HomeMy WebLinkAbout006 09
\ .o,\~.,C~+i~.} ')
C:C',i' \4 I :J. \ 01
'TreC\.0
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
City of Port Townsend
Joint Resolution of the
Board of County Commissioners
And the Port Townsend City Council
Adopting Inventory of Energy Usage
And Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Backcasts, Forecasts, and Interim Targets &
Approving Climate Change Committee Workplan
}
} City Resolution No. 09-002
} County Resolution No. 06-09
}
}
}
}
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) of Jefferson County, Washington and the City
Council of the City of Port Townsend, Washington do hereby jointly resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend have adopted ajoint
resolution (County 44-07 and City 07-022) to commit to addressing energy use and climate
change/global warming; and
WHEREAS, the above referenced resolution calls for a comprehensive baseline
inventory of local energy uses that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions, especially C02
and making estimates for current emissions and forecasts of future emissions if current
practices do not change; and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned resolution establishes a joint City/County
committee herein called the Climate Action Committee (CAC) tasked with developing a
local climate action plan; and
WHEREAS, the CAC is charged with providing recommendations for achieving
community standards of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to levels 80 percent lower than
1990 levels by 2050 with preliminary reduction targets to be set for earlier years; and
WHEREAS, Jefferson County and the City of Port Townsend joint resolution
(County 02-08 and City 08-001) sets forth the purpose and scope of work of the CAC
including direction that the CAC submit for approval of the BoCC and City Council:
preliminary reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions and a work plan outlining the
proposed process, timelines, and resources required to prepare the Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the July 30, 2008 meeting of the CAC, the committee recommended
that the Inventory of Energy Usage and Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions be forwarded
to the BoCC and City Council for adoption; and
Page 1 of3
City Resolution 09-002
County Resolution 06-09
WHEREAS, the CAC has drafted Backcasts, Forecasts, and Interim Targets and a
Climate Action Committee Workplan consistent with the joint resolution (County 02-08 and
City 08-001);
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County
Commissioners and City Council of the City of Port Townsend hereby adopt the following
three documents attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference:
Inventory of Energy Usage and Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Backcasts, Forecasts, and Interim Targets
Climate Change Committee Workplan
This resolution shall become effective upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners
and the City of Port Townsend.
APPROVED AND SIGNED THIS
12th
day of January
,2009
SEAL
SON ?CO~NTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
"
David Sullivan, Chairman
(diI1f -=
Phil J oMson, Member
I -;, S ) '\: ",'~'
or1="--
Attest:
Approved as to form:
David W. Alvarez, Chief Civil DP
Jefferson County
Page 2 of3
City Resolution 09-002
County Resolution 06-09
APPROVED AND SIGNED THIS twelfth day of January I 2009
~~~~&;~
City of Port Townsend
Attest:
CZ~M~~
Approved as to form:
c---."-.-L'
~.__.-z..~JC._"(",~""
John P. Watts, City Attorney
Page 3 of3
City Resolution 09-002
County Resolution 06-09
Commercial
90/0
Residential
23%
Transportation
390/0
Industrial
290/0
Inventory of Energy Usage and
Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
For Jefferson County, Washington
· Community-Wide Activities
· Jefferson County Government Operations
· Port Townsend City Government Operations
In Base Year 2005
Recommended by Climate Action Committee, July 30, 2008, for
Adoption by Board of County Commissioners and City Coun EXHIBIT
I ~
Acknowledgements
This emissions inventory was authorized by a Joint Resolu ion ofthe Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners (County Resolution No. 44-07 of ay 29,2007) and Port Townsend City
Council (City Resolution No. 07-022 of July 9,2007) in w ich they committed to:
'"Collaborating with the Climate Protection Campai volunteers in conducting a
comprehensive baseline inventory oflocal energy u es that contribute to greenhouse gas
emissions, especially CO2, and making estimates of Furrent emissions and forecasts of future
emissions if current practices do not change" I
The data for the emissions inventory were compiled by the tlimate Protection Task Force:
Karen Barrows, Long-Range Planning, Jefferson County, 3 9-4482, kbarrows@co.iefferson.wa.us
Judy Surber, Planning Department, City of Port Townsend, 79-5084, lsurber@cityofpt.us
Climate Pro.tection Campaign volunteers: I
Manon Huxtable I
Kees Kolff
Joanna Loehr
Thomas Loehr
Deborah Stinson
William Wise ~I
The emissions inventory was performed with guidance fro ICLEI - Local Governments for
Sustainability (www.iclei-usa.org). Membership in this org ization provided Jefferson County and
the City of Port Townsend with access to JCLErs Clean Ai~ and Climate Protection Software, as well
as helpful technical support from Amy Shatzkin and Alex R mel of the JCLEJ Pacific Northwest
Regional Capacity Center (hosted by City of Seattle,W A): m .shatzkin iclei.or, 206-615-1696.
This report on the emissions inventory was prepared using a JCLEJ template and compHed by Joanna
Loehr, 10annal@01ympus.net, 360-385-6579. I
I
The Climate Protection Task Force thanks the elected offici~lS and staffs of the Jefferson County and
City of Port Townsend governments for providing the OPPO unity to perform this inventory and for
assisting in data collection. We are particularly grateful to C thy Taylor, Renee Taney, Ann Knox,
Terry Logue, Michelle Ham, and Al Cairns of Jefferson Co nty government; Catherine McNabb and
Tom Miller of the City of Port Townsend government; and 'stin Marshall of the Port Townsend
Paper Corporation for their extensive efforts and helpful ad 'ce.
I
i
I
An electronic copy of this report is available at: J
www.co.jelferson.wa.nslcommdeveIOpmentlClimatechan1e.htm.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory 2
I
I
I
I
Inventory of Energy Usage and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
for Base Year 2005 in
Jefferson County and City of Port Townsend
Table of Contents
Page
I. Executive Summary
II. Emissions Inventory
A. Reasoning, Methodology and Model
]. CACP Software and Inventory Method
2. Data Sources and Inventory Process
B. Inventory Results for Base Year 2005
3. Community-Wide Emissions Inventory
Stationary Energy Sector Emissions
Transportation Sector Emissions
Solid Waste Sector Emissions
4. Jefferson County Government Emissions Inventory
Stationary Energy Sector Emissions
Transportation Sector Emissions
Solid Waste Sector Emissions
Water Supply Sector Emissions
5. Port Townsend City Government Emissions Inventory
Stationary Energy Sector Emissions
Transportation Sector Emissions
Water and Sewage-Treatment Sector Emissions
C. Appendix: Data for Base Year 2005
Table AI. Washington Climate Advisory Team Inventory
Table A2. CACP Report for Community Emissions
Table A3. CO2 Emissions from Electricity for PTPC
Table A4. C02 Emissions from Fuel Wood for PTPC
Glossary
Worksheets for Community-Wide Analysis
Worksheets for Jefferson County Government Analysis
Worksheets for Port Townsend City Government
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
3
4
7
7
7
8
9
9
10
11
11
13
14
15
16
16
16
17
17
18
19
20
21
21
22
W23
W27
W36
I. Executive Summary
This inventory of energy usage and greenhouse gas (GHG) lemissions was performed by the Climate
Protection Task Force, under the joint authorizatiOll1 of the ~efferson County Board of County
Commissioners and the Port Townsend City Council. In thq base year of2005, Jefferson County had
an estimated population of27,6oo that included 8,745 with~n the City of Port Townsend. I
Data on energy usage in base year 2005 was collected for tJie Jefferson County community as a whole
and for the County and City government operations as subs ts of the whole. Energy use and emissions
were grouped into 3 different Sectors: Stationary (buildings and equipment), Transportation (on-road
mobile sources), and Solid Waste. The Clean Air and Clim te Protection (CACP) software provided by
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability converted the ergy-usage data into units ofMMBtu and
calculated COze (equivalents ofCOz released) in tons (one on equals 2,000 pounds).
