HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 01/13/2015 - CLIMATE ACTION PLAN - SCENARIO ANALYSIS AND TRIPLEDATE:
STAFF:
January 13, 2015
Lucinda Smith, Environmental Sustainability Director
Bruce Hendee, Chief Sustainability Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Climate Action Plan - Scenario Analysis and Triple Bottom Line Impact Assessment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to present analysis progress on the Climate Action Plan (CAP) update and
outline Triple Bottom Line impacts and benefits associated with the strategies in the draft CAP. The CAP will
provide a high level framework to set Fort Collins on the path to achieve carbon emissions reduction objectives as
requested by Council, but will not determine future implementation details. Implementation details will be
developed as strategies and tactics are considered on a case-by-case basis, and will be brought forward to
Council for approval prior to implementation.
In April 2014, City Council asked that an ad hoc committee be formed to develop a proposed updated Climate
Action Plan that describes how the community could achieve a greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 20%
below 2005 levels by 2020, 80% below 2005 by 2030, and carbon neutrality (a 100% reduction in net greenhouse
gas emissions) by the year 2050. This Council work session is the final of four work sessions to review progress.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. Does the modeling analysis provide City Council with appropriate information to understand the path to
achieving the 2020, 2030 and 2050 reduction objectives?
2. Is City Council comfortable considering updated community GHG goals and an updated Climate Action Plan
framework at the February 17, 2015 meeting?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
In April 2014, City Council initiated an effort to develop an updated Climate Action Plan that would outline the
steps necessary to reduce community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions:
20% below 2005 levels by 2020,
80% below 2005 by 2030, and
carbon neutrality (a 100% reduction in net greenhouse gas emission) by the year 2050.
This direction was based on analysis provided from the “Stepping Up” report prepared by the Rocky Mountain
Institute to answer the question of how quickly Fort Collins could technically and cost-effectively accelerate its
80% GHG reduction goal, plus additional analysis of alternative new goals provided by The Brendle Group.
When considering a policy goal and strategic plan such as this, questions that are typically considered include:
- What would it take?
- What are the impacts of taking the action? Of not taking action?
- What is the correct/logical order of steps?
- Can it be funded?
The information presented below is intended to address these questions to the extent possible, based on analysis
that has been completed to date. The analysis effort has been significant and a framework has been outlined that
could achieve the majority of the requested reduction objectives. The analysis approach is based on examples
January 13, 2015 Page 2
from best practices nationally and technoeconomic analysis of foreseeable cost trends and adoption rates for
specific strategies. Still, many uncertainties about the future exist. These uncertainties include details of the
electric grid systems integration, electric storage and balancing requirements to complement high level of
wind/solar, and the overall integration of technology from various sectors. Researchers around the world are
working to address these types of questions, and Fort Collins and its partner Platte River Power Authority can
play an important role in the evolution of energy systems by engaging in this research and development. Other
areas of uncertainty include decisions on national carbon pricing and finalization of Platte River Power Authority’s
Integrated Resource Plan for its future electric generation supply mix.
The development and implementation of the CAP is, by nature, an iterative process. The CAP framework
provides a high-level structure within which the “Plan, Do, Check, Act”’ model that Fort Collins embraces can
operate on a shorter time cycle. Accordingly, the CAP will provide a framework that enables periodic evaluation
and updates that consider advancements in technology, community engagement, and financing approaches.
Strategies and tactics can be modified within the overall framework of the plan to minimize costs, avoid
unfavorable outcomes, and take advantage of new technical and economic opportunities.
Anticipated outcomes of setting aspirational greenhouse gas goals include attracting outside capital as well as
increased local innovation and entrepreneurial activity. An aspirational goal can drive further action to reduce
emissions than would occur without a goal and plan. It can spur the community’s engagement, competitive spirit,
and sense of pride.
The following excerpt of the draft 2015 Energy Policy summarizes the opportunity available to Fort Collins:
Leadership by City government and Utilities in promoting efficiency and the transition to
renewable sources will provide certainty to businesses and investors to make projects happen.
There will be an economic multiplier and a draw for businesses who sell outside the City. A
statement of the City’s commitment to aggressively cut greenhouse gas emissions would, in itself,
play a major role in enabling acceleration. This commitment is backed by significant decision-
making power and implementation capabilities of Fort Collins Utilities and Platte River Power
Authority. A public GHG target would send a credible signal to interested stakeholders to
engage. For those who are on the fence, ratification would provide a bold directive to act. A bold
public target would alert the nation that an energy transformation is underway in Fort Collins,
drawing energy leaders, funders, and researchers to participate. City government can organize
projects to catalyze private industry not only to achieve this (energy) policy’s goals but also to
improve the local economy. (excerpt from draft 2015 Energy Policy Update)
The 2015 draft Energy Policy is currently under development by the Energy Board. It will be synchronized with
CAP goals and brought forward for Council consideration sometime after February 2015.
WHAT WILL IT TAKE?
In mid-December, a scenario (compilation of GHG reducing strategies) was developed based on judgments from
staff, the Brendle Group, and poll results from the Climate Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). That scenario was
presented to the CAC on Dec. 15th and further refined based on feedback from the CAC into “Scenario 1”,
presented below. Scenario 1, summarized below, reflects a compilation of strategies that are aggressive yet
potentially achievable. Other scenarios are possible.
Table 1. Estimated Metric Tons CO2e reduced by Scenario 1 and Percent Reduction from Baseline Achieved by
Quantified Strategies
2020 2030 2040 2050
% below 2005 Baseline 25% 75% 86% 92%
The remaining unquantified reductions may be addressed through further evaluation now or can be clarified in
future updates to the CAP. Recall that the 2008 Fort Collins Climate Action Plan was an “interim strategic plan for
2020” that quantified only 90% of the 2020 goal. Copenhagen’s ambitious plan to achieve carbon neutrality for the
community by 2025 contains 6% “new, unidentified” initiatives.”
