HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 10/10/2017 - CLIMATE ECONOMY ACTION PLAN UPDATEDATE:
STAFF:
October 10, 2017
Sean Carpenter, Climate Economy Advisor
Josh Birks, Economic Health Director
Jackie Kozak-Thiel, Chief Sustainability Officer
WORK SESSION ITEM
City Council
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Climate Economy Action Plan Update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is to provide City Council with an update on the Climate Economy Action Plan and
overview steps for the implementation of this plan.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
1. What overall feedback does Council have regarding the systems-based approach of the Climate Economy
Action Plan?
2. What direction would Council give regarding the tactic of developing strategies while we also seek “quick
wins”?
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Overview
In 2014 the World Bank created the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, a group composed of 24
former heads of state, finance ministers, leaders of businesses, cities, international organizations and research
institutions, to identify and define the linkages between the Economy and Climate. The Commission’s report,
“Better Growth - Better Climate, The New Climate Economy Report” (Attachment 1) focuses on the relationship
between climate change and global economic drivers, concluding that “Economic growth and climate mitigation
can be achieved together. We do not need to choose one or the other”.
The World Bank report argues that the expected $90 trillion in global infrastructure investments projected to be
made over the next fifteen years will essentially define the world’s future climate system. These investments can
either pursue low-carbon/resilient infrastructure approaches, or they can follow traditional status quo designs.
Low-carbon infrastructure is anticipated to have a slightly higher first cost versus status quo “grey infrastructure”,
but those additional costs will be more than offset by much lower energy and fuel costs over their full lifecycle.
Choosing the wrong investment approach is likely to have significant negative economic and social
repercussions. Delayed action on financing of low-carbon infrastructure will result in increased adaptation costs
and increased losses from stranded (high-carbon) assets. In a 2014 report entitled “The Cost of Delaying Action
to Stem Climate Change” (Attachment 2), the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers concluded that each decade of
delay will increase the costs of mitigation by 40 percent on average, with higher costs for more ambitious climate
goals. In short, the time to act is now, concludes the World Bank Commission, the Council of Economic Advisers
and numerous other national and international institutions evaluating the relationship between the Economy and
Climate.
The World Bank report recommends ten transformative actions:
1. Integrate climate risk into strategic decisions;
2. Secure a strong international climate agreement;
3. End perverse subsidies;
October 10, 2017 Page 2
4. Price carbon to send a clear market signal;
5. Scale-up low-carbon innovation;
6. Reduce the cost of capital for low-carbon investment;
7. Move toward connected and compact cities;
8. End deforestation;
9. Restore degraded lands;
10. Phase out unabated coal quickly;
Figure 1 - Key Drivers of Growth and Climate Performance
As Figure 1 suggests, cities-especially those like Fort Collins that control the energy systems supporting their
citizens-are ideally suited to implement a majority of the actions called for in the New Climate Economy Report.
In particular, Fort Collins is well positioned to locally implement three of the ten global “transformative actions”
(above), including numbers: (5) Scale-up low-carbon innovation; (6) Reduce the cost of capital for low-carbon
investment and; (7) Move toward connected and compact cities.
In the United States, the transition to a clean energy economy is underway. All available research and data
indicates that this shift is irreversible. Innovative lower-carbon energy, transportation, heating/cooling systems
and other technologies will continue to be developed and deployed in the coming years. New tools, approaches
and financing will also be required to help households and businesses make their homes, buildings,
transportation, appliances and manufacturing assets more energy efficient and resilient. The recent Bloomberg
report “From Risk to Return” (Attachment 3) forecasts 460,000 clean energy jobs in the United States by 2030,
and 800,000 clean energy jobs by 2050. In Colorado, companies and employment in this space are growing
rapidly. As of January 2017 there were more than 62,071 clean energy jobs in the State, with more than 2,365 of
these positions located in Larimer County alone. (Attachment 4)
What is the Climate Economy?
The premise behind the concept of the “Climate Economy” is that by taking the lead in deploying innovative clean
energy solutions, cities can foster broad-based economic prosperity AND climate action objectives. In other
words, sustainable economic health and lower carbon emissions are not mutually exclusive. By providing
increased access to capital, collaboration and financing mechanisms that incent private-sector investment, Fort
Collins can foster a thriving, “future-proof” business environment and decrease our greenhouse gas emissions.
The City of Fort Collins is developing a Climate Economy Action Plan (CEAP) in order to advance community
objects and positively contribute to the quality of life for citizens and businesses
October 10, 2017 Page 3
Expected Impacts of the Climate Economy
Foundation for a “future-proof” clean energy-driven economy in Northern Colorado;
Strengthens Triple-Helix partnerships with residents, businesses and CSU;
Advances social equity objectives by improving health and safety of buildings;
Fosters new good-paying entry-level and advanced jobs in Fort Collins;
Enhances existing innovation ecosystem by leveraging emerging Smart Cities technologies and City as a
Platform opportunities.
Staff Approach
Staff has pursued a two-fold methodology to the Climate Economy Action Plan: (1) develop strategic approach
and; (2) seek quick wins.
Strategic Approach
Staff is developing a comprehensive strategic effort, the Climate Economy Action Plan (CEAP) that not only
supports CAP objectives, but also will materially contribute to improved economic health and well-being for
residents, businesses and other stakeholders. Informed by local triple-helix stakeholders, as well as state,
regional and global expertise, the CEAP seeks to address the greatest areas for carbon footprint reduction, while
supporting City of Fort Collins Utilities, PRPA, CSU, business and other key partners to engage in Public-Private
Partnerships (P3s) to leverage our collective assets and advance common objectives. By deploying systems-
based, data driven methodologies the CEAP will also help improve community and business resiliency and
reduce economic risks from a changing climate.
Quick Wins
C-PACE
Colorado Commercial Property Accessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) is a new no-out of pocket financing tool that
allows commercial and multifamily property owners in Colorado to obtain loans for qualifying energy efficiency,
water conservation, and other clean energy improvements on existing and newly constructed properties.
Repayment of the financing is achieved through a voluntary assessment on their property tax bill, and loan
balances convey with the building. Research indicates that buildings with PACE energy upgrades increase in
value on average by 15-40 percent. Because businesses can finance 100% of energy efficiency upgrades with no
out of pock expense, over up to 20 years, many efficiency investments that previously did not meet internal
“hurdle rates” for investment become immediately economically feasible.
All or nearly all C-PACE projects in Colorado to date have “cash flow positive”, meaning that monthly savings
from energy efficiency upgrades more than cover the loan payments, and in most cases actually put money back
in the pockets of participating businesses. To date, fifteen Colorado Counties have approved local PACE
financing, covering more than 50% of the commercial business stock in the state. Larimer County has not yet
approved C-PACE, and EHO is working to support County leadership to become educated on this opportunity.
Despite the fact that C-PACE is not yet approved in Larimer County, several area businesses have applied for
PACE project assessment and approval, including:
Retail (2) - Estimated Life Cycle savings = $398,528 (Mid-size brewery in Fort Collins, mid-sized multi-
tenant retail - Loveland,)
Office (2) - Estimated Life Cycle savings = $769,901 (Large multi-tenant office in Fort Collins, large
insurance company Fort Collins, large multi-family housing in Fort Collins)
Healthcare / Rehab Facility (1) - Estimated Life Cycle savings = $840,465 (Large outpatient health facility,
Loveland)
Healthcare / Hospital (2 buildings) - Estimated Life Cycle Savings = $2,284,642
Other Fort Collins and Larimer County-based businesses have already expressed strong interest in C-PACE,
including:
October 10, 2017 Page 4
McWhinney
Brinkman
AB
Positive Energy
Sandbox Solar
U.S. Bank
First Bank
Citywide Bank
Staff research indicates that C-PACE approval could incent millions of dollars of private sector energy efficiency
investment in new and existing building stock in Fort Collins, and likely several hundred new jobs by 2030.
Colorado Smart Cities Alliance
The Denver South Economic Development Partnership founded the Colorado Smart Cities Alliance to provide an
open, collaborative and active platform where local business and citizen leaders, public officials and community
stakeholders could come together in their efforts to continually improve the region’s economic foundations for
future generations. Founding members of the alliance include: Arvada, Aurora, Boulder, Centennial, Colorado
Springs, Denver, Fort Collins, Greenwood Village, Littleton, Lone Tree, Longmont and Westminster
“The Colorado Smart Cities Alliance is advancing policies and technologies that will better equip Colorado
residents to live, work and play in a future that is increasingly being shaped by the complex challenges of urban
growth,” said Jake Rishavy, vice president of innovation at the Denver South Economic Development Partnership.
“We’re working to create a 21st-century technology infrastructure right here in Colorado that will help to enhance
everyone’s quality of life, particularly as our communities continue to grow. With our citizen-centered approach to
design and public policy, this alliance is going to put Colorado on the map as a smart cities leader.” Global
technology-solutions provider Arrow Electronics is serving as a technology advisor to the alliance, helping
member cities design and pilot projects. Arrow is also building a platform where alliance members can securely
share, aggregate and analyze data while piloting and improving upon smart cities projects. The alliance also
includes research partners Colorado Innovation Corridor, a partnership between Formativ and NREL, the
country’s premier federally funded laboratory in advanced energy and energy efficiency and UCAR/NCAR, the
nation’s premier federally funded laboratory in weather forecasting, earth sciences, and climate analysis.