I
The Transportation Sector is the greatest single contributo of GHG emissions for the entire
community, accounting for 39% of the COze generated in J fferson County (Table 1, Figure 1). This
calculation is based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) info ation provided by the Washington State
Department of Transportation. The VMT for Jeffetson Cou ty in 2005 were 1.3 times greater than the
Washington State average. This helps explain why the total COze emissions of 19.4 tons per capita in
Jefferson County were 1.2 times greater than the value for t e entire state. The majority of vehicles in
both cases (61 % or more) are in the category of pri!vate tran. portation.
,
The Stationary Energy Sector accounts for 61 % oftotal GijG emissions for the entire community
(Table 1, Figure 1). Energy sources in this sector include th~ electricity, propane, fuel oil, and wood
used to provide heat illld power for the operation Of. bUildinfillld stationary equipment. The statiouary
energy sector was analyzed in 3 Subsectors: Residential, Co mercial and Industrial.
The Residential Subsector represents 23% of the total GH emissions for the entire community.
Electricity, for power, light, and heat, is responsible for the fuajority (86%) of emissions being derived
from this sub sector. The electricity provided by Puget Soun~ Energy releases 0.155 tons of CO2 per
MMBtu of energy consumed, compared to 0.07-0.09 tons of C02 released per MMBtu of energy
consumed for fossil fuels. The wood heating used by almostl20% of Jefferson County residents is by a
United Nations' international convention considered a biognic, climate-neutral source of energy since
the COz released had been sequestered earlier from the envi onment. Thus, wood is not included as a
direct CO2 source in the software program used for this inve tory.
The Commercial Subsector represents 9% of the total GHG emissions for the entire community. It
includes County and City government operations as typical xamples ,of commercial operations for
which detailed data sets are available. According to ICLEI, local government emissions typically fall
between 2 and 5 percent of overall community emissions. In the case of Jefferson County and the City
of Port Townsend, government operations are considerably maller, together accounting for 0.9% of
the total C02e emissions from the community and 6% ofthe commercial subsector. Knowledge of
detailed emissions allows municipal governments to take a I adership role in reducing emissions from
the entire community. I
I
,
I Washington State Office of Financial Management, www.ofm.wa.gOV/forecasting/defaultasp .
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory 4
The Industrial Subsector represents 29% of the total GHG emissions for the entire community. As the
largest industry in Jefferson County, the Port Townsend Paper Corporation accounts for 99% ofC02e
emissions from this subsector.The wood fuel which makes up 75% of their stationary energy use is
considered climate-neutral within the CACP software and, thus, was not included as a direct source of
C02 emissions. The large impact ofPTPC is typical of the carbon cost of manufactured goods (e.g.,
automobiles, appliances, paper). The embedded energy in goods is only counted where the goods are
produced, not where they are consumed.
Table 1. Community-Wide and Government Subset Emissions in 2005
610/0 1,443 1,609
23%
9% 1,443 1,609
29%
39% 1,886 533
<1% 35
325,133
121,605
49,017
154,511
209,079
2,502
536,714 100% 3,728 2,142
a Community-wide includes County and City operations. 2 Data obtained from CACP Model output.
Figure 1. Community-Wide CO2 Emissions in 2005
Residential
230/0
Commercial
90/0
Transportation
390/0
Industrial
290/0
Emissions are for Transportation Sector and for Residential, Commercial and Industrial Subsectors of
the Stationary Energy Sector. Emissions from the Solid Waste Sector were too small to include. Data
obtained from CACP Model output.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
5
The Solid Waste Sector accounts for less than 1% ,of the C ze generated in the community (Table 1).
This is because the COz produced in the Roosevel~ Landfill is considered biogenic and the methane
produced is largely recovered as an electricity-generating fi edstock. Nevertheless, solid waste
materials have a far larger embedded energy whose COze c ntribution gets attributed at the point of
manufacture, not at the point of consumption or di~posal. I
For both City and County governments, employee commut ng accounts for an average of 1.9 tons of
COze per employee and 37% of the COze generated by thei transportation activities. This is likely to
be typical of commercial entities. Transportation contribute over 50% of the total GHG emissions for
the County government because this category includes hea y equipment for building and maintaining
roads. Transportation contributes only 25% of the total GH emissions for the City government
because the City total includes contributions from ~reatmen plants for water and sewage that represent
38% of its overall GHG emissions.
Energy Intensities for different City and County bluildings ~ere compared by calculating the energy
usage (in kWh) per square foot of building per ye~. The m dian value for commercial office buildings
in the Seattle area is 15 kWh per sq.ft. per year. The buildin s with the lowest energy intensities in the
current inventory were the City Hall Annex with a value of,ll and the County Courthouse with a value
of 12. The buildings with the highest energy intensities were the County-operated Corrections Center
I
with a value of 42 and the City-operated swimming pool wilh a value of 15 I. Energy intensity is a
more specific measurement than energy efficiency, which atso takes into account type of use, hours of
operation, and number of people served.
Limitations of this Inventory
For a number of sources, energy use was not included in thi report because they are better considered
on a statewide basis and have been quantified in the Washi gton State Climate Action Team
Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The omitted sources and their c ntributions to gross COze emissions
within Washington State in 2005 are: forestry (-29%, net se uestration), agriculture (6%, including
methane from livestock), fuel for marine vessels (3%), and ~ir travel (8%).
Conclusion
This inventory serves as a foundation for understanding our local use of energy and sources of
greenhouse gas emissions. It offers a baseline from which t estimate historic 1990 levels and to make
projections into the future. It will help establish targets for eduction of emissions and set priorities for
taking action to reach our long-term goal of reducing our G G emissions to levels 80% lower than
1990 levels by the year 2050. Finally, it is hoped that this i' ventory will motivate individuals and
businesses throughout the community to evaluate their own personal energy use and emissions so that
as a community we can work together to address tljle challe ges and opportunities raised by climate
change/global warming.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
6
II. Emissions Inventory
A. Reasoning, Methodology and Model
ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection methodology allows local governments to systematically
estimate and track greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy and waste related activities at the
community-wide scale and those resulting directly from municipal operations. The municipal
operations inventory is a subset of the community-scale inventory.
Once completed, these inventories provide the basis for creating an ~missions forecast and reduction
target, and enable the quantification of emissions reductions associated with proposed strategies as
well as with implemented measures.