January 13, 2015 Page 3
(Seehttp://subsite.kk.dk/sitecore/content/Subsites/CityOfCopenhagen/SubsiteFrontpage/Business/Growth_and_p
artnerships/~/media/F5A7EC91E7AC4B0891F37331642555C4.ashx>)
Anticipated Outcomes of Scenario 1 in 2030
o Electric supply:
o 80% reduction in GHG intensity of all electric power supplied to the Fort Collins electric grid (wholesale
and distributed sources)
o Platte River’s Craig coal units 1 & 2 (approx. 155 MW) both retire at the end of 2019
o Platte River’s Rawhide coal unit capacity factor falls from about 90% to about 60% by 2029 in
response to increased distributed generation
o Rawhide (approx. 280 MW) would retire from the fleet in 2029
o Platte River’s surplus sales drop by approximately 60
o Platte River adds about 200 MW of reciprocating natural gas engines to provide energy when
wind, solar and distributed resources are not sufficient to meet City needs.
o Existing homes and businesses:(reduced the percent of existing buildings achieving all electric and having
solar from Dec. 9 analysis)
o 36% more efficient than today’s buildings
o 100% will have enough solar PV to achieve net zero energy
o 25% of homes and 5% of commercial buildings no longer use natural gas for heating, cooking, etc.)
(reduced from 12/9 summary)
o 22% of homes and 50% of businesses have installed solar
o New construction:(increased the percent of new buildings achieving all electric and having solar form (from
Dec. 9 analysis)
o By 2030, new construction will use only 15% of the energy used by today’s buildings under current
code
o 50% of new homes and 25% of new businesses will be all electric
o Vehicles and Mileage: (reduced the percent of new vehicles being EV from Dec. 9 analysis, increased the
percent of new vehicle purchases)
o 50% of new vehicles purchased by 2030 are electric vehicles (EV’s)
o Remaining 50% of new vehicles purchased are ~40% more efficient than avg. new stock
o People are driving 29% less miles per year (per capita VMT reduction)
Attachment 1 provides more details about Scenario 1 and a summary of Platte River Power Authority’s modeling
analysis for Fort Collins. The relationship between the CAP and Platte River modeling inputs and outputs is still
under review and adjustments may impact the final scenario results.
SOCIETAL COSTS AND BENEFITS
Of great interest to the community and stakeholders are the costs and savings that are estimated for the suite of
strategies needed to achieve reductions. The table below shows the net costs and savings for the suite of
strategies contained in Scenario 1. The cost estimates are very sensitive to input assumptions, so costs are
presented in ranges to address this issue. The costs and benefits reported are net societal costs and benefits, so
they reflect a diverse portfolio of investments made by Fort Collins Utilities, Platte River Power Authority, third
parties providing finance for energy efficiency investments, and the City itself, as well as individual businesses
and homeowners. Fort Collins Utilities’ proposed Integrated Utility Services model, for example, would provide a
financing structure whereby homeowners would see net benefits from energy efficiency investments beginning in
year one, since these investments would be financed over time rather than paid up front.
Scenario 1 is estimated to deliver a net savings to the Fort Collins community of $1B - $2B by 2040 and $3B to
$7B by 2050, using net present values under two discount scenarios (2.5% and 5%). Achieving these long term
savings requires making investments over the next 10-15 years to improve energy efficiency in buildings, revamp
electricity supply infrastructure, acquire lower emissions vehicles, implement new city programs, and other
measures. The total amount of this investment is equivalent to approximately $30/month per person in 2020,
January 13, 2015 Page 4
yielding a net savings of ~ $50-$100/person/month by 2050. It is important to note, however, that the impact of
some costs will spread out over time through financing.
Table 2. Estimated Range of Cost Impacts
2020 2030 2040 2050
Discounted Net Cumulative Cost/Savings (Using 2.5%
discount)
Total (Cost) or Savings - $M ($292) $388 $2,800 $7,100
Average Monthly Societal (Cost) or Savings, shown as $
per person per month
($28) $13 $56 $98
Discounted Net Cumulative Cost/Savings (Using 5%
discount)
Total (Cost) or Savings - $M ($278) $196 $1,600 $3,600
Average Monthly Societal (Cost) or Savings, shown as $
per person per month
($27) $6 $32 $50
* The average monthly cost/savings-per-household equivalent is provided to provide a sense of the overall level
and timing of costs (investments) and savings (benefits) to the community. It does not indicate the cash flow
impact on households or businesses. By financing cost-effective investments, households and businesses can
see net benefits immediately.
When considering these costs and saving, it is important to also consider that “business as usual” has costs
associated with it.
Conservative Elements of the Analysis
It is important to note that the CAP model currently has a number of conservativisms built into it. The CAP model
does not consider indirect cost benefits that will accrue from:
improved public health resulting from more active modes of transportation (walking and bicycling)
improved public health resulting from reductions in air pollution emission
indirect economic and social health benefit to the community through increased resiliency to predicted climate
change impacts such as increased flooding,
indirect economic benefit to the community from job creation through CAP research and program
implementation
In addition, uptake of energy efficiency programs is based on today’s energy rate, yet as rates rise, energy
efficiency become more compelling and more cost-effective.
Uncertainties in the Resource Analysis
Platte River’s modeling for Fort Collins assessed necessary changes to their entire system to reach an 80% and a
60% reduction in carbon emissions. If Fort Collins only wanted to increase its share of cleaner energy, the overall
magnitude of system changes needed would be lower. Fort Collins would have to take on the total incremental
cost of new cleaner resources and cover its share of fixed system cost, but that total cost might be less than the
total cost associated with the entire system revision.
With the unprecedented amounts of solar assumed added to the distribution system, several items must be
considered. Moving forward, it will be critical for Fort Collins to partner with Platte River in order to ensure reliable
and cost-effective execution of low-carbon strategies. The current analysis includes the following caveats from
Platte River:
System engineering
The model does not include equipment or systems at the distribution level (storage / other technologies) to
integrate the large amount of PV solar.
January 13, 2015 Page 5
Business Operations
It is assumed that all required integration services can be purchased from the balancing authority at the
posted rate (with an assumed escalator).
It is assumed that the market will be deep enough to buy and sell as needed to match loads and resources on
an hourly basis
Construction times and installation
Additions of new resources may be beyond the 15 years available
Electrification infrastructure challenges - EV’s and electric appliances
Decommissioning of existing resources and stranded fixed costs for existing systems
Transmission may not be available for large amounts of wind and solar
New air quality permits will be needed for new gas generation such as combined heat and power located within
the City will require state air quality permits.
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE IMPACTS
City Plan (2011) defines Fort Collins’ commitment to sustainability as the resolve to act “systemically,
creatively, and thoughtfully utilize environmental, human, and economic resources to meet our present needs and
those of future generations without compromising the ecosystems upon which we depend.”