The Colorado Technology Association, a connector that brings together public organizations, academic
institutions and private enterprise to advance the tech ecosystem across the state ensure Colorado, is supporting
the alliance as a leader in smart city innovation. CU Denver was tapped by the Denver South management team
to lead the university’s efforts for the alliance, and Fort Collins will be working with Denver South to encourage the
alliance to engage CSU is this effort to augment and support the research agenda of this new multi-city, regional
collaboration.
Green Revolving Funds
Staff has developed a Green Revolving Fund (GRF) concept, in collaboration with CSU, to develop new financing
options for the University to self-fund energy efficiency upgrades on Campus using a portion of the University’s
endowment. This effort includes the opportunity for CSU to join the national “Billion Dollar Challenge” to help
American Universities leverage endowed resources to improve sustainability and reduce their carbon footprints
across the United States (see Attachment E).
First Local Deployment of “Spark Fund”
NY-based Spark Fund is seeking to deploy significant energy efficiency funding in Northern Colorado, and is
entering the market in Fort Collins with a local private sector energy efficiency contractor. Spark Fund is unique in
that it is offering “energy efficiency as a service” by providing guaranteed savings (like an ESCO), with upgrades
of technologies automatically including in the service agreement, as they become available (such as the transition
from CFLs to LED lighting), similar to traditional business vehicle or heavy equipment leasing programs. Staff is in
October 10, 2017 Page 5
conversation with the local Spark Fund business partner, and is tracking this new private sector financing tool
closely.
Participation in the 2017 Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge
The City of Fort Collins is participating in the ’2017 Bloomberg Mayors Challenge
<<http://mayorschallenge.bloomberg.org/>/> (“the challenge”), a nationwide competition that encourages cities to
develop inventive ideas and approaches to help solve today’s most pressing municipal problems. Mayor Troxell
selected the “Climate Economy” as the topic for the City’s challenge theme, and on Friday September 29, the City
hosted an “Accelerator Workshop” with a Bloomberg-supplied pro-bono consultant to support the development of
our grant proposal.
The challenge is not only focused on creating innovative approaches to vexing municipal problems, but also on
replicating and disseminating promising approaches and ideas in cities across the country. Fort Collins is
competing against 550 other cities in the U.S. for technical assistance from Bloomberg and cash prizes of
$100,000 to $5M. Fort Collins is also currently engaged with Bloomberg in other very prestigious and important
programs, including “What Works Cities” and “The Bloomberg/Harvard Leadership Project” and C40 Cities.
Drafting and submission of the final 2017 Mayor’s Challenge grant proposal is being conducted with input from a
cross-cutting city team, and in collaboration with CSU and other triple-helix partners, with a final submission
deadline of October 20th, 2017.
Integration with City as a Platform
Many of the approaches and opportunities identified for the Climate Economy Action Plan also intersect with
efforts to advance Fort Collins as an “innovation community” with “City as a Platform” thinking and technologies.
Staff is working closely to leverage and connect these distinct, but closely related initiatives for maximum synergy
and impact.
Background on City as a Platform: In April 2015, City Council and leadership stated that developing an
“innovation community” would be a key strategy in Fort Collins, and in 2017 they codified this theme as a “council
priority”. In response, in February 2017 the City as a Platform Task Force (CPTF) was formed composed of
eleven city staff from a broad cross-section of departments across the organization. CPTF began to explore how
new platform thinking, tools and technologies can be systematically and transparently harnessed for the future
benefit of residents, businesses and the City organization. Just as thoughtful decisions and investments made
decades earlier laid the groundwork for the Fort Collins to benefit from the personal computing and craft beer
revolutions, City as a Platform Task Force members likewise expect that recommendations contained in this
report also can contribute to the future vitality, sense of place and economic prosperity for residents of Fort
Collins.
Context for City as a Platform: Over the last 20 years, the U.S. economy has seen a dramatic surge in “disruptive
innovators” who are leveraging advances in technology and connectivity to fundamentally change how goods and
services are delivered. From Apple to Uber, technology is remaking citizen expectations around communication,
social engagement and customer service. Not surprisingly, there’s a growing appetite for all levels of government
to become more responsive and to adopt these new technologies and tools, in order to improve community
wellbeing and “co-create” solutions to local challenges. As disruptive innovators continually reset citizen
expectations around the speed and engagement they expect from government (e.g. the “Amazon effect”), it’s
becoming clear that cities like Fort Collins have a unique, generational opportunity to use new tools to help
redefine, and improve, how government services are delivered, as part of a larger market transformation already
well underway in the United States. In so doing, Fort Collins can foster increased municipal and private sector
innovation, economic vitality, equity, and more meaningful participation and engagement with citizens in our
community. This is the essence of the idea behind “City as a Platform” and “platform thinking”; terms coined by
the Aspen Institute in 2016 to express how cities can use digital technologies to rethink and revitalize traditional
approaches to urban governance.
October 10, 2017 Page 6
Climate Economy Action Plan Focus Areas
Buildings
Transportation
Energy Supply
Waste Reduction
Public Outreach
The Climate Economy Team has reached out to more than forty key stakeholders in Fort Collins. More than two
dozen in-person interviews have been conducted to date. Ongoing and continued outreach is planned in order to
seek regular, iterative feedback from business, residents, City Boards and Commissions and others stakeholders.
These include:
Primary and secondary employers
Platte River Power Authority
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee, Exec VP and Business Advocacy Coordinator
Presentations to City boards and commissions (To date: Energy, Air Quality, Natural Resources,
Economic Advisory; scheduled, not completed: Water)
Individual thought leaders in Fort Collins
Subject matter experts at the state and national levels.
Next Steps
Feedback and guidance from Council Work Session
Additional stakeholder engagement - ongoing
Pursue Quick Wins - ongoing
Phase 2 Design - Complete Q1 2018
Phase 3 Implementation - Beginning Q2 2018.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Better Growth - Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report (PDF)
2. The Cost of Delaying Action to Stem Climate Change (PDF)
3. From Risk to Return, Investing in a Clean Energy Economy (PDF)
4. Overview Clean Jobs Colorado (PDF)
5. CSU Green Revolving Fund (PDF)
6. Powerpoint presentation (PDF)
BETTER GROWTH,
BETTER CLIMATE :
The New Climate Economy Report
THE SYNTHESIS REPORT SEPTEMBER 2014
THE GLOBAL COMMISSION ON THE ECONOMY AND CLIMATE
BETTER GROWTH
BETTER CLIMATE
The New Climate Economy Report
THE SYNTHESIS REPORT
ATTACHMENT 1
Managing Partner
PARTNERS
ISBN: 978 0 9906845 0 3
New Climate Economy
c/o World Resources Institute
10 G St NE
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20002, USA
+1 (202) 729-7600
www.newclimateeconomy.report
www.newclimateeconomy.net
September 2014
BETTER GROWTH
BETTER CLIMATE
The New Climate Economy Report
THE SYNTHESIS REPORT
Photo credit: Asian Development Bank
4 www.newclimateeconomy.report
The New Climate Economy
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, and its flagship project The New Climate Economy, were set
up to help governments, businesses and society make better-informed decisions on how to achieve economic prosperity
and development while also addressing climate change.
This programme of work was commissioned in 2013 by the governments of seven countries: Colombia, Ethiopia,
Indonesia, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The Commission has operated as an independent
body and, while benefiting from the support of the seven governments, has been given full freedom to reach its
own conclusions.
The Commission’s programme of work has been conducted by a global partnership of eight leading research institutes:
World Resources Institute (WRI, Managing Partner), Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), Ethiopian Development Research
Institute (EDRI), Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations
(ICRIER), LSE Cities, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and Tsinghua University.
BETTER GROWTH, BETTER CLIMATE : THE NEW CLIMATE ECONOMY SYNTHESIS REPORT 5
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate has overseen the New Climate Economy project. Chaired by
former President of Mexico Felipe Calderón, the Commission comprises former heads of government and finance
ministers, and leaders in the fields of economics, business and finance.
Members of the Global Commission endorse the general thrust of the arguments, findings, and recommendations
made in this report, but should not be taken as agreeing with every word or number. They serve on the Commission in
a personal capacity. The institutions with which they are affiliated have therefore not been asked formally to endorse
the report and should not be taken as having done so.