1. CACP Software and Inventory Method
To facilitate local government efforts to identify and reduce GHG emissions, ICLEI developed the
Clean Air and Climate Protection (CACP) Software package with Torrie Smith Associates. The CACP
software has been and continues to be used by over 350 u.S. cities and counties to reduce their GHG
emissions. Although the software provides a sophisticated and useful tool, calculating emissions with
precision is difficult. The model depends upon numerous assumptions, and it is limited by the quantity
and quality of available data (e.g., Appendix, pages W23-24). With this in mind, it is useful to think of
any specific number generated by the model as an approximation rather than an exact value.
This software estimates emissions derived from energy consumption and waste generation within a
community (Table A2). The CACP software determines emissions using specific factors (or
coefficients) according to the type offuel used. Emissions are aggregated and reported in terms of
equivalent carbon dioxide units, or C02e. Units are in tons of C02e (based on I ton = 2,000 pounds).
Converting all emissions to equivalent carbon dioxide units allows for the consideration of different
GHG in comparable terms. For example, methane is twenty-one times more powerful than carbon
dioxide in its capacity to trap heat, so the model converts one ton of methane emissions to 21 tons of
C02e.
The emissions coefficients and methodology employed by the software are consistent with national
and international inventory standards established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines for the Preparation of National Inventories) and the U.S. Voluntary
GHG Reporting Guidelines (EIA form 1605).
The inventory is composed of three categories, which are analyzed independently:
(1) community-wide emissions for all sources within Jefferson County limits
(2) government operations emissions for Jefferson County
(3) government operations emissions for the City of Port Townsend
It is important to be clear that the three categories are not cumulative. The community-wide inventory
is the total, and the two municipal government inventories are specific subsets of that total. The
government operations inventories include only those sources that are under the operational control or
financial purview of the Jefferson County and Port Townsend municipal organizations, respectively.
An inventory for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation (PTPC) was also included as a subset of
community-wide emissions because it represents the single largest industrial source of GHG emissions
in Jefferson County.
The 2005 calendar year was chosen as the baseline year for both community and municipal
operations inventories, as that was the earliest year for which complete, computerized data were
available.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
7
I
The community and municipal categories are explored ind~endently for several reasons. The
community-wide inventory explores sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.), while a much
finer resolution is possible in the municipal operations port~on of the inventory (energy use by facility,
etc.). Additionally, when attention is turned to the question of where emissions reductions are possible,
there will be a different set of options for municipal faciliti s than for private sector emissions. For
example, a county might opt to implement a procurement licy requiring that certain vehicles in the
county fleet be replaced by hybrid vehicles, whereas in the rivate sector an education program about
hybrids or an incentive program would be appropriate.
i
Each of these categories is further broken down by sources land sectors. Sources are the fuel or energy
that is the basis of the emissions. In this inventory; the mai~ sources considered are electricity,
propane, fuel oil, diesel, gasoline, wood, and waste. Sectorf are the portion of the community or
government operations to which the emissions are attributarle. They include stationary energy,
transportation, solid waste, and water/sewage. I
2. Data Sources and Inventory Process I
I
The creation of an emissions inventory required the cOllect~. n of information from a variety of sectors
and data sources. The Appendix gives a complete listing of all data sources and data collected for this
inventory. For the community-wide inventory, the main so rces of data were Puget Sound Energy
(PSE) for electricity; U.S. Census data for usage OfPropanl' fuel oil, and wood; Washington State
Department of Transportation for total vehicle miles travel ; and the Jefferson County Solid Waste
Program for waste generated. For the municipal inventories the primary data sources were PSE for
electricity and municipal accounting records for propane, el oil, vehicle fuel usage, water/sewer
usage, and waste generated. For the PTPC,energyusage d~a were provided by Kristin Marshall,
Environmental Manager, based on PTPC records and elect city data obtained from Clallam County
P.U.D. for their contract with the Bonneville Power Admin stration (BPA).
I
It should be noted that when calculating the community em ssions inventory, all energy consumed in
Jefferson County was included. This means that, even thou the electricity used by residents and
businesses is produced elsewhere, this energy and its associated emissions appear in the inventory. The
decision to calculate emissions in this manner refl~cts the g eral philosophy that a community should
take full ownership of the impacts associated with its energ consumption, regardless of whether the
generation occurs within the geographical limits of the com unity. For the same reason, all waste
generated in Jefferson County was included, even though itlis deposited in the Roosevelt Landfill in
Klickitat County, Washington. i
i
Although most of the electricity produced in Wasqington Sate is hydroelectric, only 45% of the
electricity consumed in Washington State is hydro~lectric. he other 55% comes via the Western
Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) which covers a ast, interconnected region that includes all
or portions of 14 western states (and all of Washington). e WECC emissions factor for Washington
,is 1.06 pounds of CO2 per kWh consumed. The CACP soft are uses this WECC emissions factor for
PSE customers, as does the 2008 Climate Advisory Team alysis for all of Washington State?
However, a much lower emissions factor of 0.1 14 pounds orC02 per kWh was used for the electricity
(primarily hydroelectric) provided directly by the BP A in t1eir contract with PTPC.3
I
i
I
2 Leading the Way on Climate Change: The Challenge of Our Time, r~ort of the Washington State Climate Advisory
Team, February, 2008 ( www.ecy.wa.l!ov/oubsl0801 008b.pdt) i
3 Emissions factor provided by Ottie Nabors, Energy Efficiency Specia~ist, BP A, onabors@boa.l!ov.
I
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
8
The waste sector requires additional explanation. When organic matter like food scraps, paper, yard
waste, and wood decomposes deep in a landfill, anaerobic digestion by microorganisms creates
methane (CH4) which traps twenty~one times as much heat as C02. At Klickitat County's Roosevelt
Landfill, the 85~90% of methane that is collected (75% of which is used as a fuel to generate
electricity, 25% is flared) does not contribute to C02e emissions. Although the carbon sequestered in a
landfill is considered as an offset to emissions, the Task Force chose not to use that offset, since the
goal is to reduce waste. This study also analyzed the costs of collecting, transporting, and burying solid
waste.
Inventory data were collected by Climate Protection Task Force volunteers as follows:
Community~wide sources for buildings (William Wise), transportation and solid waste (Marion
Huxtable); Jefferson County Operations (Joanna Loehr and Thomas Loehr); Port Townsend City
Operations (Deborah Stinson and Kees Kolff, from data provided by Catherine McNabb, Public Works
administrator); and coordination of data collection (Joanna Loehr).
For a number of sources, energy use was not included in this report because they are better considered
on a statewide basis and have been quantified in the Washington State Climate Action Team
Greenhouse Gas Inventory. The omitted sources and their contributions to gross C02e emissions
within Washington State in 2005 (Table AI, Appendix) are: forestry (-29%, net sequestration),
agriculture (6%, including methane from livestock), fuel for marine vessels (3%), and air travel (8%).
B. Inventory Results/or Base Year 2005
1. Community-Wide Emissions Inventory
In the base year 2005, the entire Jefferson County Community emitted 537,000 tons ofC02e (Table 2).