To that end, the City has completed a Sustainability Assessment Tool (SAT) of the current CAP “Accelerated”
scenario”. Attachment 2 provides the SAT and summary. Key impacts are summarized below. Mitigation
measures need to be developed to address any significant inequitable negative coat impacts.
RISKS OF TAKING OR NOT TAKING ACTION
Decisions to advance down the path towards an accelerated GHG gal should consider risks of action and risks of
inaction. The list below outlines some risk considerations of either approach.
Risks of Inaction (Business-as-Usual)
Exposure to economic impacts from fossil fuel price volatility and fuel supply shocks.
Greater congestion and worsening air quality reduce Fort Collins’ quality of life and distinctiveness as a
community.
Greater energy-related cash flow out of the community and smaller in-community investment in efficiency,
renewables, and new technology.
Fort Collins loses its position as a leader in clean tech market to other communities and misses out on
opportunities attract investor capital and innovative businesses.
Missed opportunities to secure R&D funding from the federal government or other sources for advanced
energy economy.
Risks of Accelerated Action (proposed CAP)
Premature investment into technologies that have not reached optimum development or cost-effectiveness
(Can be mitigated by careful consideration of which programs to implement first)
Inequitable cost burden to any segment of the community (must be mitigated by careful vetting of individual
strategies or projects)
Risk of damaging credibility by striving for an aspirational goal (setting an aspirational itself does not come
with any financial penalty for not meeting the goal)
Challenges of integrating high levels of renewable electricity supply could result in electrical system instability
if not properly managed.
POTENTIAL ACTIONS FOR EARLY IMPLEMENTATION
In order to reach a reduction objective of 80% below 2005 by 2030, many actions need to start very soon.
However, there is still a sequencing logic that should prevail as strategies are implemented. As always, climate
action strategies will start building upon the multiple successful initiatives already underway, including Utilities
January 13, 2015 Page 6
programs, transit and alternative mode programs, Road to Zero Waste objectives, and City Plan land use
objectives.
Additionally, different strategies have different returns on investment when considering carbon reduction ($/tons
reduced) versus simply a monetary perspective (Return on Investment). Strategies can and should be timed to
optimize total CO2 reduction, financial return and $/ton CO2 avoided. The projects or strategies with greater
payback should be prioritized and implemented first to support and even generate revenues to subsequent
actions.
A few strategies are recommended for immediate implementation, beginning in 2015. These are outlined below.
Planning
Develop a CAP implementation plan that provides more detail on which tactics and programs must be
implemented by 2020, and in what order, and identifies anticipated budget needs.
Buildings
Pilot Integrated Utility Services Model
2015 building code update and compliance
Provide incentives for above code buildings
Energy Supply
Expand partnership with Platte River on efficiency programs
Partner with others on electric system distribution systems integration research
Increased incentives and new mechanisms for increased solar PV
Develop programs that benefit low/fixed income such as Low Income Solar Pilot
Consider Time-of-Use and low income electric rate structures
Transportation
Provide open transportation data and encourage development of transportation data apps
Car/Bike/Ride share programs
Employer engagement on VMT reduction
Drive Electric Northern Colorado - Work Place Challenge
Road to Zero Waste
Advanced waste stream optimization to explore waste stream optimization and then seed funding to
implement highest and best uses of key waste sectors such as organics.
Universal Recycling Ordinance to explore ways to offer recycling to commercial businesses that have the
costs embedded trash rates, as is currently done for the residential sector.
Public Engagement
Evolve ClimateWise (ClimateWise 2.0)
Georgetown University Energy Prize- has the objective to double the amount of energy savings in the
residential and municipal/school district sectors by 2016 over 2013/2014 efficiency levels. Winner gains a
$5M purse to advance efficiency.
Develop and implement a pilot neighborhood campaign
Develop and implement strategic community engagement strategies
Financing Mechanism Development
Pilot public private partnership to leverage outside finance via on-bill financing or Integrated Utilities Services
program
Research one or a limited number of additional financing mechanisms to enable quicker actions.
January 13, 2015 Page 7
CAP FINANCING and FUNDING
To realize a community carbon reduction of 80% by 2030, several major initiatives need to be implemented. This
will require investment into infrastructure as well as efficiency upgrades. The major funding needs for the CAP
include renewable energy, energy efficiency programs and facility upgrades, and transit infrastructure.
The net societal costs and benefits show a net cumulative savings by 2050 of approximately $7 billion dollars.
Therefore, the savings exceed the costs over the time horizon considered by the analysis. The challenge then of
funding the CAP is developing business models that allow for the diverse portfolio of investments made by Fort
Collins Utilities, Platte River Power Authority, third parties providing finance for energy efficiency investments, and
the City itself, as well as individual businesses and homeowners to leverage these savings.
Though no city has done something at this scale before, the CAP is potentially feasible and can be executed
through a new business models that will dramatically increase customer adoption and maximize benefits and
profits for the community. The City can play a critical role in financing this endeavor by leveraging limited City
dollars to attract other private and public funds.
City staff, along with support from RMI and The Brendle Group, has been researching available funding
mechanisms to support the implementation of the CAP. The list of funding mechanisms below is not intended to
be an exhaustive list but does illustrate the primary methods of funding carbon reduction and climate action efforts
across the United States.
The financing mechanisms largely rely on entity borrowing funds, whether household, business, or government,
that must be repaid. The intent is to develop business models that rely on these financing mechanisms to access
the anticipated net savings from the CAP in later years to amortize the initial costs associated with the proposed
strategies and tactics reducing initial costs for pursuing the CAP. The mechanisms fall into three main categories:
Individual and Business Financing - These mechanisms provide access to borrowing or funds that
individuals and businesses can use to make investments in energy efficiency, distributed power, and
other similar investments. In general, these financing mechanism aid individuals and businesses in
amortizing initial costs in improvements over time to reduce the upfront costs. In some cases, the
government, whether it is municipal, county, or state, can aggregate the investments into a larger pool to
reduce borrowing costs (e.g., On-bill financing, Property Assessed Clean Energy Bonds or Tax Increment
Financing).
Government Financing - These mechanisms involve the government borrowing funds, whether it is
municipal, county, or state, directly to support investments in utility scale energy efficiency, solar rebates,
transit infrastructure, and other similar investments. The intent is to use the borrowing power of the
government to accelerate adoption of key strategies, reduce risk to private lenders of consumer lending
programs, make key investments in municipal infrastructure (e.g., public transit) to support carbon
reduction goals. In many cases, the borrowing still requires a funding source to justify the debt which can
range from the existing revenues (e.g., taxes and/or fees) available to the government to new revenues
(e.g., new taxes and/or fees).
