HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemo - Mail Packet - 8/28/2018 - Memorandum From Lindsay Ex, Victoria Shaw And Tbl-S Core Team Re: Triple Bottom Line Scan (Tbs-S) ImplementationTriple Bottom Line Scan 5/4/18 version
Project Description (Focus on steady state of the project):
Revised Project Description (If applicable):
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Level of
expected
impact
(‐3 to 3)
Level of
confidence
(Low to High)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ENV 1
To what extent could this project impact the natural environment including land, water, air or
plant and animal communities?
ENV 2
To what extent could this project impact staff requirements for environmental tracking and
reporting?
CLIMATE COMMITMENT
ENV 3
To what extent could this project impact the community’s efforts to meet the Climate Action
goals (20% reduction below 2005 by 2020 and beyond)?
ENV 4
To what extent could this project impact the community’s preparedness and resiliency for
climate change risks and other natural disasters?
WATER AND AIR QUALITY
ENV 5 To what extent could this project impact water conservation?
ENV 6 To what extent could this project impact rivers, streams, or groundwater?
ENV 7 To what extent could this project impact outdoor air quality and/or indoor air quality?
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT AND ZERO WASTE
ENV 8 To what extent could this project impact the City’s Zero Waste goals?
COLLABORATE AND EDUCATE
ENV 9
To what extent could this project impact opportunities for education and support of
environmental stewardship principles?
ENV 10
To what extent will this project promote environmental sustainability at local, regional, state or
national levels?
ECONOMIC HEALTH Level of
expected
impact
(‐3 to 3)
Level of
confidence
(Low to High)
INFRASTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT
ECON 1
To what extent could this project impact the economic health of the Fort Collins business
community, including the ability to retain or attract talent or ability for a business to stay or
expand?
ECON 2 To what extent could this project impact the City’s ability to meet future infrastructure needs?
JOBS AND WORKFORCE
ECON 3
To what extent could this project impact the skills, training and job diversity of the local
workforce?
ECON 4 To what extent could this project impact job wages or benefits in Fort Collins?
ECON 5 To what extent could this project impact costs of living in the community?
INNOVATION AND CLIMATE ECONOMY
ECON 6 To what extent could this project impact entrepreneurship and innovation in the community?
ECON 7
To what extent could this project impact advances in climate‐economy related jobs such as
Building Energy Scoring
Building Energy Scoring (BES) is a Benchmarking, Reporting, and Transparency program that compares the
building’s energy performance of one building against another. BES addresses the challenge of extending the
value of energy efficiency improvements to all buildings over time. Reporting and transparency allows commercial
real estate stakeholders such as investors and tenants to evaluate the highest-performing, lowest-operating cost
option, and monitor their performance in the market place.
This scan considers the required benchmarking, reporting and transparency elements of the recommended policy
proposal.
Positive
Will provide opportunities for
education and support of
environmental stewardship
principles, e.g., by transparently
providing energy efficiency
information in market transactions
May be able to charge a premium
for rented space which may be an
incentive to participate in energy
efficiency programs offered by the
City in the future
Negative
Positive
More information in the market to
inform consumer choices about the
most energy efficient option for
their needs.
Building Owner may be able to
charge a premium for rented space
with a high building energy score.
Negative
Building owners time investment
requirement of 4-6 hours in year 1
and 1-2 hours annually in
subsequent years.
Buildings that do not report their
annual energy score to the City
may be required to pay a recurring
fine.
Positive
More information in the market
allows residents in multifamily
housing or small business looking to
lease to select the lowest operating
cost option.
Negative
Buildings with low energy score may
experience social pressure to
improve.
Building Owner may be able to
charge a premium for rented space
with a high building energy score.
Tradeoffs
A mandatory program is likely to be met with the greatest initial resistance yet has been demonstrated across peer
cities to have the greatest impact (e.g., square footage of buildings that participate).