Figure 1 (in the Executive Summary) and Table 2 below show the distribution of these emissions by
sector and subsector. Dividing 537,000 tons ofC02e by the 27,600 population] of Jefferson County
yields 19.4 tons C02e per capita. The Jefferson County value is 1.2 times greater than the Washington
State value of 16.4 tons C02e per capita in 2005 (using C02e from Table Al and a population
estimate] of 6,370,000). For comparison, worldwide 2004 emissions in tons of C02 per capita were 22
for the United States and Canada; 11-12 for Germany, Great Britain and Russia; 6-8 for Sweden,
France, and Spain; and 0-6 for South America, Africa, and Asia.4
Table 2. Community-Wide Summary - 2005
325 133
121,605
49,017
154,511
209 079
2502
536714
61%
23%
9%
29%
39%
<1%
100% 155,482
Source: CACP Model output
104,215
43,478
7,789
9775030
1,074,017
356,470
8,344,543
2437102
<0.01
12,212 132
4u.S. Department of Energy, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
9
Stationarv EnerJ!V Sector Emissions. Communi1l!-Wide
Stationary sources refer to emissions generated from fixed ~laces or objects, such as buildings and
machinery. Stationary emissions include electricity, fuel oil, propane, and wood used in the
Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Sectors. All values for energy usage and GHG emissions are
approximate. The values for electricity are the most reliabld as they are derived from the electrical
utilities. Residential usage of fuel oil, propane, and wood w~re extrapolated from U.S. Census data and
I
usage patterns in other communities (page W23). Commerqial fuel usage was estimated as a
percentage of electricity usage. Industrial fuel usage for PT C was obtained from the corporation and
non-PTPC was estimated as a percentage of electricity usa e.
Stationary Sector emissions account for 61% of tot I GHG emissions community-wide, with
approximately one-half coming from electricity usage (Tab e 2). Electricity is responsible for 86% of
the C02e emissions in the Residential Subsector and 89% i the Commercial Subsector. We were not
able to determine gallons of diesel fuel used for heavy construction equipment, but we estimate that
this equipment generates less than 2% of the C02e emissio : s for the Commercial Sub sector. It is of
interest to compare different fuel sources in terms of the a ount of CO2 generated per unit of
energy consumed (Table 3). Electricity purchased from PS generates 0.155 tons of C02e per MMBtu
consumed. In contrast, propane and fuel oil generate 0.073 nd 0.083 tons C02e per MMBtu
consumed, respectively. In base year 2005, the costs per M Btu were of$23.90 for electricity, $16.90
for propane and $16.1 0 for fuel oil. I
I
Table 3. Relative COle Emissions of Different E~ergy Sources - 2005
Electricit (kWh
Pro ane ( al)
Fuel Oil, Lt. ( al
Gasoline ( al
Diesel ( al) 122
aper 1000 units of energy source. ased on WECC emis ions factor of 1.06 Ibs
C021 kWh. CData from CACP Model output. i
I
The CACP software ignores CO2 emissions from the burnin~ of wood because, by international
convention, COz from wood is considered biogenic (i.e., pa of the natural cycle and not new to the
cycle). In this analysis, the only C02e associated with wood as an energy source is from the CH4 and
NzO that are created when wood is burned. The Washingto State greenhouse gas inventory is based
on the same calculation (Table AI). An estimated $,461 cor s of wood were used by the Residential
sector ofJefferson County (almost 20% of households in 2 5, page W23). Includingthe 1.42 tons
COz that are released per cord of wood burned5 WOll. ld incre.se the residential COze by 12,015 tons and
decrease the electricity contribution to 78% of the C02e fro~ the Residential Sector.
I
The Port Townsend Paper Corporation accounts for 29% of total C02e emissions and for over 99%
of Industrial Subsector emissions for Jefferson County (Ta les 2, 4). In the base year 2005, PTPC
emitted 153,496 tons of COze, (Table 4). The major energy source for PTPC in 2005 was wood from
hog fuel (chips) and pulping liquor, accounting for 6,243,44 MMBtu or 75% of the total energy used.
Due to the convention of considering burning of biomass bi genic in nature, the 472,418 tons of dry
5 (1.035 Ibs CO2 pertb wood) x (2,737 Ibs wood per cord of Douglas fir divided by (2,000 Ibs per ton of CO2) = 1.42 tons
CO2 per cord of wood. Data are from www.l2020.or u loa slFile/doc ener /Carbon rint.xIs and
www.consumerenergYcenter.org/home/heatingcooling/firewood.htmI.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
10
wood used as an energy source (Table A4) is considered to have released only 4% as much C02e (from
CH4 and N20) as was released from all the other fuels. Including the 1.035 tons of CO2 released per
ton of wood bumed5 would increase the PTPC C02e value by 488,952 tons.
Reprocessed fuel oil (RFO) was the second most utilized energy source by PTPC in 2005, accounting
for 19% of the total energy (MMBtu) used by PTPC and 95% of the fuel oil usage by the entire
community (Table 4). RFO is produced by processing used oil to remove contaminants and then
blending the used oil with other feed stocks to achieve the desired fuel specifications. A PTPC hydro-
turbine, driven by the Port Townsend water supply, produced 2,500,000 kWh of electricity in 2005 that
was sold to PSE. The C02e saved by this electricity production has been subtracted from the C02e
produced for the electricity purchased by PTPC from the Bonneville Power Administration (Table A3).
Table 4. Community and Port Townsend Paper Corporation Emissions in 2005
325,133 47%
147,121 95%
8,108 78%
155,482 4%
14,421 7%
209 079 2%
Total 536714 29%
a Data from CACP model output except for electricity (calculations inTable A3) and wood (Table A4).
bC02e from a PTPC energy source relative to same energy source for whole Community.
Transportation Sector Emissions. Communitv-Wide
Only on-road mobile sources are included in this report. The community-wide transportation
calculation is based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Jefferson County, obtained from surveys by
the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The transportation sector is the largest
emitter of GHG, representing 39% of community-wide emissions (Figure 1). This contribution for
Jefferson County is slightly larger to the 33% transportation contribution for Whatcom Countl and the
32% on-road-vehicles contribution for all of Washington State (Table AI).
It is of interest that the Jefferson County population, which represents 0.44% of the state's population,
was responsible for 0.57% of the state's annual VMT in 2005, as expected for a rural county. The
greater transportation contribution from rural populations is evident in C02e per capita which is 7.6
for on-road transportation in Jefferson County (Table 2) compared to 4.8 for Seattle- Tacoma-
Bellevue.7 The CACP software used the following vehicle composition (based on national average) for
apportioning VMT in 2005: 34% light trucks, vans, and SUVs;33% compact autos, 19% mid-sized
autos; 9% full-sized autos; 5% heavy trucks; 0.4% motorcycles; and 0.2% transit.