Other Sources of Funds - The last category captures a series of potential funding sources that do not
logically fall into the other two categories. These may include new governmental revenue sources (e.g.
User Fees, Development Exactions, and Public Benefit Funds) or donations from private parties
interested in furthering carbon reduction goals.
Attachment 3 provides a list of potential financing mechanisms, an assessment of the amount of financing
needed and the financing mechanisms appropriate to each cost category, and the current proposed guidelines for
CAP financing. The Council Finance Committee will discuss financing approaches in January and February 2015.
CAP IMPLEMENTATION PROCESSES
There are a number of key checks and balances in the processes needed to implement CAP strategies that
should serve to ensure that costs of future actions remain commensurate with community values.
1. Financing Guiding Principles - A set of guiding principles for investment is being developed as part of the
framework plan. These guiding principles provide a set of boundary conditions for the implementation of
January 13, 2015 Page 8
the plan with the goal of mitigation a portion of the risk inherent with the unknowns of a framework plan.
(See Attachment 3)
2. City Council Review and Vetting of Individual Strategies - Any CAP strategy or program that requires City
Council action will need to be independently designed to the operational level then discussed and vetted
before Council consideration.
3. City Budget process - The City’s biennial budget process allocates City budget in a balanced way that
considers a range of strategic objectives and community needs, and prioritizes decision according ly.
4. CAP Update Process - The CAP itself will need to be reviewed periodically (at least every five years) to
ensure that the latest technological innovations are being considered.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMERNT
Phase I public engagement (intended to provide a background on the CAP, discuss the need for an update, and
seek input generally and on strategy concepts) was conducted from July through December 2015, including ten
stakeholders groups, four Council advisory boards and one public forum. The themes heard through Phase I
engagement are provided below:
Concerns about affordable housing/Cost of living
Too much burden placed on business
Long term benefits outweigh the costs
Increase renewable energy to multifamily units
County and state collaboration opportunities should be taken advantage of
Need for more East to west bus travel
Increase bike share program
Use SmartTrips
Increase composting opportunities
Need more analysis on closing, impacts, and opportunities for the Larimer County Landfill
It is important for the city to take action/protect the environment
Transportation concerns for those (especially senior citizens) living outside of city limits
This may only be successful with greater incentives for groups that will be impacted the most in terms of
cost
General support for increasing renewables
Phase II public engagement is planned for January and early February, and will involve seeking public input on
the CAP draft framework concepts and the estimated impacts through presentations to at least ten stakeholder
groups, eight Council advisory boards, plus two open houses scheduled for January 22 and 29, and a Web-based
comment form.
More details about input received to date is provided in Attachment 4.
NEXT STEPS
Final Scenario adjustments (January)
CAC develops recommendation (January)
Draft CAP framework document (January)
Coordination with revisions to the Energy Policy recommendations from the Energy Board (January and
February)
Public engagement (January and February)
Council Date:
February 17, 2015 - Council consideration of updated CAP framework
January 13, 2015 Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Model Outputs (PDF)
2. Sustainability Assessment (PDF)
3. Financing Needs and Potential Tools (PDF)
4. Public Input To Date (PDF)
5. Work Session Summaries, August 12, October 28 and December 9, 2014 (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
1
Scenario 1 - CAP Model Output and Platte River Modeling
Scenario1
Scenario 1 reflects a compilation of strategies that are significantly aggressive yet potentially achievable.
It generally reflects best practice tactics research by the Rocky Mountain Institute, followed by some
modifications made by staff and The Brendle Group. It reflects initial preferences of the Citizen Advisory
committee members, based on the results of an informal on-line survey (12/9/14) and an informal poll on
12/15/14.
Population growth: 2050 population of 260,000
PRPA Model: FC80 (calculates an 20% reduction by 2020, and an 80% reduction by 2030 from Platte
River electric system CO2 emissions from 2005)
Figure 1 and Table 1 below provide CAP model outputs that have been updated since the results
presented to Council on December 9, 2014.
Figure 1. Emissions Reduction by Fuel Type (Scenario 1)
The analysis revisions incorported into Scenario 1 (that have occurred since the inforamtion presnted to
Counci on December 9, 2014) include the following points:
1) Airline travel has been removed from the analysis. It was a recommendation by staff, informally
supported by the CAC, to remove airline travel from the community GHG inventory. Airline travel
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
2005
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
2023
2026
2029
2032
2035
2038
2041
2044
2047
2050
GHG Emissions (metric tons CO2e)
Millions
Emissions Reduction by Focus Area
Electricity
Natural Gas
Gasoline/Diesel
Air Travel
Solid Waste
Other
Remaining Gap
BAU Forecast
Adjusted BAU Forecast
Emissions Reduction Goal
ATTACHMENT 1
2
is not required according to the standard community GHG reporting protocol, is not included by a
vast majority of communities, and the local community does not have significant influence over it.
(Note: Emissions from airline travel will continue be tracked but now reported as “information
only” in future Fort Collins community GHG inventories.)
2) Platte River Power Authority’s analysis of system-wide electric generation model runs for Fort
Collins have been completed. Scenario 1 includes the FC80 run, identifying a system using City
assumptions that calculate a 20% reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2030 from Platte
River electric system CO2 emissions compared to 2005 levels.
3) Electric retails rates have been entered into the model that reflect changes in Platte River’s
wholesale rates and additional changes to Fort Collins Utilities’ retail rates that include the
estimated cost of Utility-offered programs and services include in the modeled strategies.
Figure 2. Relative Contribution by Strategy in 2030
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
GHG Emissions (million metric tons)
2030 Baseline GHG Emissions Effects
3
Table 1. Key Metrics by Strategy in Scenario 1
Platte River Modeling
The Modeling Process
Under an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Fort Collins, Platte River Power Authority has
applied its in-house modeling and analysis expertise and outside consulting resources to conduct
modeling to support Fort Collins CAP update. The majority of the assumptions in the model were
provided by the City. Platte River has completed its modeling of two scenarios for Fort Collins:
Scenario AS-FC80 - a 20% reduction by 2020, and an 80% reduction by 2030 from Platte River electric
system CO2 emissions in 2005, and
Scenario AS-FC60- a 20% reduction by 2020, and a 60% reduction by 2030 from Platte River electric
system CO2 emissions in 2005. Scenario AS-2 was requested by the City to provide an additional
increment between the 2030 CO2 target proposed in the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and the City’s primary
scenario, AS-FC1.
