$438823792
31
February 20, 2008
Attachment 2
32
Attachment 3
Board input (AQAB, NRAB, EAC)
AQAB — December 18, 2007
General
• The group discussed the reality that future demand for energy will increase and the
should be set beyond the current 1 . 1 million ton marker.
• The plan should not be labeled "aggressive" or "conservative", but should be named "the
Plan" with aspects that will require more or less oversight. They should also clearly
outline the cost and benefits and provide education to the public about how to achieve
the measures .
• Jeff Engell suggested partnering with others such as private/government entities that
could offset some of the costs and to allow the Task Force to make them more
aggressive because they could be funded and administered by a financial institution.
Perhaps involving the private sector would raise more awareness .
• Possible wording to present the problem/costs/benefits in plain language ("Investment"
vs. "Cost")
• More dialogue is needed around the benefits . Costs — who pays? Benefits — who
benefits?
• Try to relate to local cost savings . Could it save the cost of a whole power plant?
• Sell this on positive outcomes — economics, other benefits .
• Orient this to the community, not the City government.
• Involve students .
• Necessily of an appropriate long-term marketing-plan with regular reviews of the plan
and possible engagement of students to market the plan, with a goal to get buy-in from
the public because they are interested in the "sustainability" of the climate we 're living
in and pride in what they do because it will benefit the community.
• The group was also concerned this plan could not go forward unless a fundingsource
ource
was identified and discussed generating resources through national carbon offsetting
groups .
• Eric Levine pointed out that the Climate Task Force had not been charged to identify
funding and write the budget. Council members wanted the plan first. It was his hope
that, when all the measures are identified and the Brendle Group estimates the costs , the
City Budget Office would run the numbers for the City Council.
• Instant feedback is very important for changing behaviors (i .e. smart meters of hybrids
showing current MPG) .
• Periodic monitoring with contingency measures if we get off track is very important,
with regulation kicking in faster if we veer off track. If we are not meeting the goal,
taxes cold go up accordingly. " Could we have a small carbon tax for starters to help met
the goal and raise awareness?
• This requires a really aggressive commitment — we need a carbon tax right away. If you
pick the right (tax) point, it can help alleviate guilt (from generating carbon emissions) .
• The more mandates and regulation, the more quickly change will happen, the better.
• What about building codes?
1
Attachment 3
• When we as a community are pushing harder towards a goal , there is increasing risk of
failure. It' s okay to fail. If we don' t fail, we are not trying hard enough. Try to shoot for
greater reductions beyond 1 . 1 million tons .
• The reality of climate change will continue to heat up.
• There will be push-back from ratcheting up the cost.
• Could a LOCAL financial institution administer the local carbon offset program? Make
it more aggressive by leveraging the private sector.
• Plant the seeds that this is the "next" step, followed by annual review with adjustments .
• Eric Levine explained the Task Force was aware there should be recommendations after
2010, but, because of their work load to determine the short term measures, they felt that
there should be a "Phase II" Plan initiated by a subsequent Task Force, which should be
gathered as soon as Council adopts "Phase I". AQAB likes the idea of a Phase II effort.
• "Stop doing" issues are important too .
Transportation
• Suggested the City of Fort Collins transition to a cleaner fleet and build it into the
Climate Wise program.
• Dale Adamy expressed his disappointment that Transfort busses run mostly empty and
suggested smaller vehicles be put on the empty routes to reduce emissions. The group
discussed the fact that transportation contributes approximately 40% of the CO2
emissions and that public and private transportation should be more efficient by
increasing ridership per vehicle .
• The AQAB would like to get periodic reports from the Transportation Department
regarding the Transit Strategic Plan Update so the AQAB can give input.
• People here need to learn to drive in roundabouts .
Energy
• Suggested the city give away one compact fluorescent bulb every year to change public
attitude and create new habits. (like Yampa Valley Public Utility)
• What about the mercury in CFL ' s?
• Recommended more aggressive regulations with consequences for violations.
• Dave Dietrich also felt the city should be more aggressive regarding commercial energy
use such as excessive interior and exterior lighting.
• Could we require exterior lighting from CFL ' s?
• In Europe, they use a key to run on interior lights . This is very effective .
• What about an energy competition between government orgs (per square foot?)
• Can time of sale apply to remodels too?
Waste Reduction
• The group discussed the possibility of a trash utility, a voter-approved carbon tax,
upgrading building codes to promote energy efficiency and providing incentives to
contractors for building deconstruction (as opposed to construction and demolition
debris recycling incentives) .
• Dave Dietrich suggested curbside recycling become mandatory and that commercial
trash customers also have a level of mandatory recycling so that people don 't dump their
home trash at work.
• Can you mandate deconstruction (vs. recycling of C&D debris?)