Solid Waste Sector Emissions. Communitv-Wide
The calculation of C02e emissions from solid waste in the CACP software is based only on the amount
of waste buried in a managed landfill and then only on the amount of methane which is not trapped by
the landfill. All solid waste from Jefferson County goes to the Roosevelt Landfill in Klickitat County,
6 Whatcom County Climate Protection and Energy Conservation Action Plan, December, 2006. (Refs are jumbled!)
7 Shrinking the Carbon Footprint of Metropolitan America (Washington:Brookings lnstitution, 2008),
www.brookings,edulreports/2008/05 carbon footprint-sarzvnski.aspx. Per capita carbon emissions from transportation in
2005 was multiplied by 3.67 to converted C to CO2 and by 1.1 to convert metric tons to short tons.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
11
i
W A, which has a methane recovery rate of 85-90% (85% i I this analysis). In 2005, the 20,800 tons of
solid waste generated by the Jefferson County community lsulted in C02e emissions of 2.502 tons
(Table 5). all arising from the residuallS% ofun-recovere~ methane. No credit was taken for carbon
sequestered in the landfill. The formerly used and now-clos~d Jefferson County Landfill has a low
level of continuing methane release that is flared t~ convert lit to CO2. This was assumed to be an
insignificant source of GHG and. thus, was not indluded in nventory. Inert waste from PTPC
processes is buried on their own land, has no organ.ic conte t and, thus, is also not a source of GHG
. emISSIons.
Waste handling and transport are not included in the CA P software emissions calculations, and are
not shown in other tables and figures in this report The ab olute amounts are relatively small but they
add significantly to the C02e emissions associated with soli waste. Accounting for these activities
adds an additional 955 tons of C02e" for a total C02e of 3. 57 tons in 2005 (Table 5),. Solid waste is
first delivered to the Jefferson County Transfer Station, abo t halfby commercial haulers and halfby
self-delivery. The commercial haulers produce 300/0 less C 2e per ton of waste than do the individual
deliveries. The waste is then transported 90 miles to Tacom via truck and from there 270 miles to the
Roosevelt Landfill via rail. Despite the 3 times greater dist ce, rail uses only half as much fuel and
the C02e per ton of waste is cut by a factor two.
Even with handling and transport included, the 3,457 tons ~f C02e from solid waste (Table 5)
represents only 0.6% of the 549,058 tons ofC02e commun.ty-wide emissions in 2005 (Table 1). Since
the CACP inventory process does not include the embedde energy in consumable goods, it does not
reflect any of the costs or C02 emissions caused b..Y generafng the materials that become solid waste.
These costs are included at the site of production. In Jeffer on County, the best example is material
produced by the PTPC and shipped elsewhere for use and e entual disposal.
Table 5. Community Solid Waste Emissions -laOS
0.017
0.024
0.014
0.007
a From CACP Model output.bEmissions related to waste transpo from page W25. cBuildings and equipment f()r
handling waste from pages W27 and W36.
I
Recycling, primarily of yard debris and paper products, Yie1ded 10,297 tons of material in 2005 (Table
6). This amount represents 33% of the total waste and abou 1,200 tons of C02e not being released at
the landfill. Recycled paper products also generate less CO from transport than does paper solid waste
since 844 tons of cardboard goes directly to PTPc, 274 ton$ of news print goes to Port Angeles, and
1,565 tons of mixed paper goes to Kent, W A (page W26). f.e 2,683 tons of paper products recovered
by recycling represent 40% of total wastepaper. N..ote that aper has the greatest potential for methane
production (Table 6). Handling of yard waste has been extr mely effective as 92% of yard waste
collected is recycled. Plant debris represents only 3% ofth solid waste taken to the landfill. The 28%
I
i
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
12
of waste in the wood and textiles category includes construction and renovation debris. The 34% in the
"other" category includes and plastics, metal, appliances, and electronic waste.
Table 6. Co.mmunity Solid Waste Composition - Z005
Relative Methane
Productionb
2.14
1.20
0.69
0.61
o
2,683
10297
aFram page W25. bEmissions factor in CACP software for managed landfill. cFrom page W26.
Recycled Waster
(tons
6,979
635
2. Jefferson County Government - Emissions Inventory
In the base year of 2005, Jefferson County's municipal operations generated 3,728 tons ofCOze.
Stationary emissions from buildings make up the largest proportion of COze emissions in the County
operations, followed by fleet vehicles (Table 7 and Figure 2). If you combine employee commute data
with fleet vehicle use, then 50% of the COze emissions are due to transportation. When road
maintenance and repair shops are also included, the transportation category far exceeds that from other
sources.
Stationarv EnerJ!V Sector Emissions. Countv Government
Stationary emissions were calculated from energy use by all buildings owned and operated by
Jefferson County, as well as energy used by the County streetlights. Buildings include Corrections
Table 7. Jefferson County Operations - Summary for Z005
<1 %
32%
577 15%
153 4%
260 7%
700 19%
35 <1 %
3M 10% 2 46
3728 100% 34,841
aSource: CACP Model output. bPublic Utility District not included in total costs, but is included in total CO2
emissions (from electricity, only) because it covers water service to County residents.
21
1,186
134
13 816
6,700
1,770
2,046
$227 435
$49,078
$40,416
$32,615
$45,586
$30,681
$14,244
$6,596
$3,221
$257,2M
$126,552
$33,360
$55,277
349
240
194
279
185
93
31
9%
6%
5%
7%
5%
2%
1%
10,616
2,249
2,017
1,638
2,168
1,337
632
202
7930
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
13
Center, Courthouse, Sheriff Patrol offices Courthouse, Cas le Hill offices, Community Centers, as well
as buildings for parks and shops. According to theCACP oftput, the vast majority of the CO2
emissions from these facilities comes from electriCity (87% , with lesser amounts from fuel oil (9%)
and propane (4%).
Figure 2. Jefferson County Operations CO:ze Emissions in 2005
Streetlights,
1%
Employee
Commute,
19%
Buildings, 38%
Vehicles, 32%
Source: CACP Model putput
Energy intensity in buildings is typically rcporte<l as enerJy use per square foot per year (in kWh/sf-
yr). Energy (in MMBtu) from sources other than electricity ~s converted to kWh and divided by
building square feet (Table 8). The median value for comm~cial office buildings in the Seattle area in
2007 was 15 kWh/sf-yr.8 I
,
The Jefferson County Castle Hill office building that house~ the Department of Public Works used
16.9 kWh/sf in 2007, which is close to the median ..value. T e historic Courthouse showed particularly
good energy efficiency with a value of 12.0 kWh/sf-yr (Ta Ie 8). This compares favorably with a
study of Seattle's South Downtown Historic Distrkt (158 b~ildingS' 79% of which are 90 or more
years of age), with the office buildings in the historic distri exhibiting an average energy intensity of
15.6 kWh/sf-yr.8 The surprisingly low energy intensity oft ,e historic buildings was ascribed to:
Low occupancy rates for some buildings I
High thermal mass of older masonry buildings r!qUireS less heating
Large window areas minimize need forelectrica lighting in daylight
Greater tolerance by occupants for variations in emperature and lighting.