Inputs to Platte River’s Modeling
Both scenarios modeled by Plate River for Fort Collins are comprised of six main adjustments to Platte
River’s generation system to accommodate City system ch that were mutually agreed upon by the City ,
Platte River and Brendle Group.
• Additional electricity demand from EV charging
• Additional electricity demand from fuel switching
• Reduced electricity demand from efficiency,
• Reduced electricity demand from distributed solar,
• Reduced electricity demand from distributed CHP
• Distributed biomass is treated as a PR system resource
FC80 contains the following changes:
o Platte River’s Craig coal units 1 & 2 (approx. 155 MW) both retire at the end of 2019
o Platte River’s Rawhide coal unit capacity factor falls from about 90% to about 60% by
2029 in response to increased distributed generation
o Rawhide (approx. 280 MW) would retire from the fleet in 2029
o Platte River’s surplus sales drop by approximately 60%;
o Platte River adds about 200 MW of reciprocating natural gas engines to provide energy
when wind, solar and distributed sources are not sufficient to meet City needs
KEY METRICS by STRATEGY 2020 2030 2040 2050
Cumulative Energy Saved in New Construction (GBtu) 479 3,853 8,619 14,948
Cumulative VMT Reduced (millions) 264 1,822 4,185 6,779
Cumulative Energy Saved in Existing Residential Buildings
(GBtu)
2,219 17,245 49,135 93,071
Cumulative Energy Saved in Existing CII Buildings (GBtu) 2,535 19,698 56,124 106,309
Cumulative VMT Reduced (millions) 90 1,294 2,962 4,793
Total FE and EV Sales 8,958 59,418 124,250 195,441
Installed Solar PV Capacity (MW) 32 135 221 256
4
Platte River Modeling Analysis Caveats
Platte River has identified caveats to systems that were modeled for Fort Collins. A number of these
concerns will require further investigation before implementing such large levels of renewables and
removing existing resources.
It is not clear that new systems meet electrical safety and reliability standards
Detailed electric system modeling is needed
Wholesale level – renewables integration / reliability
City distribution level – operations / reliability / renewables integration
Analysis to date has considered only hourly increments – need to do sub-hourly
Additional modeling needed to consider integration of wholesale/retail systems
City level PV solar capacity added is assumed roughly equal to the peak load
This level of renewable additions is unprecedented
No storage is assumed for PV solar integration at the distribution level
Uncertainties exist regarding permitting of combined heat & power sources
No emissions are currently produced in the City from electric generation
NOx emissions limits constrain the size of generation that can be added
Other permitting issues not yet considered – land, water, etc.
Future wholesale wind and solar balancing costs unknown
Model assumes costs are covered by Xcel – current scenario (low renewables)
Additional new resources or electric storage may be required – at added cost
All federal hydropower allocations cannot be delivered at high solar levels
Excess solar is assumed sold to the market when not needed – validity uncertain
Large wholesale market purchases are required to serve load when solar not available
Amounts to nearly 20% of total deliveries to the City – unrealistic
CO2 emissions are not currently included – source evaluation needed
When solar and wind are at high levels – large sales to the market are required
Such sales may not be possible – market and other constraints
Transmission may not be available for large amounts of wind and solar
It is assumed that purchases are possible using transmission
More regional transmissions studies are needed to evaluate true costs
Stranded fixed costs are not included for the existing system:
Decommissioning of coal units / fuel supply agreements / other factors
Need more time to evaluate these costs
Construction times required for adding new resources is constrained
Financing and installation of renewable resources
Decommissioning of existing resources
Electrification infrastructure challenges – EV’s and electric appliances
1
CAP Financing Needs and Potential Tools
This attachment provides three elements; a list of potential financing mechanisms (pages 2-4), an
assessment of the amount of financing needed and the financing mechanisms appropriate to each cost
category (pages 5-6) and the current proposed guidelines for CAP financing (page 7).
Attachment 3
2
Potential CAP Financing Mechanisms
Borrower
Category
Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
Individuals
and
Business
Financing
Savings This can be both revenue and financing
Traditional bank loan
or consumer lending
(CCs)
Fort Collins Citizen Banks or finance
companies
Not necessarily the best at doing this kind of financing
Mortgage/Home
Equity
Fort Collins Citizen Banks or finance
companies
New build will rely on this significantly
Purchase Power
Agreements
Fort Collins Citizens Third party developers They raise their own capital
Energy Efficiency
Loans
Fort Collins Citizen Utility, banks or finance
companies
Often private market, 2013 saw successful secondary
market in Pennsylvania, subsidized loans typically $4-
5K to consumers
MEETS Small/Mid
Commercial
ESCOs They raise their own capital
On-bill Financing
(PPP)
Fort Collins Citizen Utility reserves and
third party investors
Attracts private capital when combined with some
form of public credit enhancement
Property Assessed
Clean Energy
State then County
authorized-
Municipal opt-in
Institutional investors In place in Colorado for both Residential and
Commercial. Property attached county backed
financing (low cost to municipality, affects debt)
Tax Increment
Financing (PPP)
Municipality (to
lend to developers)
Municipal bond
investors
Need to designate certain geographies as special
districts to qualify
Linked Deposit Fort Collins Citizens CRA Bank Resources Below market rate investing
3
Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
Government
Financing
General Obligation Municipal Municipal bond
investors
Can be a part of a General Obligation bond that also
funds other items, typically passed by voters
Green Bonds State/
Municipal/Compan
ies
Government and or
private sector investors
Could be used to raise funds to back other loan
programs. Private companies also issue green bonds.
QECBs State(to
Municipalities)
Federal government
and institutional
investors
Low interest specifically targeted federally backed
bond that can fund Energy Efficiency loans etc.
(typically $500,000 at the state level)
Social Impact Bonds Municipal Used for social purpose, e.g. Denver's for
homelessness
Loan Loss Reserve
Fund (PPP)
Municipal City funds – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary,
Philanthropy,
Government Grants
Typically 10% of a Loan program backed by City
expands options in market for "riskier" loans.