Felipe Calderón, Former President of Mexico (Chair)
Nicholas Stern, I G Patel Chair of Economics and
Government, London School of Economics (Co-Chair);
President, British Academy
Ingrid Bonde, Chief Finance Officer and Deputy Chief
Executive Officer, Vattenfall AB
Sharan Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade
Union Confederation
Chen Yuan, Vice-Chair, National Committee of the
Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference;
former Chairman, China Development Bank
Helen Clark, Administrator, United Nations Development
Program; former Prime Minister of New Zealand
Luísa Diogo, Former Prime Minister of Mozambique
Dan L. Doctoroff, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Bloomberg LP
S. Gopalakrishan, Executive Vice-Chairman,
INFOSYS; President, Confederation of Indian Industry
Angel Gurría, Secretary-General, Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development
Chad Holliday, Chairman, Bank of America
Paul Polman, Chief Executive Officer, Unilever; Chair,
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
Sri Mulyani Indrawati, Managing Director and Chief
Operating Officer, World Bank; former Finance Minister
of Indonesia
Caio Koch-Weser, Vice Chairman, Deutsche Bank Group;
Chair, Supervisory Board of the European
Climate Foundation
Ricardo Lagos, Former President of Chile
Michel M. Liès, Chief Executive Officer, Swiss Re
Trevor Manuel, Former Finance Minister of South Africa
Takehiko Nakao, President, Asian Development Bank
Eduardo Paes, Mayor of Rio de Janeiro; Chair, C40 Cities
Climate Leadership Group
Annise Parker, Mayor of Houston, Texas
Nemat Shafik, Deputy Governor, Bank of England; former
Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
(until June 2014)
Jens Stoltenberg, United Nations Secretary-General’s
Special Envoy on Climate Change; former Prime Minister
of Norway
Maria van der Hoeven, Executive Director, International
Energy Agency
Zhu Levin, President and Chief Executive Officer, China
International Capital Corporation
6 www.newclimateeconomy.report
The Economics Advisory Panel
The project was advised by a panel of distinguished economists, leaders in their respective disciplines. While the
Economics Advisory Panel (EAP) has provided valuable guidance that has influenced the work of the Commission,
they were not asked to formally endorse the report and should not be taken as having done so. Their wide-ranging
contributions are described in “Theories and perspectives on growth and change: Guidance from the Economics Advisory
Panel to the report of the Commission”, by Nicholas Stern, published as part of the full report.
Nicholas Stern (Chair), I G Patel Chair of Economics and
Government, London School of Economics
Philippe Aghion, Robert C Waggoner Professor of
Economics, Harvard University
Isher Judge Ahluwalia, Chairperson, Indian Council for
Research on International Economic Relations
Kaushik Basu, Senior Vice President and Chief
Economist, World Bank
Ottmar Edenhofer, Professor of the Economics of
Climate Change, Technical University of Berlin
Fan Gang, Director of the National Economic Research
Institute, China
Ross Garnaut, Distinguished Professor of Economics,
Australian National University
Benno Ndulu, Governor, Central Bank of Tanzania
Daniel Kahneman, Professor of Psychology and Public
Affairs Emeritus, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton
University, and Nobel Laureate
Ian Parry, Principal Environmental Fiscal Policy Expert,
International Monetary Fund
Carlota Perez, Professor of Technology and Socio-
Economic Development, Tallinn University of Technology;
and Centennial Professor, London School of Economics
Torsten Persson, Professor of Economics, Institute of
International Economic Studies, Stockholm University
Dani Rodrik, Albert O. Hirschman Professor of Social
Science, Institute for Advanced Study
Michael Spence, Professor of Economics, New York
University, and Nobel Laureate
Rintaro Tamaki, Deputy Secretary General, Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development
BETTER GROWTH, BETTER CLIMATE : THE NEW CLIMATE ECONOMY SYNTHESIS REPORT 7
All over the world, people want to achieve better lives for
themselves and for their children. Governments want to
secure economic growth, improve living standards, create
jobs and reduce poverty. Businesses want to expand and
become more profitable.
Today we also know that the world must deal with the
challenge of climate change.
Can these aspirations all be met at the same time? Is it
possible to tackle long-term climate change while also,
now, promoting economic growth and development?
Or must we choose between our future security and
our current living standards?
It was to provide an objective, independent examination
of these questions that the Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate was established in 2013 by a group
of seven countries.
Our report is addressed to economic decision-makers
across the world in both public and private sectors. Its
core conclusion is that, by shaping the major processes of
structural and technological change now occurring in the
global economy, we can create lasting economic growth
while also tackling the immense risks of climate change.
We are extremely grateful to the governments of
Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea,
Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom for their vision
and support. They have given us freedom in conducting
our work, and the findings and recommendations in this
report are entirely independent of them.
The Commission is made up of 24 former heads
of government and finance ministers, and leaders
of businesses, cities, international organisations, and
research institutions. Their wealth of experience gives
confidence that our research has been grounded in
reality, and that the recommendations of this report
can be implemented. The Commission has been advised
by a panel of 15 distinguished economists, all of them
world leaders in their respective economic disciplines.
Their diverse perspectives on the economics of growth,
development and structural transformation, public policy,
risk and economic history have guided the project’s
intellectual approach.
The research programme has been conducted by
a dedicated team, supported by a partnership of
economic and policy research institutions from five
continents. The work has drawn on extensive engagement
with economic decision-makers in governments, states,
cities, communities, companies, trade unions, international
organisations and financial institutions throughout the
world. Over 100 organisations have actively contributed
to the work of the Commission through research
papers, data, team members, feedback, advice and
support. This report therefore reflects the insights and
experience of many institutions and experts. We are
grateful to all of them.
The issues dealt with in this report could not be more
important. Almost every country today faces difficult
economic problems. Climate change confronts the world
as a whole with an unprecedented challenge. The 10-point
Global Action Plan we propose in this report can help
8 www.newclimateeconomy.report
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate
was set up to examine whether it is possible to achieve
lasting economic growth while also tackling the risks of
climate change.
Its report seeks to inform economic decision-makers
in both public and private sectors, many of whom
recognise the serious risks caused by climate change,
but also need to tackle more immediate concerns such
as jobs, competitiveness and poverty. The report brings
together evidence and analysis, learning from the practical
experience of countries, cities and businesses across
the world.
The report’s conclusion is that countries at all levels
of income now have the opportunity to build lasting
economic growth at the same time as reducing the
immense risks of climate change. This is made possible
by structural and technological changes unfolding in the
global economy and opportunities for greater economic
efficiency. The capital for the necessary investments is
available, and the potential for innovation is vast. What
is needed is strong political leadership and credible,
consistent policies.
The next 15 years will be critical, as the global economy
undergoes a deep structural transformation. It will not
be “business as usual”. The global economy will grow by
more than half, a billion more people will come to live in
cities, and rapid technological advance will continue to
change businesses and lives. Around US$90 trillion is likely
to be invested in infrastructure in the world’s urban, land
use and energy systems. How these changes are managed
will shape future patterns of growth, productivity and
living standards.
The next 15 years of investment will also determine the
future of the world’s climate system. Climate change
caused by past greenhouse gas emissions is already
having serious economic consequences, especially in more
exposed areas of the world. Without stronger action in
the next 10-15 years, which leads global emissions to peak
and then fall, it is near certain that global average warming
will exceed 2°C, the level the international community has
agreed not to cross. On current trends, warming could
exceed 4°C by the end of the century, with extreme and
potentially irreversible impacts. By building up greenhouse
gas concentrations and locking in the stock of high-carbon
assets, delay in reducing emissions makes it progressively
more expensive to shift towards a low-carbon economy.
Future economic growth does not have to copy the
high-carbon, unevenly distributed model of the past.
There is now huge potential to invest in greater efficiency,
structural transformation and technological change in
three key systems of the economy:
• Cities are engines of economic growth. They generate
around 80% of global economic output, and around
70% of global energy use and energy-related GHG
emissions. How the world’s largest and fastest-
growing cities develop will be critical to the future
path of the global economy and climate. But much
urban growth today is unplanned and unstructured,
with significant economic, social and environmental
BETTER GROWTH, BETTER CLIMATE : THE NEW CLIMATE ECONOMY SYNTHESIS REPORT 9
increasing emissions. While subsidies for clean
energy amount to around US$100 billion, subsidies
to polluting fossil fuels are now estimated at around
US$600 billion per year. Phasing out fossil fuel
subsidies can improve growth and release resources
that can be reallocated to benefit people on low
incomes. A strong and predictable price on carbon
will drive higher energy productivity and provide
new fiscal revenues, which can be used to cut other
taxes. Well-designed regulations, such as higher
performance standards for appliances and vehicles,
are also needed.
• Investment in infrastructure underpins modern
economic growth. Low-carbon forms of infrastructure
are essential to reduce current emissions trajectories.
Yet many economies today are failing to mobilise
sufficient finance to meet their infrastructure
needs. This is not due to a shortage of capital in the
global economy. It results, in many countries, from
a lack of public financing capacity and the market
perception that investments are high-risk. Financial
innovations, including green bonds, risk-sharing
instruments and products which align the risk profile
of low-carbon assets with the needs of investors, can
reduce financing costs, potentially by up to 20% for
low-carbon electricity. National and international
development banks should be strengthened
and expanded.