• Much business trash is not generated by businesses, but by employee ' s personal trash .
2
Attachment 3
NRAB — December 19, 2007
RE the task force goal to reduce 1 . 1 million tons, Clint Skutchan agreed with this philosophy and
complimented the Task Force for their hard work, but voiced his concern that the Task Force
was setting unattainable goals and that unattainable goals will deter the public from "buying-
into" them.
them.
The board then discussed the importance to get the plan in motion now, even if the goals can 't be
met by 2010, so that the momentum is there to achieve it soon after.
They also discussed the necessity of having aggressive goals still out there after the short term
goals have been met.
Clint Skutchan expressed his opinion that having incentives for LEVs would create ill will since
it would create privilege for those who can afford a LEV vehicle. He suggested incentives for
getting the less efficient vehicles off the road (scrappage programs) and buying more efficient
vehicles would have a greater impact on the environment.
The effort should take credit for keeping recycled asphalt out of landfill and whether or not there
is an emissions factor regarding asphalt recycling.
Joe Piesman wondered if the new energy bill just passed in Congress will affect emissions since
all federal buildings are supposed to be carbon neutral by 2030 . What effect will the new enemy
bill have on Fort Collins?
The NRAB recognized the per-capita emissions are growing as is the impact of transportation.
A lot of thought must be put into mandates in order to not hurt those on the margins . If we 're not
careful, it will impact people ' s lifestyle. But don 't we need to impact people ' s lifest '?
The group discussed ideas how to achieve 2 CFLs in every home including coupons, Scouts
selling door-to-door and utility incentives .
Joe Piesman suggested not to be afraid to spend money up front on things like smart meters
because it could save a lot in the long run.
Glen Colton suggested land use and transportation planning must be evaluated in tandem
because they are big issues facing Fort Collins . If commercial and high density buildings are
placed on intersections at I-25 , CO2 would increase .
The board also discussed the fact that lifestyle changes are necessary to achieve the desired
energy/emission reductions and population growth will make meeting the climate goals more
difficult.
Also discussed were ways to make transportation for children more efficient and less vehicle-
dependant by suggesting bicycling and walking to school, making Fort Collins more pedestrian-
friendly. "School of Choice" is having a big impact.
3
Attachment 3
Economic Advisory Commission 1/2/08
• Have business owners heard of this effort yet? They need to know.
• Leadership on climate protection is one of the things that ahs made Fort Collins a leader.
(Jim Clark)
• Concerns about lack of business representation on CTF . Ask the Chamber again.
• Did you consider telecommuting? Promotion of telework would help attract other
businesses .
• Citizens will respond differently (less enthusiastically) to a tax than a survey about global
warming.
• "I know there is a cost and I would be willing to pay that cost as long as I can see the
economic benefit. "
• Identify and tie in other benefits such as air pollution reduction (ozone) .
• RE the issue of China ' s emissions overwhelming any local GHG reduction, the USA can
model the benefits and get the world to move in a more positive direction.
• What are our neighbors doing? Why should we do something if Loveland and Greeley
are not? Response — working regionally is important, but it is also important for Fort
Collins to be a leader.
• What are other cities doing? But be wary of empty commitments with no plans or ability
to reach stated goals.
• At the university level, there is the President's Climate Commitment — all universities in
CO have signed this agreement except CSU.
• What will the impact of these measures be on the already-struggling real estate market?
• Be sure to include IMPLEMENTATION recommendations in the plan.
• Come back to us with the cost data.
Transportation Board January 16, 2008
• What role does the oil and gas industry play and are there reduction we can get there?
• What about our streetlights?
• Consider grade-separate road crossings .
• Traffic signal timing is very important to how much fuel is burned and resultant
emissions .
• Have you considered vehicle scrappage programs rather than incentives to purchase low
emission vehicles?
• In Europe, they have increased motor vehicle registration fee as vehicles age to keep
older vehicles off the road.
• What is the net life cycle cost of encouraging the purchase of new vehicles?
• There are not enough hybrids in production yet and demand is very high already. Why
incentivize hybrids when the demand is already high?
• Are there incentive for businesses, i. e . for fleet s to make emissions improvements?
• Have you considered reducing vehicle idling, especially of delivery trucks?
• Have studies been done on the demand for or effectiveness of low emission vehicle
incentives (or other strategies under consideration)?
4
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Fort Collins
CLIMATE TASK FORCE
��
City Council Work Session
February 26, 2008 Fort Collins
Global Consensus Among
Leading Experts
IPCC 4th Assessment Report ( 2007 )
• Temperature increases since the mid 20th century
are very likely due to human greenhouse gas
emissions .
• The impacts of climate change are very likely to
impose net annual costs which will increase over
time as global temperatures increase .