Debt Service reserves
(PPP)
Municipal City funds – – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary
Public Sector risk mitigation fund (typically 10% of
projects/funds)
Loan Guarantees
(PPP)
Federal/State to
Municipal
City funds – – General
Obligation Bonds if
necessary
Risky for public agency
Pooled bond
financing
Regional Working with other municipalities to get better rates/
more capital. Contribute towards shared debt service
reserve of 5% of the principal.
4
Financing Mechanism Likely Borrower Capital Providers Comments
City
Revenue
Sources
Philanthropic N/A unless PRIs or
MRIs
Foundations PRIs, Foundations, Smart Growth Funds, etc. Leverage
STAR
User Fees Do not have to
securitize
Collected via special districts, tolls, etc. Other financing
mechanisms listed would securitize these (Gos, Green
Bonds)
Development
Exactions
Do not have to
securitize
Fees charged to developers. Other financing
mechanisms listed would securitize these (Gos, Green
Bonds). Do not necessarily need to securitize.
Utility
Government Grants Department Of Energy,
State of Colorado,
Housing and Urban
Development, etc.
Public Benefit Funds Surcharge on Utility bills; would need structure and
authorization. Can then be secured in the market if
necessary.
5
CAP Financing Needs and Potential Mechanisms
BUILDINGS
Existing Building
Energy Conservation
Measures
New Building Energy
Conservation
Measures
(Utility?) Program
Costs
Heat Pumps
2030 costs $391 Million $33 Million $130 Million $32 Million
2050 costs $682Million $40 Million $227 Million $80 Million
Financing
Strategies
On-Bill Financing
MEETS (
PACE ((Property
Assessed Clean
Energy Bonds)
Home Equity
Traditional Loans
Mortgage
On-Bill financing
MEETS
New Utility
Business
Model (IUS
financing
spread)
Rate payers
GO’s
On-Bill
financing
Mortgage
Home Equity
ELECTRIC SUPPLY
Utility Electric Distributed Solar Solar Rebates System Balancing
2030 costs $571 Million $458 Million $154 Million
20502 costs $2.1 Billion $692 Million $173 Million
Financing
Strategies
Self-funded
through rate
payers
Power Purchase
Agreement
New Utility
Business models
(such as
Integrated Utility
Services)
PACE (Property
Assessed Clean
Energy Bonds)
Mortgage/Home
Equity
Self-funded
GO’s
6
TRANSPORTATION
Public Transit
Infrastructure
Individual Electric Vehicles and
Charging Infrastructure
Community Electric
Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure
2030 costs $238 Million $ 54 Million $ 13 Million
20502 costs $269 Million $ 125 Million $ 83 Million
Financing
Strategies
Gov. grants
Tax Increment
Financing
Parking revenue
Government Financing
Traditional Car leases
Traditional Car loans
Vision Fleets (muni)
Commercial CapEx
Self-funded
Gov. grants
Government
Financing
New Business
Models
7
Guiding Principles for Climate Action Plan Financing
DRAFT - January 6, 2015
City/Utility:
1. No significant adverse impact on the City’s balance sheet
2. No adverse impact on the City’s credit rating
3. The City’s investment should catalyze investment in strategies by end-users and the third parties
4. Internally the City’s priority is utility rate revenue before general fund revenue
Platte River Power Authority
1. Maintain Minimum Energy Reserve Margin of 15 percent
2. Achieve Renewables of 20 percent by 2020
3. Maintain Competitive Rates (Platte River should remain the lowest cost wholesale power provider
located in Colorado)
4. Achieve CO2 Reduction of 20 percent by 2020, 35 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050
Consumers/End Users
1. Access to affordable energy and value-added services.
2. Feel happy and confident in the results of services provided.
3. Experience a streamlined purchase process.
4. Experience enhanced customer service.
5. An understanding of benefits versus costs that allows each user to make their own determination
of value.
Private/Third Party Sources of Capital
1. Earn returns commensurate with level of risk assumed.
2. Recognition of the key role of capital providers in the implementation of the CAP.
3. Honesty and transparency in setting the expectations of capital providers.
4. Recognition of the fixed costs associated with establishing financing programs, and the key role
of scale in reducing the cost of capital.
5. Ensure that public sector commitments, if any, to support or scale programs are honored.
6. Cooperation on the part of local stakeholders to help address any barriers to the provision of
capital or its timely repayment
7. Frameworks around the provision of capital must follow established protocols and are not subject
to change from one administration to the next.
1
Public Input To Date
Phase I public engagement was intended to provide a background on the CAP, discuss the need for an
update, and seek input generally and on strategy concepts. The input received from these initiatives is
provided below.
CAP- E-Comments to Date:
12/3/14
(e-mail)
Greetings, LucindaS, & thanks for leading the dozens of people attending the Climate Action
mtg at the Sr Center this eve.
--However, I was shocked to learn near the end of the "table sessions" that the R/E person
from RMI did not know about www.FutureEarth.org (FE) or the fact that CSU & CU-Boulder
are sharing the "Global hub" for the entire USA .......!! Tokyo, Stockholm, Montreal, Paris
are also "global hubs."
--There will be hundreds of "leading thinkers" re Climate Change & its effects, mitigation
mechanisms, etc. over the next few yrs ........ Many will be interested to know "why was
Colo's Front Range chosen" and "what makes this area special," etc.?
--The FE science effort at CSU is being led by Prof. Dennis
Ojima Dennis.Ojima@colostate.edu
and the admin support is provided by Prof. Diana Wall, Director of the School of Global
Environmental Sustainability Diana.Wall@colostate.edu
I hope that the majority of participants in this 80% cut by 2030 effort can realize that
FtC needs to strive to be a "model to the Planet," not just Colorado or the Rocky Mtns, etc.
I left my contact info with the person from RMI, so perhaps some "sights can be
raised" in this effort ............
Sincerely, Dr. John Grant
WEB SITE
12/4/14
This is a solution looking for a problem. City council's job should be to provide power
efficiently and at the lowest rate possible for the citizens (customers). The city council
needs to work for the citizens of Fort Collins and not the other way around. If you really
asked the citizens of Fort Collins how important this initiative is compared to what it will do
to rates, you will find out that most believe it is a waste of time and money. Unfortunately,
most of us are too busy trying to make ends meet with skyrocketing utility rates in this city
to find the time to attend your stupid meetings. If you really want to find out what the city
wants, charge two different rates: Energy from fossil fuels and energy from "renewable
sources". Give us a choice. Once you tell the truth about cost, very few would opt to pay
the higher rate for your "renewable" energy. The belief that we have the ability to change
the climate of earth by our actions is idiotic, naive and arrogant.