• Stimulating innovation in technologies, business
models and social practices can drive both growth
and emissions reduction. Advances in digitisation,
new materials, life sciences and production
processes have the potential to transform markets
and dramatically cut resource consumption. But
technology will not automatically advance in a low-
carbon direction. It requires clear policy signals,
including the reduction of market and regulatory
barriers to new technologies and business models,
and well-targeted public expenditure. To help create
the next wave of resource-efficient, low-carbon
technologies, public research and development (R&D)
investment in the energy sector should triple to well
over US$100 billion a year by the mid-2020s.
Well-designed policies in these fields can make growth
and climate objectives mutually reinforcing in both
the short and medium term. In the long term, if climate
change is not tackled, growth itself will be at risk.
Consistent, credible, long-term policy signals are crucial.
By shaping market expectations, such policy encourages
greater investment, lowering the costs of the transition
to a low-carbon economy. By contrast, policy uncertainty
in many countries has raised the cost of capital, damaging
investment, jobs and growth. In the long run, there is a
significant risk that high-carbon investments may get
devalued or “stranded” as action to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions is strengthened.
The quality of growth matters, as well as its rate.
Many low-carbon policies deliver multiple other benefits,
including greater energy security, less traffic congestion,
10 www.newclimateeconomy.report
5. Substantially reduce capital costs for low-carbon
infrastructure investments, expanding access to
institutional capital and lowering its costs for low-
carbon assets.
6. Scale up innovation in key low-carbon and climate-
resilient technologies, tripling public investment
in clean energy R&D and removing barriers to
entrepreneurship and creativity.
7. Make connected and compact cities the preferred
form of urban development, by encouraging better-
managed urban growth and prioritising investments in
efficient and safe mass transit systems.
8. Stop deforestation of natural forests by 2030, by
strengthening the incentives for long-term investment
and forest protection, and increasing international
funding to around US$5 billion per year, progressively
linked to performance.
9. Restore at least 500 million hectares of lost or
degraded forests and agricultural lands by 2030,
strengthening rural incomes and food security.
10. Accelerate the shift away from polluting coal-fired
power generation, phasing out new unabated coal
plants in developed economies immediately and in
middle-income countries by 2025.
The first six recommendations provide the conditions
necessary for a strong and credible framework to foster
low-carbon and climate-resilient investment and growth.
The last four point to vital opportunities for change which
can drive future growth and lower climate risk in cities,
land use and energy systems.
Implementation of the policies and investments
proposed in this report could deliver at least half of
the reductions in emissions needed by 2030 to lower
the risk of dangerous climate change. With strong and
broad implementation, rapid learning and sharing of best
practice, this number could potentially rise to 90%.
All the measures would deliver multiple economic and
social benefits, even before considering their benefits
to climate. Further action will also be required. Some of
this, such as the development of carbon capture, use and
storage technologies, will have net costs to be borne solely
for the purpose of reducing climate risk. Beyond 2030 net
global emissions will need to fall further towards near
zero or below in the second half of the century. But the
costs will be much lower and the opportunities for growth
much greater if the foundations of a low-carbon economy
are laid now.
A strong and equitable international agreement
is essential to support ambitious domestic action.
Developed countries will need to show leadership through
their own strong emissions reductions, and by mobilising
financial and technological support for developing
countries. At the same time, developing countries already
account for around two-thirds of annual greenhouse gas
emissions. Global reductions on the scale required
will therefore not be possible unless all countries play
their part.
The shift towards a low-carbon, climate-resilient
path of growth and development will not be easy, and
The full report can be found by following the link below:
http://static.newclimateeconomy.report/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BetterGrowth-
BetterClimate_NCE_Synthesis-Report_web.pdf
THE RECENT SLOWDOWN
IN
THE COST OF DELAYING
ACTION TO STEM CLIMATE
CHANGE
The Council of Economic Advisers
July 2014
ATTACHMENT 2
1
Executive Summary
The signs of climate change are all around us. The average temperature in the United States
during the past decade was 0.8° Celsius (1.5° Fahrenheit) warmer than the 1901-1960 average,
and the last decade was the warmest on record both in the United States and globally. Global sea
levels are currently rising at approximately 1.25 inches per decade, and the rate of increase
appears to be accelerating. Climate change is having different impacts across regions within the
United States. In the West, heat waves have become more frequent and more intense, while
heavy downpours are increasing throughout the lower 48 States and Alaska, especially in the
Midwest and Northeast.1
The scientific consensus is that these changes, and many others, are
largely consequences of anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.2
The emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) harms others in a way that is not
reflected in the price of carbon-based energy, that is, CO2 emissions create a negative externality.
Because the price of carbon-based energy does not reflect the full costs, or economic damages,
of CO2 emissions, market forces result in a level of CO2 emissions that is too high. Because of this
market failure, public policies are needed to reduce CO2 emissions and thereby to limit the
damage to economies and the natural world from further climate change.
There is a vigorous public debate over whether to act now to stem climate change or instead to
delay implementing mitigation policies until a future date. This report examines the economic
consequences of delaying implementing such policies and reaches two main conclusions, both of
which point to the benefits of implementing mitigation policies now and to the net costs of
delaying taking such actions.
First, although delaying action can reduce costs in the short run, on net, delaying action to limit
the effects of climate change is costly. Because CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, delaying
action increases CO2 concentrations. Thus, if a policy delay leads to higher ultimate CO2
concentrations, that delay produces persistent economic damages that arise from higher
temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations. Alternatively, if a delayed policy still aims to hit a
given climate target, such as limiting CO2 concentration to given level, then that delay means that
the policy, when implemented, must be more stringent and thus more costly in subsequent years.
In either case, delay is costly.
These costs will take the form of either greater damages from climate change or higher costs
associated with implementing more rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In practice,
delay could result in both types of costs. These costs can be large:
1 For a fuller treatment of the current and projected consequences of climate change for U.S. regions and sectors,
see the Third National Climate Assessment (United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) 2014).
2 See for example the Summary for Policymakers in Working Group I contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC WG I AR5 2013).
2
Based on a leading aggregate damage estimate in the climate economics literature, a
delay that results in warming of 3° Celsius above preindustrial levels, instead of 2°, could
increase economic damages by approximately 0.9 percent of global output. To put this
percentage in perspective, 0.9 percent of estimated 2014 U.S. Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) is approximately $150 billion. The incremental cost of an additional degree of
warming beyond 3° Celsius would be even greater. Moreover, these costs are not one-
time, but are rather incurred year after year because of the permanent damage caused
by increased climate change resulting from the delay.
An analysis of research on the cost of delay for hitting a specified climate target (typically,
a given concentration of greenhouse gases) suggests that net mitigation costs increase,
on average, by approximately 40 percent for each decade of delay. These costs are higher
for more aggressive climate goals: each year of delay means more CO2 emissions, so it
becomes increasingly difficult, or even infeasible, to hit a climate target that is likely to
yield only moderate temperature increases.
Second, climate policy can be thought of as “climate insurance” taken out against the most severe
and irreversible potential consequences of climate change. Events such as the rapid melting of
ice sheets and the consequent increase of global sea levels, or temperature increases on the
higher end of the range of scientific uncertainty, could pose such severe economic consequences
as reasonably to be thought of as climate catastrophes. Confronting the possibility of climate
catastrophes means taking prudent steps now to reduce the future chances of the most severe
consequences of climate change. The longer that action is postponed, the greater will be the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the greater is the risk. Just as businesses and
individuals guard against severe financial risks by purchasing various forms of insurance,
policymakers can take actions now that reduce the chances of triggering the most severe climate
events. And, unlike conventional insurance policies, climate policy that serves as climate
insurance is an investment that also leads to cleaner air, energy security, and benefits that are
difficult to monetize like biological diversity.
The full report can be viewed by following the link below:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/cost_of_delaying_action.pdf
From Risk to Return | Investing in a Clean Energy Economy
ATTACHMENT 3
A Product of the Risky Business Project
Co-Chairs
Michael R. Bloomberg, founder, Bloomberg
Philanthropies; founder, Bloomberg L.P.; 108th
Mayor of the City of New York
Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Chairman of the Paulson
Institute; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Thomas F. Steyer, Business Leader and
Philanthropist
Risk Committee Members
Henry Cisneros, Principal, Siebert Cisneros
Shank; former US Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD); former Mayor of San Antonio,
TX
Anne M. Mulcahy, Chairman, Board of Trustees,
Save the Children; Former Chairman and CEO, Xerox
Corporation
James W. Owens, Former Chairman and CEO,
Caterpillar Inc.
Gregory Page, Retired Chairman and CEO, Cargill,
Inc.
Robert E. Rubin, Co-Chairman, Council on Foreign
Relations; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
Donna E. Shalala, President and CEO of the Clinton
Foundation
George P. Shultz, Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford
Distinguished Fellow at the Hoover Institution;
former U.S. Secretary of State; former U.S.
Secretary of the Treasury; former U.S. Secretary of
Labor; former Director, Office of Management and
Budget; former President, Bechtel Group
Dr. Alfred Sommer, Dean Emeritus, Bloomberg
School of Public Health; University Distinguished
Service Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Rob Walton, Retired Chairman of the Board of
Directors of Walmart Stores, Inc.