• Many impacts can be avoided , reduced , or
delayed by mitigation .
1
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Others Are Taking Action
Colorado Climate Action Plan
• 20 % GHG reduction below 2005 levels by 2020
• 80% GHG reduction below 2005 levels by 2050
Colorado Climate Action Panel
• 55 recommendations to reduce emissions
• Reduce > 40, 000, 000 metric tons CO2 by 2020
• Net savings of $ 2 . 6 billion by 2020
Colorado Cities
• Denver
• Boulder
• Aspen
3
Did you Know * . . . . . ?
• 85 % believe global warming is real
• 74% believe human -caused emissions are
causing global warming
• 79 % believe governments should do more
about global warming by empowering
citizens and businesses to make choices to
reduce global warming
• 69 % believe governments should do more by
enacting legislation and regulations to reduce
global warming .
* 2007 Fort Collins citizen survey on air quality
4
2
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Fort Collins GHG Goal
1997
Joined ICLEI 's Cities for Climate Protection
Campaign
Fort Collins GHG Emissions
Inventory & Projections
1999 3.523
Set goal to reduce U 2.536
greenhouse gas O 1.36 1621 1 .861
emissions 30 % o
below predicted
2010 levels 1990 1995 1997 2004 2010
Good Efforts To Date
* Recycling is responsible for r .
N 50 % of GHG reductions
�;�
• Climate Wise program ! -
established in 2000 and has 1
grown to over 80 partners
• Fort Collins was the first
city in Colorado to set
renewable energy
goals and offer wind
energy subscriptions .
. A i.:
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Not on Track to Meet Goal
4,000
Worst Case
3,500 3,523 tons
3,000
a,
N
O 2,500
' Goal
Ln
2,000
C Actual
r
Emissions
c 1 ,500
1 ,000
500
0
tD (DD (D O O
O A 00 N O O
7
Background Summary
* Fort Collins has made good progress but
is not on track to meet the 2010 reduction goal .
• Some " low- hanging fruit" is gone ; there will be
costs as well as benefits associated with achieving
significant emission reductions .
• There is a cost of inaction , as well .
• We are not alone . Momentum with other
cities, state, and regional efforts can help .
• Climate protection activities can support
economic development .
R
4
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
City Council Resolution ( Mar " 07 )
City Manager shall appoint a task force of
citizens , boards & commissions , & City staff to :
• develop an updated plan that describes the
steps Fort Collins could take to meet the 2010
target
• make recommendations on how the City
should develop a future direction for climate
protection after 2010 .
Task Force Composition
• Fort Collins Sustainability Group
• Colorado State University
• Poudre School District
• Climate Wise Steering Committee
• Platte River Power Authority
• Larimer County
• City of Fort Collins
• 5 Council Advisory Boards
•Air Quality
• Economic Advisory
• Electric
• Natural Resources
•Transportation
10
5
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Policy & Vision
— Elements
Climate Task Force
■ City Plan
■ Electric Energy Policy Recommendations
■ Transportation Master Plan — Future Direction
■ Solid Waste Reduction Goal — Qualitative
■ Natural Areas
■ Water Supply/Demand Policy
Climate Task Force
Recommendations
— Short-term
Implementation Plante — Screening level
— Strategies analysis
■ Energy efficiency
■ Green building
■ Renewable energy
■ Transportation
■ Solid waste/ recycling
■ Water conservation
It
2006 Emissions Inventory
Fort Collins
2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2 .57 Million Tons
Waste
4%
Transport
30% \ Electricity
48%
Natural Gas
18%
6
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
2006 Emissions Inventory
Fort Collins
2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2 . 57 Millions Tons CO2e
Waste Residential
4% 23%
Transport - - ----------- -
30%
Com + Ind
43%
13
Development of Measures
➢ Quantified Existing Measures
➢ 170 new ideas from public, Boards, experts, etc .