WEB SITE
12/4/14
At the Climate Action Plan forum on December 3rd, Scott Denning talked about the
considerable investments required in the 19th century to make indoor plumbing available
to people in the industrializing countries. Benefits included reduced incidence of epidemic
diseases, improved general health, and convenience.
Similarly, making the changes needed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions
substantially will require considerable investments in the 21st century. Chief among the
many benefits will be passing down a climate that will support human civilization to our
children, grandchildren, and future generations. The business-as-usual path to catastrophic
global warming is a dead-end for humanity.
There will no jobs and no opportunity for profit on a dead planet. We need to keep this in
mind when we talk about the costs of making the switch to a low-carbon economy. Fort
ATTACHMENT 4
2
Collins has an opportunity to lead the way and show other cities and governments how to
make the deep cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions that will be required if we are to
avoid catastrophic global warming.
City
“Service
Area
Request”
12/16/14
Tim Johnson provided the following idea as to how to make the climate action plan have individual
level actions:
CO2 /Climate Change/Empowerment of Personal Actions
Empowering individuals to set personal goals which contribute to reduction of greenhouse gases.
By using alternative modes of travel/reducing VMT, the following calculations show how much an
individual can contribute by personal action. In aggregate, the numbers help achieve community
goals.
1) 1 gallon hydrocarbona (CH2)n = ~5.6 # (pounds)
2) Mass change ratio for oxidation of (CH2): 44/14 = 22/7
(CH2)n >>>>> CO2
mass (14) (44)
Oxidizing 1 gallon (5.6#) (CH2)n >>>>>> 17.6 # of CO2 (44/14 x 5.6)a
Many iterations are possible for personal goals regarding greenhouse gas reduction.
To avoid producing your weight in CO2 per year by using alternative modes of transportation, or 5x
your weight etc.:
1) Divide your weight (pounds) by 17 to get the number of gallons of gas (not consumed) that would
produce your equivalent weight in CO2.
2) Multiply the gallon number by your vehicle mileage. See example below.
Individual’s Weight, 170 pounds.
170 # CO2/17 # CO2 per gallon gas = 10 gallons gas use avoided.
Thus, by cycling/walking/transit in place of personal VMT, then one avoids producing 170 # CO2
produced from the 10 gallons of gas.
If one’s vehicle averages 25-30mpg, that would translate to 250-300 miles, an easy target by
alternative modes. If one's goal is save 5x your weight, multiply by 5 etc. If your vehicle is far less
efficient (lower mpg) this goal is much easier, and vice versa.
Avoiding 1 ton of CO2 production equates to saving 118 gallons (CH2). That translates to 2950-3540
miles using the mileage assumption above. This takes more dedication but is doable, and many in FC
do.
aMethylene (CH2) >>>>> CO2 is a simplification. The 17.6 # CO2/gallon gas number is ~2% higher
because of that. 17 # CO2/gallon is easier and sufficient for this exercise. A fuel mix density = ~ 0.7
was assumed from the density of octane. Octane is used as the representative hydrocarbon in the
fuel mix. The density of octane is from the Handbook of Chem. and Physics. Fuel mixes are a mix of
mid length hydrocarbon chains ranging mainly from 6-10 carbons with some isomeric branching and
with modest density variations.
Web site
12/21/14
Thank you for taking on the challenge to reduce our impact on the climate and our
environment. Has the City of Fort Collins considered divesting from fossil fuels? I would
encourage the city to do that and would be happy to contribute toward this goal. Thank
you and Happy Holidays!
3
December 3, 2014 CAP Public Open House Feedback
Approximately 80 people attended an open house on the CAP on December 3, 2014 at the Senior
Center. Dr. Scott Denning presented “Climate Change; Simple, Serious, Solvable”, followed by a staff
presentation about the CAP update. Participants than visited table to ask about/comment on the 5 CAP
strategy areas. Feedback from the table sessions is provided below.
Renewable Energy/Utilities
White roof ordinance, strict solar orientation, disincentive to large housing
Increase incentives for residential solar
Increase rates to aggressively fund renewables
Wind-blown pollutants from Weld County fracking operations
Increase rates via a surcharge on carbon emissions
7: Seems unrealistic coal/combined cycle gas will be needed no matter what for base-load
Link with county, state, etc. efficiency programs (esp. target low income population)
Gamification of energy usage (using the smart meters)
Increased renewable outreach to multifamily units
Transportation
Mason trail congestion and commuting time concerns
East to west bus travel
Bike share program
Smart Trips: connect with businesses to offer discounts/incentives, more Smart Trips
education/marketing (Bellingham, WA as an example)
Waste
Ranking system applied to waste (similar to electricity reports)
Neighborhood composting
Education/outreach including time lapse photos of landfill
Encourage trash collection companies to incorporate composting (curbside composting)
Methane capture for landfill?
Promote household compost containers via rebates
Composting at schools
Need more analysis on the closing, impact, and opportunities for the Larimer County Landfill
Other
Urban Agriculture
What type of resistance is anticipated?
4
Informal, non-statistical paper survey results of participants forum Dec. 3 Forum (n=44)
Phase II public engagement is planned for January and early February, and will involve seeking public
input on the CAP draft Framework concepts and the estimated impacts through presentations to at least
ten stakeholder groups, eight Council advisory boards, plus two open houses scheduled for January 22
and 29, and wide promotion of a Web-based comment form.