/4
From Risk to Return | Investing in a Clean Energy Economy
In our 2014 inaugural report, “Risky Business:
The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the
United States,” we found that the economic risks
from unmitigated climate change to American
businesses and long-term investors are large and
unacceptable. Subsequent scientific data and
analysis have reinforced and strengthened that
conclusion. As a result, we, the Co-Chairs and Risk
Committee of the Risky Business Project, are united
in recognizing the need to respond to the risk
climate change poses to the American economy.
Now we turn to the obvious next question: how
to respond to those risks. Seriously addressing
climate change requires reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050 in the U.S.
and across all major economies. We find that this
goal is technically and economically achievable
using commercial or near-commercial technology.
Most important, we find that meeting the goal does
not require an energy miracle or unprecedented
spending.
The transition to a cleaner energy economy rests on
three pillars: moving from fossil fuels to electricity
wherever possible, generating electricity with low
or zero carbon emissions, and using energy much
more efficiently. This means building new sources
of zero- and low-carbon energy, including wind,
solar, and nuclear; electrifying vehicles, heating
systems, and many other products and processes;
and investing in making buildings, appliances, and
manufacturing more energy efficient.
Meeting these targets requires a large-scale
shift away from ongoing spending on fossil fuels
and toward up-front capital investments in clean
energy technologies. Many of those, such as
wind and solar, have little or no fuel cost once
built. Given an appropriate policy framework, we
expect these investments to be made largely by
the private sector and consumers, and to yield
significant returns. Because of the large capital
investments and the long-term savings in fuel
costs, this shift presents significant opportunities
for many American investors and businesses.
Notably, shifting the U.S. to a low-carbon, clean
energy system presents not just long term benefits
but also immediate, near-term opportunities,
particularly for those actors best positioned to
capitalize on these trends.
Executive Summary
/5
From Risk to Return | Investing in a Clean Energy Economy
Our Modeling
Our conclusions are based on a sophisticated
energy, economic and infrastructure planning
model that compares scenarios through 2050. Each
of the four pathways we modeled would achieve an
80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050,
and would do one of the following:1
• Rely heavily on renewable energy;
• Significantly expand reliance on nuclear
power;
• Include a substantial amount of fossil fuel
power plants with carbon capture and stor-
age; or
• Generate electricity from a relatively even mix
of these three zero- and low-carbon resourc-
es (the Mixed Resources pathway).
Each pathway also assumes a different
combination of transportation fuels (electricity,
biofuels, and fossil fuels).
For each of these pathways, we modeled changes in
nationwide and sectoral energy use, electricity use,
fuel use, carbon emissions, and investment. We do
not endorse any specific pathway.
1 Our modeling was limited to carbon
emissions (CO2) which represent 81 percent
of total U.S. GHG emissions. We did not model
pathways that would achieve the needed
reductions in the other greenhouse gases
(methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gas-
es).
Capital Investment Needs
Under our Mixed Resources pathway, we found that
the total additional capital investment necessary to
cut carbon emissions 80 percent economy-wide by
2050 would be2:
• $220 billion per year from 2020 to 2030
• $410 billion per year between 2030 and 2040
• $360 billion per year between 2040 and 2050
These capital investments would significantly
reduce fuel costs, with the savings growing every
decade. The savings would be3:
• $70 billion per year from 2020 to 2030
• $370 billion per year from 2030 to 2040
• $700 billion per year from 2040 to 2050
The largest additional investments would be in
power generation ($55 billion per year); advanced
2 Results presented here are decadal av-
erages for the Mixed Resources pathway that
incorporates a variety of low-carbon energy
sources, one of four pathways analyzed. All
modeling results are expressed in 2014 dollars
unless otherwise noted.
3 Fuel savings are based on a U.S. gov-
ernment “business-as-usual” projection of
fossil fuel prices in which: oil prices are $79/
bbl in 2020, escalating an average of 3.4%
per year out to 2050; natural gas prices are
$5/Mbtu in 2020, escalating at an average of
/6
From Risk to Return | Investing in a Clean Energy Economy
biofuels ($45 billion per year); purchases of
advanced light duty vehicles ($75 billion per year);
and energy efficiency measures ($16 billion per
year). Businesses that become leaders in these
sectors could see large increases in revenue in the
years ahead, while those that lag behind risk being
left with stranded assets.
The investment needs of a transition to a clean
energy economy are manageable, especially when
compared to the costs that would be imposed by
unmitigated climate change and continued fossil
fuel dependence. They are also comparable to other
recent investments, such as in unconventional oil
and gas production, and in computers and software.
Those investments have transformed the American
economy, yielding huge returns to those businesses
that led in the development of new technologies
and products.
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
Billions of 2014$ per year
2020-2030
-65
215
-367
410
-695
357
2031-2040 2041-2050 Year
Investments Fuel Expenditures
Figure ES-1 depicts the annual
changes (from reference case
levels) in investments and fuel
expenditures averaged over
three decadal periods for the
Mixed Resources pathway.
Figure ES-1.
Average Annual Additional Capital Investments and
Fuel Expenditures by Decade
/7
From Risk to Return | Investing in a Clean Energy Economy
Regional and Sectoral Impacts
Investment needs and business opportunities
will vary considerably by region. For example,
in our Mixed Resources pathway, new nuclear
plants would likely be built in the mid-Atlantic and
southern regions, while wind power would grow
fastest in the windy central region, investments in
solar power would be greatest in the sunny western
and southern regions, and revenue from biomass
feedstocks would be greatest in the Midwest.
Overall, the increased investment would boost
manufacturing and construction across the U.S.
Roughly 460,000 additional construction jobs
could be created by 2030, with the number rising
to 800,000 by 2050. At the same time, reductions in
fossil fuel use would further constrain coal, oil, and
natural gas exploration and production. The number
of coal mining and oil- and gas-related jobs could
decline by more than 130,000 by 2030 and 270,000
by 2050, disproportionately affecting the specific
geographic regions that currently depend heavily on
these industries.
We know innovation will continue as American
businesses develop and deploy new technologies.
Many economic sectors and communities will
also respond to the challenges and opportunities
presented by the transition to a clean energy
economy in new and surprising ways. We can
project how the costs of current technologies
are likely to decline as they are developed
and deployed, but we can’t predict which new
technologies will emerge in the next 35 years—
though we’re confident new innovations will be
made. The costs of creating a clean energy economy
are thus likely to be lower—and the benefits
greater—than we project.
Critical Role of Policy
The private sector alone cannot solve the climate
change problem. We know from our collective
business and investment experience that the
private sector will take action at the necessary
speed and scale only if it is given a clear and
consistent policy and regulatory framework.
That framework must send a clear, consistent,
and long-term market signal on the necessity of
climate action, provide incentives for innovation
and deployment of clean energy systems, and help
society adapt to climate impacts that are inevitable
due to past and current emissions.
We are united in believing that the real costs
of carbon emissions must be incorporated into
economic decision-making in both the public
and private sector, for instance, through putting
a price on carbon. Government investment must
also be coordinated and streamlined—and must
/8
From Risk to Return | Investing in a Clean Energy Economy
not subsidize or exacerbate climate-related risks
and economic activities that contribute to climate
change (e.g., tax incentives for fossil fuel extraction
or subsidized flood insurance in high-risk areas).
Policies should also help those Americans hurt by
the clean energy transition, as well as those who
are most vulnerable to climate impacts.
America has a responsibility to lead by example.
Ultimately, however, U.S. actions must be
integrated into a larger global commitment
to shift toward a cleaner energy economy.
U.S. policies also must ensure that the
competitiveness of U.S. business is not harmed.
This may require border adjustments and other
mechanisms to prevent other countries from
seizing unfair advantages.
With the right policy framework, we are confident
that America can reduce the economic risks
from climate change while seizing new market
opportunities. But businesses must also start
now to factor climate risks into their investment
decisions. Whenever capital assets reach the end
of their productive lives, they should be replaced
with energy efficient and low-carbon alternatives
wherever possible and prudent. All businesses,
especially those making regular long-term, place-
based infrastructure and supply chain investments,
should also conduct detailed analyses of climate
risks they face, build internal capacity, develop
concrete action plans to address these risks, and
disclose their risks and actions.
The transition to a clean energy economy is already
underway, but must be accelerated to avoid
unacceptable risks from climate change. In the
past, transformative investments in such areas as
highways, rural electricity, and telecommunications
have unleashed the power of innovation and
American business. Investing in clean energy
can ensure American economic security and
competitiveness for decades to come. But to
substantially reduce the growing risks of climate
change, and to take maximum advantage of the
opportunities in a clean energy economy, we must
act now.