➢ Collapsed to 70 unique ideas
➢ Qualitative analysis of benefit and cost
➢ Task Force multi -vote to select top third
Selected for Short-term benefit
Selected for local control
➢ Quantitative Analysis of New Measures
Identified costs and benefits
Technical analysis did not
necessarily address funding mechanism
14
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Existing / Pending Measures
407, 000 tons CO2e
ons coze
Reduced in
Measure name 2010
Business and residential recycling 1341000
Renewable Energy Programs ( EESP) 801000
Climate Wise* 1005000
DSM Pro rams (EESP) 391000
Landfill methane capture 269000
Carbon sequestration by trees in Ft. Collins 261000
Electricity distributions stem improvements 15,000
2004 Residential Energy Code 131000
E-waste ban 61000
HB1037 - Natural gas DSM programs 51000
Methane flaring and heat recovery 41000
FortZED Jum start 3,000
PSD SMS greenhouse gas goal 21000
Commercial energy code 1 X0
Others 23000
TOTAL * Double Counting Removed 407,000
15
Short-Term Provisional Package
Categories
• Solid Waste Reduction / Recycling
• Energ \
• Transportation
• Mixed ( Multi - media )
16
8
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Short-Term Provisional Package
MIXED ( Multi - media ) 2010 Tons • -
Expand Climate Wise 1301000
Local Carbon Offset Program 581000
Gov . Orgs Establish GHG Goals 22 , 000
Communitywide Climate Challenge 9 , 000
17
Short -Term Provisional Package
SOLID • • -
Push for 500/b Waste Diversion Goal 226, 000
including strategies like :
• Res Weekly Single Stream Recy + containers
• Residential enhanced PAYT
• Commercial recycling fee embedded in rates
• Ban yard waste from trash collection and offer
yard waste drop off and weekly collection
• Education
• Construction & Demolition ( C&D) drop-off
• C&D preference for City contracts
18
9
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Short -Term Provisional Package
ENERGY 2010 Tons • -
Residential Electric Rate Structure 17, 000
Smart Meter Program 11 , 000
Low Cost Home Energy Assessments 71000
Time of Sale Energy Conservation 171000
Increased Energy Efficiency ( DSM ) Prgrms 13, 000
Natural Gas Energy Conservation 61000
19
Short-Term Provisional Package
ENERGY 2010 Tons • -
15 % Renewable Energy by 2010 741000
Incentives for Local Renewable Energy 2, 000
20
10
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Short-Term Provisional Package
TRANSPORTATION .
Reduce Vehicle Miles of Travel 131000
• Walking and Bicycling Programs
• Employer- based TDM Programs
• School Transportation Mgmt Programs
• Transit
Incentives for Low Emission Vehicles 31000
Modern Roundabouts 11000
Emissions vs .
Reduction Strategies
Fort Collins
2006 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2.57 Million Tons
Waste New Measures Distribution
4%
Transport
30% Electricity
48%
Transport
Energy 3%
ii& 21 % Mixed
Natural Gas 38%
18%
Recycling
38%
11
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Multiple Co - Benefits
• Air pollution reduction , especially ozone
• Reduced pressure on landfill
• Reduced reliance on fossil fuel
• Reduced reliance on foreign oil
• Economic development potential
� • Cost savings for citizens, business,
government
• Supports many existing policies and BFO
desired results
23
Achieving sustainable reductions is
more important than achieving a
2010 goal
4
3 . 5
3
a
0 2 . 5
a
0 2
c
1 .5
1
0 .5
0
Time 24
12
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Cost Estimate Summary
For New Measures
Cost Category Amount
City Capital Cost $ 14 , 731 , 000
City Annual Cost $ 37453 , 697
City Annual Savings $ 1135500
Participant Capital Costs $ 20 , 523 , 000
Participant Annual Costs $ 137985 , 000
Participant Annual Savings $ 157596 , 000
Cost Estimate Summary
For New Measures
Cost category Amount
General Fund Capital cost $7505000
General Fund annual cost $2 , 94% 314
Utility capital cost $ 1399809507
Utility annual cost $2 , 929 , 628
Citizen capital cost $ 18 , 8765670
Citizen annual cost ($4, 882 , 792 )
Natural Gas Capital cost $ 196459632
Natural Gas Annual cost $569596
13
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Cost Effectiveness
Average Cost-effectiveness : - $ 33/ton
Weighted Average Cost-effectiveness : $ 10/ton
Comparison to Others
Aspen Canary Tags $ 20/ton
Colorado Carbon Fund ( anticipated ) $ 20/ton
Retail Offset Providers $ 10 - $ 20/ton
McKinsey Report threshold $ 50/ton
27
A Long View
Fort Collins Future GHG Emissions?
3000 +
2500
2000 .,
U 20% below 2005
0 1500 by 2020
0
0 1000
500 80% beloW-20 5
Y
0
N N N N N N N N N N N
CO CO O O O_ O_ O O O O O O O
C9 (D O O N N W W A A Cn
O Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn O Cn O
If Fort Collins met recommended state GHG goals
28
14
City of Fort Collins : Cities for Climate Protection Project
Next Steps
• March -Task Force considers feedback and
develops final recommendations
• April - Board review
• April 22 — Council work session
• May 20 - Council Action
?q
Questions for Council
1 ) Does the Council have questions or suggestions
regarding the work of the Climate Task Force to
date ?
2) Does Council agree with the proposed next steps :
a ) develop a proposed implementation plan
b) hold a second Council Work Session on Apr 22 ?
City Collins
30
15