Question
Strongly
Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't
Know
No
Response
Even though climate change is a global issue, it is
important for cities such as Fort Collins to take action. 98% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Does the process to update the Climate Action Plan sound
fair and reasonable? 32% 36% 11% 2% 0% 9% 9%
The Climate Action Plan update should include use of
more renewable energy sources for energy production 89% 7% 2% 0% 0% 2% 0%
The Climate Action Plan update should expand energy
efficiency opportunities for residential homes 89% 9% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%
The Climate Action Plan update should support policies
and programs that help to reduce energy usage in
commercial buildings 93% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2%
The Climate Action Plan update should work to expand
the public transit system in Fort Collins 64% 32% 2% 0% 2% 0% 0%
The Climate Action Plan update should work to create
better connectivity from transit stops to neighborhoods 73% 14% 7% 2% 0% 2% 2%
The Climate Action Plan update should support cleaner
fuels and more efficient vehicles, including electric
vehicles 68% 23% 5% 0% 0% 2% 2%
I am motivated to help Fort Collins rise to the challenge of
doing its part as a city to address climate change 77% 20% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Yes No Don't Know
Were you aware Fort Collins had a Climate Action Plan
established already? 37 (84%) 7 (16%) 0
Voluntary
Actions
Mandates and
Required
Actions
Both
Roughly
Equally Other
Should Policies to reduce climate change rely primarily on: 1 (2%) 9 (20%) 28 (64%) 6 (14%)
Under 18 18-34 35-54 55+ No Response
My age is: 0 7 (16%) 14 (32%) 22 (50%) 1 (2%)
2 or less years 3-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 20+ years
I have lived in Fort Collins 5 (11%) 5 (11%) 5 (11%) 16 (36%) 13 (30%)
80521 80523 80524 80525 80526 80527 80528 Other
My zip code is: 12 (27%) 0 13 (30%) 9 (20%) 8 (18%) 0 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
Climate Action Plan - Strategies
1 City Council Work Session January 13, 2015
Climate Action Plan:
Scenario and Triple Bottom Line Impacts
ATTACHMENT 6
Direction Sought
2
1. Does the modeling analysis provide City Council with
appropriate information to understand the path to
achieving the 2020, 2030 and 2050 reduction
objectives?
2. Is City Council comfortable considering updated
community GHG goals and an updated Climate
Action Plan framework at the February 17, 2015
meeting?
Role of Goal and CAP
Goal
• Community leadership
• Attract outside capital
• Enhance innovation
• Spur community engagement
Climate Action Plan (CAP)
• Demonstrates feasibility
• High level strategic plan
• Roadmap for 15+ years
• Requires periodic updates
• Each action requires further
analysis and vetting
3
4
Analysis:
• Incorporated Platte River modeling results
• Removed airline travel from quantification
Strategies:
• Reduced number of existing buildings that are net zero
• Increased number of new buildings that are net zero
• Reduced number of new vehicles that need to be electric
vehicles
Changes to analysis since Dec. 9
5
Platte River Analysis: FC80
2015 2035
6
Platte River Analysis:
Uncertainties
• System Engineering
• Business Operations
• Construction times & installation
• Emissions Permitting
7
• Green Building for New Construction and Redevelopment
• Shift Land Use Patterns to Shorten/Reduce Number of Trips
• Increase Energy Efficiency – Residential
• Increase Energy Efficiency – Commercial and Industrial
• Drive Adoption of Multi-Modal Transportation
• Fuel Efficient & Electric Personal Vehicles
• Advance Cleaner Energy at the Utility Scale
• Advance Residential and Commercial Solar Adoption
• Shift Heating Loads Away from Natural Gas
• Road to Zero Waste
• Carbon Sequestration
Scenario 1 – Quantified Strategies
8
Scenario 1
2020 2030 2040 2050
% below 2005
baseline
25% 75% 86% 92%
Net Cumulative
Costs/Savings
$292M
cost
$388 savings
$2.8B
Savings
$7B Savings
Avg. monthly
cost/savings
per resident
$28 cost $13 savings $56 savings $98 savings
9
- Includes Cost of Carbon for all fuels
- Includes 2.5% discount rate
Scenario 1
*
*Does not indicate the
cash flow impact to
households or businesses
10
Scenario 1
11
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Renewable Energy (MWh)
Platte River
Current Wind and Solar Supply Trend
11 15
Total Carbon Free – 32%
19% Hydro
11% Wind
2% Solar
Source Transitions
12
Elements Not Included in
Cost/Savings Calc.
• Improved public health from more active modes of
transportation (walking and bicycling)
• Improved public health from reduced air pollution
• Indirect economic and social benefit from increased
resiliency to predicted climate change impacts
• Indirect economic benefit to the community through
increased jobs supported by CAP
• Indirect cost savings from VMT reduction
Key Triple Bottom Line Impacts
13
Societal
• Could result in increased building costs that negatively
impacts housing affordability
• Longer-term saving will benefit community
• Improved mobility options
• Improved building comfort and productivity
• Increased community resiliency to
climate change impacts
Key Triple Bottom Line Impacts
14
Environmental
• Reduced air pollution
• Reduced waste generation and development of new
landfills may be postponed
• Potential negative impacts from resource extraction and
wildlife habitat from expanded renewables
Key Triple Bottom Line Impacts
15
Economic
• Possible regressive economic impact on small businesses
and lower margin businesses
• Some strategies in this scenario may present increased
implementation costs for businesses
• Potential increased job creation in clean energy/innovation
economy
Financing Tools - Examples
16
Individual and Business Financing
• On-bill financing,
• Property Assessed Clean Energy Bonds
• Tax Increment Financing).
Government Financing
• Taxes and/or fees
Other Sources of Funds
• User Fees
• Development Exactions
• Public Benefit Funds
• Donations
CAP Implementation Processes
17
• Financing Guiding Principles
• City Council Review and
Vetting of Individual Strategies
• City Budget Process
• Periodic CAP Update Process
18
Is it Possible? What would it take?
• Current analysis provides majority of 2030 pathway
• Issues including storage and system integration must still be addressed
• Implementation details will be developed and vetted for Council review
case-by-case
Impacts?
• Higher initial costs, can be mitigated with careful planning
• Net savings for community after 2030
• Increased resiliency
Can it be funded?
• Financing tools are in development to leverage outside capital
• Additional City budget support will be needed
Key Considerations
19
CAP Next Steps
• Final scenario adjustments (January)
• CAC develops recommendation (January)
• Draft CAP framework document (January)
• Coordination with Energy Policy Updates (Jan/Feb)
• Public engagement (Jan/Feb)
• February 17, 2015 Council action
Direction Sought
20
1. Does the modeling analysis provide City Council with
appropriate information to understand the path to
achieving the 2020, 2030 and 2050 reduction
objectives?
2. Is City Council comfortable considering updated
community GHG goals and an updated Climate
Action Plan framework at the February 17, 2015
meeting?
Rate Payers
Value of Solar
Rate Structure
ROAD TO ZERO WASTE/LAND USE
Private business Programs End User Fees City Programs
2030 costs $88 Million $44 Million $9 Million
2050 costs $213 Million $85 Million $21 Million
Financing
Strategies
Self-funded Rates
Government
Financing