The full report can be viewed by following the link below:
https://riskybusiness.org/site/assets/uploads/sites/5/2016/10/RiskyBusiness_FromRiskToReturn.
pdf
Clean Jobs Colorado 1
Clean Jobs
Colorado
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) January 2017
Presented by
ATTACHMENT 4
Authors and Contributors
About E2
Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) is a national, nonpartisan group of business leaders,
investors, and professionals from every sector of the economy who advocate for smart
policies that are good for the economy and good for the environment. Our members have
founded or funded more than 2,500 companies, created more than 600,000 jobs, and
manage more than $100 billion in venture and private equity capital. For more informa-
tion, see www.e2.org or follow us on Twitter at @e2org.
About the Research and Analysis Partners
BW Research Partnership is a full-service, economic and workforce research consulting
firm with offices in Carlsbad, California, and Wrentham, Massachusetts. It is the nation’s
leading provider of accurate, comprehensive clean energy research studies, including
the National Solar Census, wind industry analyses for the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and the Natural Resources Defense Council, and state-level clean energy
reports for Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, Iowa, and Florida, among others.
The Economic Advancement Research Institute (EARI) is a nonprofit research organiza-
tion focused on economic mobility and regional competitiveness. EARI is primarily focused
on studying the impact of policies and systems on economic growth and prosperity across
all income levels. EARI has conducted numerous labor market analyses that address key
economic sectors with high probability to provide opportunities to underrepresented and
disadvantaged populations.
Sarah Lehmann BW Research Partnership
Philip Jordan BW Research Partnership
Christina Nunez E2
Susan Nedell E2
Jeff Benzak E2
Bob Keefe E2
Grant Carlisle E2
Noah Long NRDC
Clean Jobs Colorado 3
Introduction
Clean energy jobs flourish in Colorado: tens of thousands of workers
in the state are driving the transition to a lower-carbon future.
They’re installing solar panels, building and repairing wind turbines,
and making buildings more efficient.
The current uncertainty surrounding energy policy with 2017’s pend-
ing administration changeover needn’t stall the momentum Colorado
has achieved. Wind power, for example, has brought more than $4.8
billion into Colorado’s economy and supplies 16 percent of its elec-
tricity.1 Xcel Energy’s new Rush Creek wind project will provide 600
megawatts of the state’s lowest-cost wind power. Solar, too, is grow-
ing, with more than 382 firms in the state and $305 million in installa-
tions last year alone, with more on the way.2 In eastern Colorado,
16 renewable energy facilities paid more than $7 million in property
tax and $7.5 million in landowner lease payments, according to a
report from regional interest group Progressive 15.3
Colorado’s renewable energy growth takes place against the back-
drop of an oil and gas boom-and-bust cycle in the state over the past
decade. While recent fossil fuel price drops have caused that job mar-
ket to stumble, clean energy is creating a more diverse workforce
and higher-quality jobs.4 5 As more businesses and homeowners seek
efficient energy solutions that will save money and cut pollution, more
Coloradans will find work in the state’s bustling clean energy industry.
1 http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/Colorado.pdf
2 http://www.seia.org/state-solar-policy/colorado
3 https://brianallmerradionetwork.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/10-17-16-progressive-15-colorados-eastern-plains-a-
renewable-energy-economic-hub-according-to-new-report/
4 http://www.denverpost.com/2016/03/14/oil-gas-losses-dont-derail-51-month-employment-growth-streak/
5 http://www.dblpartners.vc/resource/clean-energy-employment-booming-creates-a-more-diverse-workforce-and-higher-
quality-jobs/
Clean Jobs Colorado 4
Quick Facts
62,clean energy 071 workers in
Colorado
65% of clean energy jobs are in
energy efficiency
Overall Clean Energy Jobs
Fig. 1: Clean energy jobs breakdown by sector
Colorado’s clean energy industry is significant and growing, employing more than 62,000
workers in 2015.
From energy efficiency to renewables to clean fuels and other markets, the sector is helping
drive the Centennial State’s thriving overall economy, which is among the top five U.S.
states in real gross domestic product growth.6 Employers expect the clean energy sector to
grow 2 percent over the next year, adding 1,474 more jobs.
The majority of Colorado’s clean energy jobs come from a diverse field of energy efficiency
firms. Of 2,483 businesses in clean energy, nearly two-thirds offer energy efficiency ser-
vices, accounting for 40,335 jobs.
Renewable energy is the second-largest category, representing 22.6 percent of clean
energy businesses, followed by fuels including non-woody biomass (5 percent), motor
vehicles including electric vehicles, or EV’s, (4 percent) and energy storage and the smart
grid (3.5 percent).
Colorado firms that work with clean energy tech overwhelmingly rely on it as an income
stream. Seventy-two percent say they generate most or all of their revenue from advanced
energy activity. Most clean energy companies in Colorado are small: Nearly 88 percent of
the firms employ less than 50 staff, 6 percent have 50–100 employees, and 6 percent have
over 100 employees.
6 http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/gdp_state/qgsp_newsrelease.htm
65% Energy Efficiency 22.6% Renewable Energy
4.0%
Motor
Vehicles
5.0%
Fuels
3.5%
Storage/
Smart
Grid
2%
anticipated growth in clean
energy jobs
Clean Jobs Colorado 5
Fig. 2: Clean energy jobs for each county
Fig. 3: Clean energy jobs by congressional district
County Employment
Adams 4,899
Alamosa 113
Arapahoe 11,270
Archuleta 150
Baca 16
Boulder 2,756
Broomfield 708
Chaffee 177
Cheyenne 11
Clear Creek 99
Conejos 16
Costilla 21
Custer 48
Delta 166
Denver 15,433
Dolores 38
County Employment
Douglas 3,384
Eagle 499
El Paso 1,484
Elbert 255
Fremont 113
Garfield 467
Gilpin 57
Grand 172
Gunnison 123
Hinsdale 16
Huerfano 21
Jackson 32
Jefferson 9,826
Kiowa 38
Kit Carson 91
La Plata 783
County Employment
Lake 32
Larimer 2,365
Las Animas 113
Lincoln 59
Logan 177
Mesa 1,094
Mineral 5
Moffat 118
Montezuma 177
Montrose 311
Morgan 177
Otero 70
Ouray 59
Park 311
Phillips 38
Pitkin 397
County Employment
Prowers 113
Pueblo 579
Rio Blanco 113
Rio Grande 54
Routt 263
Clean Jobs Colorado 6
Upper House
District Employment
1 2,455
2 715
3 505
4 5,031
5 1,455
6 1,494
7 1,120
8 1,455
9 649
10 179
11 343
12 20
13 494
14 917
15 1,175
16 7,858
17 1,653
18 714
19 3,175
20 1,769
21 4,538
23 362
24 275
25 1,261
26 3,219
27 2,697
28 261
29 290
30 797
31 4,524
32 2,842
33 841
34 6,307
35 681
Lower House
District* Employment
1 1,358
2 4,088
3 6,776
4 1,556
5 6,990
6 2,516
7 829
9 843
10 1,911
11 585
12 677
13 1,873
14 274
15 196
16 380
17 425
18 70
19 173
20 8
21 3
22 2,065
Clean Jobs Colorado 7
Quick Facts
Fig. 6: Energy efficiency subtechnologies
5.9% High AFUE HVAC
25.3% Advanced Building
Materials and Insulation
22.9% Efficient Lighting
7.9% Renewable Heating
and Cooling
9.8% Other
10.6% Energy Star Appliances
17.7% Traditional HVAC
1/4
of all Colorado energy
efficiency jobs are in
advanced building materials
and insulation
While energy efficiency is the bedrock of Colorado’s clean tech economy, a closer look
reveals the services in this space are quite diverse. Companies are improving building
insulation, providing smarter lighting and appliances, and supplying improved heating and
cooling systems.
Of seven efficiency technology groupings, four of them—Advanced Building Materials and
Insulation (10,191 jobs), Efficient Lighting (9,231), Traditional HVAC (7,140), and Energy
Star Appliances (4,269)—each contain at least 10 percent of all energy efficiency jobs and
together account for three-fourths of all energy efficiency workers. The remaining indus-
tries employ an additional 9,500 workers.
Energy Efficiency Jobs
The full report can be viewed by following the link below:
https://www.e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FINAL_CleanJobsCO.pdf
1
Proposal for the Development of a Colorado State University Foundation
Green Revolving Fund
Executive Summary:
Colorado State University (CSU) is a recognized leader in sustainability and clean energy research, and
with its January 2017 commitment to source 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030,
CSU has moved to the leading edge of implementation in these fields among American Universities. CSU
was founded in 1870 and like other major land-grant universities established in the 19P
th
P century, many
of its current campus buildings were constructed decades ago. As a result, some CSU properties are
both expensive to operate, and may not meet current standards for energy efficiency or building health
(e.g. lighting, air exchange etc.). For that reason, in recent years CSU’s faculty and talented staff have
investigated and / or piloted a number of financing mechanisms to upgrade the efficiency and
performance of campus facilities; however more capital is required for needed efficiency and renewable
energy upgrades on campus.