I
The higher energy intensity of 19.0 for the Port Townsend qommunity Center reflects its greater use,
particularly in the evenings. The Corrections Center has an ~ven higher energy intensity of 41.8 due to
its 24-hour operation. The financial cost of $3.30/sf for the Corrections Center (compared to $0.80/sf
for the Courthouse) would actually be even higher'ifthe Corrections Center didn't get a discount from
PSE for its high electricity usage. According to the U.S. Entgy Information Agency, the typical
distribution of energy loads includes 43% for heating and c oling, 29% for lighting, and 8% for plug
loads.8 Lighting may account for a larger portion of the ene gy load for the Corrections Center. ,
I
8 Jayson Antonoff, Energy Planning/or a Sustainable Neighbor~ood, M.S Thesis, Aalborg University, 2007.
Median value for site energy use intensity in the Seattle region ddtermined by EnergyStar Target Finder, using
the model for a typical 10,000 sf general office building with 1001 occupants;
http.l/www.energystar.govlindex.cfin?fuseaction=targeUinder; (Iewed April 29. 2007).
I
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory 14 I
I
The City Hall Annex, built to Silver LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design)
standard, exhibited the lowest energy intensity for an office building with 11.0 kWh/sf-yr. It uses 73%
( or less) of the energy of a standard office building. The actual intensity could be even lower as the
calculation assumed the Annex uses 46% of the total propane (based on square footage) which could
be an overestimate. In contrast, the largest energy intensity is found for the community swimming pool
with a ] 4-fold higher value of 150.5 kWh/sf-yr. Larger energy intensities are an indicator oflower
energy efficiencies and higher C02e emissions per building square foot. However, energy efficiency
considerations also include type of usage and number of individuals served.
Table 8. Energy Intensity of Buildings
Building
Square Fee'-
Jefferson Count
CourthouseC -2005
PT Comm.Ctr. - 2005
Castle Hill-PW" -2007
Corrections, Jail -2005
Ci of Port Townsend
Cit Hall Annex. ...;. 2006/7
Mountain View Pool
39,953
17,708
8,000
14,856
13,651
6.485
aBuilding square foot data obtained from Renee Tally (Jefferson County) and Tom Miller (City of Port
Townsend). bEnergy usage in kWh from (energy in MMBtu x 292 kWh per MMBtu). cCourthouse and
annex area for routine custodial maintenance is 39,953 sq. ft. This does not include the unheated attic,
but does include 6,726 sq. ft. of hallways and stairways, dPublic Works Department moved into Castle
Hill Complex in January, 2007. Energy usage calculated from $12,100 expenditure for electricity in
2007 divided by PSE charge of $0.0893 per kWh in 2007. .City Hall Annex 01,795 sq. ft.) and Public
Works portion of Historic City Hall 0,856 sq. ft.) were first occupied in January, 2006. Energy usage
for these two entities includes electricity (they are on the same meter) and 46% of the propane used in
2007 for heating the 25,488 sq. ft. total area of the two buildings (on the same tank).
Transportation Sector Emissions. Countv Government
A voluntary Employee Commute survey with 29% responding showed that County staff (pro-rated to
100%) commuted an average of 14 miles round trip in 2005, resulting in a total of 1,226,000 miles
traveled (page W32) and the emission of 700 tons ofC02e (Table 7). The vehicle types were: 58%
cars; 28% light trucks, vans, or SUV's; 2% high-mileage compacts or hybrids; 2% motorcycles; and
3% bicycles. Other types of transportation were: 5% carpooling; 5% walking; and 2% transit.
Employee commute accounts for 19% of the GHG emissions associated with Jefferson County
government operation (Figure 2) and about 2.0 tons ofC02e per County employee per year, which is
similar to the value of].9 tons ofC02e per City employee per year.
The Vehicle Fleet includes cars used by all of the departments (Sheriff patrol, Assessor, motor pool,
etc.) as well as the equipment associated with road building and maintenance. These vehicles
accounted for 32% ofthe County government C02e emissions in 2005 (Table 7), with over halfbeing
due to heavy equipment for road building and maintenance. Vehicles used by the fire districts were not
included in this inventory. Shops for repair and maintenance of vehicles are actually an additional cost
associated with transportation. The Buildings category includes 240 tons of C02e and $40,416 for
these County shops (Table 7). Adding these items to the Vehicle Fleet and Employee Commute
contributions leads to the conclusion that transportation represents 57% of C02 emissions for
Jefferson County operations.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
15
i
I
Solid Waste Sector Emissions, Countv Government !
I
In the year 2005, the total waste generation by County oper~tions was 294 tons, where the major
contributors were the Corrections Center, office buildings, 4nd parks (page W33). Solid waste
generates 35 tons of C02e emissions which amounts to <1 % of the County total (Table 7). However, it
represents 7% of the County's total financial expenditures tPr energy.
Water Supplv Sector Emissions - Countv Government
I
I
The ICLEI program includes the water and wastewater tre~ment facilities of municipal governments.
In the case of Jefferson County, a sewer system is not yet i place and septic system costs are borne by
individual residents and businesses. Water supplies for the ntire community are provided by either
I
private wells or the Jefferson Public Utility District #1. Alt~ough the water PUD is not part ofthe
Jefferson County government operation, it is a public entityl with significant energy costs for pumping
operations. The 364 tons of C02e emissions (fromelectricit~, only) associated with the PUD in 2005,
represents 10% of the total for County municipal operation~ (Figure 2). While these emissions are
included in the total GHG emissions for the County (Table V), the $52,735 financial expenditure was
not included as it is not part of the County government bud et.
2. Port Townsend - City Government Emissions
In the base year of2005, the City of Port Townsend's muni ipal operations generated 2,142 tons of
C02e. Stationary emissions from potable water delivery an wastewater treatment made up 38% of
C02e emissions in the City's operations (Table 9 and Figur~ 3). This is clearly a large portion because
it represents a community-scale activity. Buildings were thd next largest contributor with 31 % of the
Co,e. The 302 tons of CO,e generated by the swimming ptl at Mountain View School accounted for
Table 8. Port Townsend City Operations - Summary for ~005
310 5799 $107907
302 ! 14% 3,343 $51,885
100 5% 793 $17,730
92 4% 595 $14,105
66 3% 424 $9,182
44 2% 281 $6,545
33 I 2% 213 $4,589
23 1% 151 $3,872
147 70/4 949 $22 90
330 150 3856 $69,314
110 5% 1,286 $22,897
51 2% 593 $11,268
18 1% 216 $3,785
29 1% 338 $6,049
23 1% 266 $4,658
203 9% 2282
802 380 5177 $108,513
723 34% 4,656 $96,525
78 4% 509 $11,578
2142 1000 $308 124
Source: CACP Model utput
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory 16
about half ofthe GHG emissions from the Buildings sector. Streetlights contributed another 7%,
bringing the stationary source category to 76%. The remaining 24% was due to transportation: 15% for
vehicle fleet and 9% for employee commute.
Stationarv Ener1!V Sector Emissions. Citv Government
Stationary emissions were calculated from energy use by all buildings owned and operated by the City
of Port Townsend, as well as energy used by the City streetlights. Buildings include City Hall offices,
Library, Shops, Police offices and Parks facilities, as well as the swimming pool which the City
maintains at the Mountain View School. According to the CACP output, the vast majority of the C02
emissions from these facilities came from electricity (84%), with lesser amounts from fuel oil (15%)
and propane (1 %). The newly completed City Hall Annex used 27% less energy per square foot than a
standard office building (Table 9), with a comparable savings in C02e emissions.