Mitigations
To ensure the program is successfully rolled out and impacts on building owners and tenants are managed, a
phased implementation of larger to mid-sized commercial buildings first and then multi-family is recommended
Key Alignment: ENV 4.1: Achieve Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2020 goals and continue progress toward the 2030 goals;
ENV4.5 Work towards long-term net zero energy goals using systems approach; ECON3.8 Maintain electric utility
systems, services, infrastructure integrity, stable competitive rates; Open Data Policy adopted 2017
Building Energy Scoring
Through a partnership with City Energy Project, Staff is leveraging peer networks from over 20 Cities to
learn from other approaches: what's working and what's not. There are now 26 U.S. cities with
benchmarking and transparency ordinances along with a few states nationwide. Many of these programs
are newer and a full understanding of the impact of these policies continues to be reviewed. In one
example: Chicago commercial and multifamily properties required to report have improved their energy
performance by 8% in just one year saving over $16 million dollars per year in energy costs. Fort Collins
Utilities conservatively estimates a minimum 2% savings contributing to the emissions reduction goal in
2030; and will continue to monitor the savings, expected to be much more than these preliminary
estimates.
Several community members have expressed concerns with the Building Energy Scoring program’s
impact on affordable housing. Although a 2008 national CoStar study shows rental rates in ENERGY
STAR commercial buildings represent a $2.40 per square foot premium over comparable non-ENERGY
STAR buildings and have 3.6 percent higher occupancy, it is unknow how the Fort Collins market will
respond to ENERGY STAR scores. Given the benefits of energy efficiency and additional information in
the market from transparency of ENERGY STAR Scores, it is anticipated that commercial tenants will
benefit from more information and the ability to select the lowest operating cost option.
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA10BE12-043E-46C0-B463-5751E3625A08
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA10BE12-043E-46C0-B463-5751E3625A08
water conservation/clean energy technology, development/attraction of energy and water‐
centric companies, climate finance, and related workforce development?
LOCAL IDENTITY
ECON 8
To what extent could this project impact the city’s local culture, community brand or sustainable
business identify?
ECON 9 To what extent could this project impact infill and redevelopment?
REGIONAL AND PARTNERSHIP OPORTUNITIES
ECON 10 To what extent could this project impact regional economic partnerships and participation?
SOCIAL HEALTH Level of
expected
impact
(‐3 to 3)
Level of
confidence
(Low to High)
COMMUNITY WELLNESS
SS 1
To what extent could this project impact community opportunities to access physical activity,
healthy food, and healthy indoor environments
SS 2 To what extent could this project impact social interactions in the community?
EQUITY AND INCLUSION
SS 3 To what extent could this project promote a welcoming and diverse community?
SS 4
To what extent could this project impact the sense of belonging of underrepresented
populations including, but not limited to, women, people of color, seniors (55+) or people
experiencing disabilities?
SS 5
To what extent could this project impact the ability of underrepresented populations to
participate in and influence City processes, programs, and services?
COMMUNITY PROSPERITY
SS 6
To what extent could this project impact the economic conditions of underrepresented
populations (e.g., increased transportation costs, educational access, underemployment,
unemployment)?
SS 7
To what extent could this project impact opportunities for education and vocational training
geared towards closing local skill gaps?
SS 8
To what extent could this project impact the City’s goals to alleviate poverty and support self‐
sufficiency?
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
SS 9 To what extent could this project impact affordable or attainable housing opportunities?
SS 10
To what extent could this project impact housing stability (prevent housing displacement or
improve home health)?
Organizational Priorities Level of
expected
impact
(‐3 to 3)
Level of
confidence
(Low to High)
OP 1
To what extent could this project impact one or more City Council priorities? (See guidebook or
link)
OP 2 To what extent could this project impact one or more City Strategic Plan objectives? (See link)
OP 3 To what extent could this project impact the financial health of the organization?
SCALE
DocuSign Envelope ID: DA10BE12-043E-46C0-B463-5751E3625A08