The university holds a $425M endowment portfolio, through the Colorado State University Foundation
(“the Foundation”), an affiliated 501 (c) 3 non-profit that actively manages a variety of financial products
and instruments on behalf of CSU. According to the Foundation’s most recent financial disclosures (June
2016), its portfolio is designed to generate “returns equivalent to the 7% - 10% produced by the S&P 500
index…with moderate riskP0F
1
P”. Investment gains realized by the endowment are then earmarked to pay
for: i) a 2% annual management fee and; ii) a 4.5% annual expenditure in school facilities, educational
programs, and other investments designed to benefit CSU, its students and faculty.
The City of Fort Collins Economic Health Office (EHO) believes that there is a significant opportunity for
the Foundation to deploy a small fraction of the cash / cash equivalents currently held in the
endowmentP1F
2
P in a new and innovative UGreen Revolving Fund (GRF)U to self-finance major energy
efficiency upgrades to existing CSU buildings. The city’s Economic Health Office, and affiliated national
subject matter experts are working on related projects, and are prepared to provide pro-bono technical
assistance to help CSU develop a new GRF for the CSU Foundation. Such a fund would not only benefit
CSU and the CSU Foundation, but also the city, as energy efficiency gains made by CSU would help both
the university and the City of Fort Collins achieve our ambitions Climate Action Plan goals for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
GRFs invest in energy efficiency projects to reduce energy consumption and cost and then reinvest the
money saved in future energy efficiency projects. They are called “revolving funds” because the funds
loan money to specific energy efficiency projects, which then repay the loans through an internal
accounting transfer from the (energy cost) savings realized in the institution’s utilities budget. CSU can
achieve reductions in operating expenses and greenhouse gas emissions, while creating regenerating
funds for future projectsP2F
3
P. A CSU GRF would generate financial returns that meet or exceed those
1 Since nearly the founding of CSU (1871) the S&P 500 has actually returned approximately 5.63% to 5.85% annually (Cornerstone Investment
Services, LLC). According to publically available financial returns (www.foundation.colostate.edu/public-information), CSU’s endowment
appears to produce average annual returns of about 5.21%.
2 Ibid; $7.65M as of June 2016
3 Sustainable Endowments Institute; http://www.endowmentinstitute.org
ATTACHMENT 5
2
currently enjoyed by the Foundation, do so with less risk, and substantially reduce annual utility and
facilities operating expenses while improving the “built environment” for students, faculty and staffP3F
4
P.
As part a CSU GRF effort, the university could join the 34TUBillion Dollar Green ChallengeU34T, encouraging
colleges, universities, and other nonprofit institutions to invest a combined total of $1B in self-managed
green revolving funds that finance energy efficiency improvements.
Over 75 American universities have invested in GRFs,
including other land-grant universities such as the
University of Wisconsin, the University of Minnesota,
Oregon State, and dozens of other public and private
schools, including CU Boulder, DU, Harvard and Princeton.
Several CSU “peer universities” report impressive financial
0Treturns from their endowment’s GRFs; ranging from 29%
(Iowa State University) to more than 47% (Western
Michigan University). These results are consistent with
research conducted by Sightlines, which examined data from the National Association of College and
University Business Officers (NACUBO) and the Intentional Endowments Network, and found that
“investing in energy efficiency and clean energy projects can yield significantly higher annual returns
than traditional endowment investments”0TP4F
5
P0T.
0TCSU’s endowment value-per-student is approximately 0T$12,800, which puts the university’s endowed
resources squarely in the median in terms of assets available for investment in a GRFP5F
6
P. In other words, a
GRF is not a tool solely for schools like Harvard / Yale / Princeton
with multi-billion dollar endowed reserves. On average,
comparable universities with endowment capitalized GRFs
typically apply 0.1% to 2% of assets under management to the
new green revolving funds. In the case of CSU, similar allocations
would result in a GRF of approximately $286,000 to $5,800,000.
On average, comparable universities applied 0.5% of assets
under management to the new green revolving funds. At this
level, a GRF for CSU would be approximately $1,400,000.
The potential benefits of a CSU GRF include:
The CSU Foundation sees attractive returns on very safe investments (energy efficiency projects
with a guaranteed return on investment);
The university improves its facilities and enjoys lower operating costs;
Student learning and staff productivity are enhanced with healthier living and work spaces;
4 Mark Orlowski and Mitchell Thomashow, “The Virtuous Cycle of Green Revolving Funds”, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, Trusteeship Magazine, June 2015.
5 http://www.sightlines.com/insight/making-business-case-campus-sustainability
6 Principal Author: Emily Flynn, Contributing Authors: Mark Orlowski, Dano Weisbord, Greening the Bottom Line 2012, October 30, 2012;
http://greenbillion.org/resources/#reports
3
CSU advances its “green” and “sustainable” bona fidesP6F
7
P, which over time may attract more
qualified students, additional research funding, and high-profile faculty;
New educational and research opportunities will be created;
CSU and Fort Collins benefits from local job creation and increased economic development;
CSU and the community achieve shared GHG reduction goals.
The Business Case for a Self-Managed CSU GRF:
Opportunities for financially attractive energy efficiency improvement projects exist campus-wide. In
FY16, CSU spent approximately $17M on energy for heating, lighting and the operation of computers
and other office and research equipment, and approximately $3M for waterP7F
8
P. A good portion of this
expenditure is consumed by inefficient buildings and building systems.
This GRF fund and its investments (energy efficiency retrofits and other campus infrastructure
improvements) would align with the long-term objectives of the CSU Foundation and the university’s
stated sustainability goals, while improving the quality of the built environment on campus. Additional
positive factors to consider include:
CSU Facilities Management have indicated that they can identify and deliver energy efficiency
upgrades that are safe, high quality investments;
CSU could also choose to partner with energy saving performance contractors, or ESPCs, that can
provide financial guarantees for the energy savings performance of projects they manage, backed by
stout private-sector balance sheets and cash reserves;
The University is unlikely to default on repaying the Foundation, and a 6% coupon would keep pace
with or even outperform the running five year average return for the CSU endowment;
A GRF provides “green” portfolio diversification that is low-risk and financially attractive.
Recommendations:
CSU to join the Billion Dollar Green Challenge;
Pilot a CSU-endowment investment in a new GRF, in order to support a single, larger pilot energy
efficiency project within a University-owned facility. This could include the planned upgrades to
the Moby Arena. UThe City of Fort Collins Economic Health Office is ready to provide pro-bono
assistance to CSU to help it develop a GRFU. CSU success in this area also means success for Fort
Collins, as the University’s energy efficiency, renewable energy and sustainability goals align with
the City’s climate action framework and economic health objectives.
Use existing research and data collection expertise at CSU to gather data from pilot projects
regarding financial and non-financial benefits of building upgrades;
After documented success in one or more GRF pilots, scale the GRF to help achieve sustainability
objectives and position the university as a national leader in this space.
7 For example: CSU is ranked #4” in the 2016 Princeton Review’s list of the Top 50 Green Colleges https://www.princetonreview.com/college-
rankings?rankings=top-50-green-colleges; #11 in the Sierra Club’s list of Cool Schools http://sierraclub.org/sierra/2016-5-september-
october/cool-schools-2016/full-ranking; and was listed #1 by the Chronicle of Higher Education’s Top-Performing Institutions for Sustainability,
2016 http://www.chronicle.com/article/Table-Top-Performing/238749
8 CSU Facilities data, August 2017
1
Climate Economy Update - Council Work Session
Jackie Kozak Thiel, Josh Birks, and Sean Carpenter
October 10, 2017
ATTACHMENT 6
Questions for City Council
§ What overall feedback does Council have regarding the systems-
based approach of the Climate Economy Action Plan?
§ What direction would Council give regarding the tactic of developing
strategies while we also seek “quick wins”?
2
What is the “Climate Economy”?
3
Access to capital
for private
investment
Structured
Innovation to solve
wicked problems
Achieve Climate
Action Plan goals
Grow businesses,
entrepreneurship
& employment
U.S. Economy at Inflection Point
Fort Collins Weekly Courier article from 1899:
"Despite electric cars, bicycles and automobiles, the
horse is bound to be a big factor in Twentieth century
civilization...Yes, indeed, the horse is here to
stay.”