Transportation Sector Emissions. Citv Government
A voluntary survey with 59% responding showed that City staff (pro-rated to 100%) commuted an
average of 13 miles round trip in 2005, resulting in a total of 341 ,000 miles traveled (page W 42) and
the emission of 203 tons of C02e (Table 9). The vehicle types were: 45% cars; 42% light trucks, vans,
or SUV's; 5% high-mileage compacts or hybrids; and 3% bicycles. Seven % of respondents
participated in carpooling and 5% in walking but non reported transit use. Employee commute
accounts for 9% of the C02e emissions associated with Port Townsend city government operation
(Figure 3) and about 1.9 tons ofC~e per City employee per year, which is similar to the value of2.0
tons of C02e per County employee per year.
The vehicle fleet includes cars used by all of the departments (police patrol, water distribution, parks,
biosolids, etc,) as well as the equipment associated with road building and maintenance. These vehicles
accounted for 15% of the City government C02e emissions in 2005 (Table 8), with 1/3 being due to
police patrol and 1/5 due to heavy equipment for road building and maintenance.
Figure 3. Port Townsend City Operations - CO]l! Emissions in 1005
Employee Commute
9%
Streetlights
7%
Vehicles
15%
Water/Sewage
38%
Buildings
31%
Source: CACP Model output
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
17
Water and Sewaf!e-Treatment Sector Emissions. 'citv Govfrnment
Water and wastewater treatment was the largest sector in P~rt Townsend city government operations in
2005, generating 38% of GHG emissions (Table 9). Although these emissions are attributed to
government operations, they are due to water utili:.tation an4 wastewater production by all those who
use these city services. I
Wastewater treatment accounted for 90% of the GHG emisJions from this sector. TheseC02e
emissions are from energy use for buildings and stationery ~quipment such as pumps and pump
stations (page W43). All ofthe large pumps have variable :trequency drives to make them more
energy:'efficient. The City Wastewater Treatment facility ufes an aerobic digestion process that does
not generate methane. The C02 that is produced during waste fermentation is considered biogenic.
The City Water Treatment Plant uses a hydro-pneumatic ta! on its main pump that saves energy by
causing the pump to cycle less frequently. The water suppl system is still functioning as it was
designed in 1910. Water from the Big Quilcene River gets t Port Townsend by gravity feed, without a
single pump. Upon arrival at PTPC, the pressure is still gre t enough to drive a hydro-turbine for
generating electricity. PTPC maintains a caretaker's cottag~ at the Big Quilcene River source. The City
maintains a caretaker's cottage at the Water Treatment Plant (page W43).
The City Vehicle Fleet includes 8 vehicles for wate. r distri~tion an. d 2 vehicles for wa.ter quality
testing, as well as 5 vehicles for wastewater treatment (pag W39). These vehicles accounted for
another 80 tons ofC02e emissions in 2005 (according to th CACP software), increasing the actual
impact of water and wastewater treatment to 41 % of the G G einissions for City government
operations, though this is not shown in Figure 3 above.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
18
C. Appendix: Data for Base Year 2005
Table AI. Washington Climate Advisory Team Inventorya
(Million Metric Tons C02e) 1990 2000 2005 2010 2020
Electricity, Net Consumption.based
Coal
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Biomass and Waste (CH4 and N20)
Residential/Commercial/Industrial (RCI)
Coal
Natural Gas
Oil
Wood (CH4 and N20)
Transportation
Onroad Gasoline
Onroad Diesel
Marine Vessels
Jet Fuel and Aviation Gasoline
Rail
Natural Gas, LPG, other
Fossil Fuel Industry
Natural Gas Industry (CH4)
Coal Mining (CH4)
Industrial Processes
Cement Manufacture (C02)
Aluminum Production (C02, PFC)
Limestone and Dolomite Use (C02)
Soda Ash (CO2)
Ozone Depleting Substitutes (HFC, PFC, and SF6)
Semiconductor Manufacturing (HFC, PFC, and SF6)
Electric Power Transmission & Distribution (SF6)
Waste Management
Solid Waste Management
Wastewater Management
Agriculture
Enteric Fermentation
Manure Management
A ricultural Soils
16.9
16.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
18.6
0.6
8.6
9.1
0.2
37.5
20.4
4.1
2.6
9.1
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.0
7.0
0.2
5.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
1.5
1.0
0.5
6.4
2.0
0.7
3.7
23.3
17.4
5.3
0.6
0.0
20.3
0.3
11.4
8.4
0.2
45.9
24.5
7.6
2.9
10.0
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.0
6.6
0.5
3.9
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.1
0.4
2.2
1.5
0.6
6.4
1.8
0.9
3.8
18.9
15.2
3.6
0.0
0.0
19.4
0.2
10.3
8.5
0.3
44.5
24.8
7.5
3.0
7.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.0
3.3
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.1
2.1
0.0
0.3
2.4
1.8
0.7
5.4
1.6
0.9
2.8
20.2
15.9
4.2
0.1
0.0
21.3
0.3
11.0
9.7
0.4
48.5
26.2
8.8
3.3
8.1
0.8
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.0
4.2
0.5
0.4
0.0
0.1
3.0
0.0
0.2
2.8
2.0
0.8
5.1
1.5
1.0
2.6
24.9
18.4
6.3
0.2
0.0
24.3
0.3
12.7
11.0
0.4
56.9
29.1
12.0
4.1
8.5
0.8
2.5
1.1
1.0
0.0
6.2
0.5
0.3
0.0
0.1
5.1
0.0
0.1
3.6
2.7
0.9
4.8
1.3
1.2
2.2
Increase relative to 1990
Forestry and Land Use
Agricultural Soils
-28.6
-1.4
19%
-28.6
-1.4
7%
-28.6
-1.4
17%
-28.6
-1.4
38%
-28.6
-1.4
"This table, "Table I.Washington Historical and Reference Case GHG Emissions," was obtained from the
Center for Climate Strategies, Washington Departments of Ecology and CTED.
www.ecy.wa.gov/cIimatechange/docs/W A GHGInventoryReferenceCaseProiections I990-2020.pdf
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
19
TableA2. CACP Report for Community Em~ssions
Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2005
Detailed Report, June 10, 2008
Equi V CO2
(tbns)
Equi V CO2
(% )
Energy
(MMBtu)
Residential
Electricity - East Jefferson County
Electricity - South Jefferson County
Electricity - West Jefferson County
Other Fuels - All Jefferson County
Light Fuel Oil
Propane
Fuelwood (Air Dry)
Subtotal Residential
96,945
3,102
4,169
18.2
0.6
0.8
624,191
19,974
26,840
7,846
7,788
1,755
121,605
1.5
1.5
0.3
22.8
94,917
107,602
200,492
1,074,017
Commercial
Electricity - East Jefferson County
Propane - East Jefferson County
Electricity - South Jefferson County
Propane - South Jefferson County
Electricity - West Jefferson County
Propane - West Jefferson County
Subtotal Commercial
42,751
5,447
310
40
417
53
49,017
8.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
9.2
275,258
75,251
1,997
546
2,684
734
356,470
Industrial
East Jefferson (Non~PTPC)
Electricity
Propane
Port Townsend Paper
Light Fuel Oil
Propane
E~ectricity*
Fue~ Wood (dry)
Subtota~ Industria~
900 0.2 5,795
115 0.0 1,584
Corp.