4
Decoupling Prosperity from Carbon
5
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Fort Collins Gross Metropolitan Product (GMP)
and Carbon Emissions
GMP
Carbon emissions
Climate Economy Impacts
§ Foundation for a clean energy-driven
economy in Northern Colorado
§ Align business and local talent
§ Strengthen Triple-Helix partnerships
§ Advance social equity objectives
§ Enhance innovation ecosystem
6
Quick Wins
§ 2017 Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge
§ C-PACE
§ CSU Green Revolving Fund
§ Deployment of “Spark Fund”
§ Integration with City as a Platform
§ Colorado Smart Cities Alliance
7
Climate Economy Timeline
8
• National search for
Climate Economy
Expertise
• Current State
Assessment
• Stakeholder
Convening
• Focus Areas
• Develop Strategy
• Define Metrics
• Identify “Quick
Wins”
• Strategic Action
Plan by Focus
Area
Phase 1:
Analysis
Phase 2:
Design
Phase 3:
Implementation
Phase 4:
Review &
Modify
• Implement non BFO items
• Budget for Outcomes
• Integrate Actions into
Climate Action Plan
• Periodic Status Reports
• Regular Review
of Approach
• Improve Tools and
Strategies
as Identified
• Continual Iteration
with Triple Helix
Stakeholders
Stakeholder Engagement
Triple-Helix Partners
Internal Staff
Boards &
Commissions
9
Very supportive of the
approach taken by the
Climate Economy
Action Plan
Businesses want to
play a role in achieving
sustainability goals
Desire tools and
additional partnership
opportunities with the
City
Fort Collins is
positioning itself as a
world leader in the
Climate Economy
10
Next steps
• Additional stakeholder engagement - ongoing
• Pursue Quick Wins - ongoing
• Phase 2 Design – Complete Q1 2018
• Phase 3 Implementation – Begin Q2 2018
Next steps
• Additional stakeholder engagement - ongoing
• Pursue Quick Wins - ongoing
• Phase 2 Design – Complete Q1 2018
• Phase 3 Implementation – Begin Q2 2018
Questions for Council
§ What overall feedback does Council have regarding the systems-
based approach of the Climate Economy Action Plan?
§ What direction would Council give regarding the tactic of developing
strategies while we also seek “quick wins”?
11
12
BACKUPS
Quick Wins: Efficiency Loan Programs
13
§ Efficiency Loan Programs
o Clean Energy Credit Union
o On-Bill Finance 2.0 draft
Quick Wins: Crowdfunding
14
§ Crowd Funding: Community Funded
§ Impact Bonds to lower borrowing costs: Neighborly
Climate Economy: Why PPPs?
15
16
66%
19%
11%
2% 1% 0.5%
2016 Fort Collins Resource Mix
Coal
Hydro
Wind
Purchases
Solar
Gas
Leadership Direction: How We Got Here
17
Timeline:
23 2,027
24 1,801
25 572
26 1,040
27 1,187
Fig. 4: Clean energy jobs by Upper
House district
* Due to an editing error, a previous version of Clean Jobs Colorado contained incorrect jobs totals for District Nos. 1, 4, 22, and 23,
and omitted District No. 28.
Fig. 5: Clean energy jobs by Lower House district
Clean Energy Jobs by Legislative District
Lower House
District* Employment
28 1,915
29 343
30 3,774
31 272
32 257
33 629
34 86
36 643
38 643
39 3,231
46 357
47 325
48 1,565
49 1,733
50 43
54 1,197
56 179
57 569
58 655
59 1,050
60 325
61 671
62 260
63 206
64 547
65 374
Saguache 32
San Juan 16
San Miguel 86
Sedgwick 16
Summit 284
Teller 53
Washington 43
Weld 1,544
Yuma 91
Clean Energy Jobs by County
Like most industries in the state, the largest share of clean energy positions is centered in Denver and surrounding densely
populated counties—Denver, Arapahoe and Jefferson. Still, nearly every county, congressional district, and state legisla-
tive district is home to a clean energy workforce.
After the Denver metro area (46,244 jobs), Boulder and Fort Collins-Loveland have the most clean energy workers (2,757
and 2,365 respectively). Greeley and Colorado Springs each have more than 1,500 workers, with Grand Junction (1,105)
and Pueblo (579) rounding out the metro locations.
Beyond cities, the state’s more rural counties employ a total of 5,937 in clean energy. Other counties with more than 2,000
energy jobs include Adams (4,899), Arapahoe (11,270), Boulder (2,756), Denver (15,443), Douglas (3,384), Jefferson
(9826), and Larimer (2,365).
Clean Energy Jobs by Congressional District
Congressional District Employment
1 24,998
2 8,204
3 5,566
4 14,012
5 1,686
6 3,581
7 4,024
2.7% per year out to 2050; and coal prices are
$1.9/Mbtu in 2020, escalating at an average
of 1.4% per year out to 2050. The analysis also
explores a scenario in which a global shift to
clean energy results in lower fossil fuel prices
as demand decreases.
governments will need to commit to a just transition.
Not all climate policies are win-win, and some trade-offs
are inevitable, particularly in the short term. Although
many jobs will be created, and there will be larger
markets and profits for many businesses, some jobs will
also be lost, particularly in high-carbon sectors. The
human and economic costs of the transition should be
managed through support for displaced workers, affected
communities and low-income households. Strong political
leadership and the active participation of civil society
will be needed, along with far-sighted, enlightened
business decisions.
The wealth of evidence presented by the report shows
that there is now huge scope for action which can
both enhance growth and reduce climate risk. Leading
businesses, cities and countries are showing how this can
be done. The world’s economic leaders face a remarkable
opportunity to set the world on the path to sustainable
prosperity. The prize is immense, and the moment of
decision is now. We can achieve both better growth
and a better climate.
improved quality of life, stronger resilience to climate
change and environmental protection. Many can help
reduce poverty. In the 15 countries with the highest
greenhouse gas emissions, the damage to health from
poor air quality, largely associated with the burning of
fossil fuels, is valued at an average of over 4% of GDP.
Many countries are now recognising the costs of a high-
carbon model of development.
Managed well, the additional investments in
infrastructure needed to make the transition to a low-
carbon economy will be modest. The infrastructure
requirements for a high-carbon economy, across
transport, energy, water systems and cities, are estimated
at around US$90 trillion, or an average of US$6 trillion
per year over the next 15 years. By combining renewable
energy with reduced fossil fuel investment, more compact
cities, and more efficiently managed energy demand,
low-carbon infrastructure will increase investment
requirements by only an estimated US$270 billion a
year. These higher capital costs could potentially be fully
offset by lower operating costs, for example from reduced
expenditure on fuel. Investing in a low-carbon economy is
a cost-effective form of insurance against climate risk.
The report proposes a 10-point Global Action Plan
of key recommendations. This asks decision-makers to:
1. Accelerate low-carbon transformation by
integrating climate into core economic decision-
making processes. This is needed at all levels of
government and business, through systematic
changes to policy and project assessment tools,
performance indicators, risk models and reporting
requirements.
2. Enter into a strong, lasting and equitable
international climate agreement, to increase the
confidence needed for domestic policy reform,
provide the support needed by developing countries,
and send a strong market signal to investors.
3. Phase out subsidies for fossil fuels and agricultural
inputs, and incentives for urban sprawl, to drive more
efficient use of resources and release public funds for
other uses, including programmes to benefit those on
low incomes.
4. Introduce strong, predictable carbon prices as part
of good fiscal reform and good business practice,
sending strong signals across the economy.
costs. As pioneering cities across the world are
demonstrating, more compact and connected urban
development, built around mass public transport,
can create cities that are economically dynamic
and healthier, and that have lower emissions. Such
an approach to urbanisation could reduce urban
infrastructure capital requirements by more than
US$3 trillion over the next 15 years.
• Land use productivity will determine whether the
world can feed a population projected to grow to
over eight billion by 2030, while sustaining natural
environments. Food production can be increased,
forests protected and land use emissions cut by
raising crop and livestock productivity, using new
technologies and comprehensive approaches to soil
and water management. Restoring just 12% of the
world’s degraded agricultural land could feed 200
million people by 2030, while also strengthening
climate resilience and reducing emissions. Slowing
down and ultimately halting deforestation can be
achieved if strong international support is combined
with strong domestic commitment to forest
protection and rural income development.
• Energy systems power growth in all economies. We
are on the cusp of a clean energy future. Coal is riskier
and more expensive than it used to be, with growing
import dependence and rising air pollution. Rapidly
falling costs, particularly of wind and solar power,
could lead renewable and other low-carbon energy
sources to account for more than half of all new
electricity generation over the next 15 years.
Greater investment in energy efficiency – in
businesses, buildings and transport – has huge
potential to cut and manage demand. In developing
countries, decentralised renewables can help provide
electricity for the more than one billion people
without access.
Across all these systems, three “drivers of change” need to
be harnessed to overcome market, policy and institutional
barriers to low-carbon growth:
• Raising resource efficiency is at the heart of both
growth and emissions reduction. In many economies,
both market and policy failures distort the efficient
allocation of resources while simultaneously
Executive Summary
catalyse action to achieve both better growth and
a better climate. It proposes practical measures which
can be taken not just by national governments, but by
cities and regional authorities, businesses, communities
and international organisations. The Commission and
the New Climate Economy project remain committed to
engaging further with all those interested in these issues.
The need is urgent, for decisions made today and over
the next few years will determine the future course of
both economic growth and climate change. World leaders
will come together in 2015 to decide on new goals for
sustainable development and to achieve a new climate
agreement. At home they will continue to make vital
economic decisions. As they do so, we hope they will
consider seriously the research and recommendations
presented in this report.
Preface
FELIPE CALDERÓN
Chair of the
Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate
JEREMY OPPENHEIM
Global Programme
Director of the New Climate
Economy project
NICHOLAS STERN
Co-Chair of the Global
Commission and Chair of the
Economics Advisory Panel