139,275 26.1 1,596,913
979 0.2 13,529
(Tab~e A3) 6,889* 483,276*
(Tab~e A4) 6,353* 6,243,446*
154,511* 8,344,543*
This report has been generated for Port Townsend & ISurrounding Community, Washington
using STAPPA/ALAPCO and ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection Software developed
by Torrie Smith Associates Inc.
*Items have been added to the CACP output :from the Tab~es A3 and A4.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
20
Table A3. CO2 Emissions from Electricity for PTPC
Power Purchased from BP A
144,100,000
0.114a
8,214
wer sold to PSE
2,500,000
1.06b
-1,325
Net
6,889
483,276
aBonneville Power Administration emissions factor obtained from Ottie Nabors, Energy Efficiency Specialist, 503-
230-4002, ofnabors@bpa.Qov. bPuget Sound Energy emissions factor for Western Electricity Coordinating Council
obtained from CACP software settings.
Table A4. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Wood for PTPC
360,281
12.2
4,395,428
0.0055
0.0044
3.252
Net 472,418
6,243,446
6,353
aData obtained from Kristin Marshall. Environmental Manager, Port Townsend Paper Corportation, 360-379-2082,
kristinm2@ptpc.com. bEquivalents of C02 calculated from tons CH4 times (21 tons CO~ per ton of CH4) and
from tons N20 times (310 tons CO~ per ton of N20).
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory 21
GloSSQ11!..
Base Year: The year against which future changes in emis~ ons levels are measured.
Biogenic: Process in which the amount of CO2 released is qo greater than the amount of CO2
sequestered. I
BP A: Bonneville Power Administration. !
CACP: Clean Air and Climate Protection softwar~ progranr used by ICLEI. Software User's Guide
available at www.cacpsoftware.org. !
Community: All sectors within Jefferson County.
C02e (Carbon Dioxide Equivalent): This is a common unit for combining emissions of
greenhouse gases with different levels of impact on climate change. It is a measure of the impact
at each gas has on climate change and is expressed in terms of the potency of carbon dioxide.
For carbon dioxide itself, emissions in tons of C02 and tons of eC02 are the same, whereas for
nitrous oxide and methane, stronger greenhouse gases, one on of emissions is equal to 310 tons
and 21 tons of eC02fespectively.
Emission Factors: A set of coefficients used to convert dat~ provided on energy use and energy
use reductions to emissions. These emission factors are the tatio of emissions of a particular
pollutant (e.g., carbon dioxide) to the quantity oftIle fuel u~d (e.g., kilograms of coal). For
example, when burned, 1 ton of coal = 2.071 tons of C02. When burned, 1 gallon of gasoline = 0.01
tons of CO2 = 21.4 pounds of CO2. t
Greenhouse Gases: Gases that are transparent to solar (sh -wave) radiation but opaque to
long-wave (infrared) radiation, thus preventing long-wave r diant energy from leaving the Earth's
atmosphere. The net effect is a trapping of absorbed radiati . n and a tendency to warm the planet's
surface. The CACP Software tracks the three most commoq human produced greenhouse gases: carbon
dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). !
ICLEI: Organization known as Local Governments for Su~tainability (www.iclei-usa.org).
kWh: KiloWatt-hour I
, I
MMBtu: Million Btu (British Thermal Unit). 1 MMBtu = ~92 kWh.
PSE: Puget Sound Energy. ~I
PTPC: Port Townsend Paper Corporation.
Sectors: For the Community or Government catego. ry, the d, ta is organized based on the type of
activity or emissions source. The sectors in each category a .e:
Community: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Transport~tion, Waste
Government: Buildings, Vehicle Fleet, Employee Commut~, Streetlights, Water/Sewage, Waste
Sequestration: Process that removes C02 from the atmosp~ere and maintains it as a form of fixed
~oo. ~
Source: Source of energy such as electricity, fuel oil, or ga oline.
Subsector: A classification that can be used to group recor s within a sector. For example, the
Buildings sector could be subdivided into department subse~tors.
Tons: Short tons defined as 1 ton = 2,000 pounds. Tons areldifferent from tonnes (metric tons) which
are defined as 1 tonne = 2,200 pounds. !
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A standard measure of vepicular traffic in a community. VMT is
equivalent to a single vehicle traveling one mile (regardless of the number of passengers).
WECC: Western Electricity Coordinating Council.
Jefferson County Emissions Inventory
22
Backcasting and Forecasting of GHG Emissions and
Proposed Targets for Reductions in Jefferson County
By the Climate Action Committee
Draft, 12/1 1/08
The Joint Resolution passed by the City and County on 7/11/07 states that "Jefferson County and the
City of Port Townsend commit to collaborate on a program to reduce GHG emissions,....
-makingforecasts of future emissions if current practices do not change,
-having a citizens committee provide recommendations for achieving a community-wide
standard of cutting GHG emissions to levels 80% lower than 1990 levels by 2050, with
preliminary reduction targets to be set for earlier years,.... "
The Climate Action Committee chose 2005 as the baseline date for estimating emissions in Jefferson
County since we determined that was the year for which we could obtain the most reliable data. We
completed a 2005 baseline Inventory of Emissions on July 30,2008. We then selected the years 2012
and 2020 as dates for showing emissions from "business as usual" and for interim emission level
targets because we thought that would allow the community adequate time to implement some
measures to reduce emissions as we work towards our long-term goal for 2050. The Clean Air Climate
Protection Software provided by membership in ICLEI allows for computer-calculated backcasting and
forecasting for the Community Sector using census and estimated population growth data.
Population Data
We used several sources of data for our past and future population projections:
1. The 1990 Census population for Jefferson County was 20,406, and for 2000 was 26,299.
2.A Cascadia Community Planning Services study projection adopted by County resolution 55-03
estimated a 1.44% Compound Annual Growth Rate from 1996-2004 and a 1.78% projected growth rate
from 2004 through 2024.
3. Office of Financial Management (OFM) population projections: From 2024-2030, we used the OFM
medium level Growth Management population estimates. From 2030 - 2050, we used the average
percentage growth rate of the medium level GM population estimates from OFM. (See Appendix #1)
Our current growth rate has not been quite as high as was the county government adopted growth
projection. We thus may be overestimating the future population growth and the level of future
emissions for the business as usual projections. These results however have no effect on our
intermediate emissions targets or our long term goal, since these are based on 1990 backcast
information and 2005 baseline data.
Our green house gas emissions are a product of our energy consumption and our population. The
Climate Action Committee will focus on measures we might take to reduce our consumption of energy
as a community and as individuals. We realize however that planet earth has a maximum carrying
capacity and that eventually we will need to limit the population on the planet, regardless of the level of
consumption per capita we might attain.
Industry Emissions
Emissions from industry were not adjusted for population since there is only one major industry in the
community (the Port Townsend Paper Corporation) and its emissions were considered to be
independent of population changes. We estimated a 32% decline in PTPC emissions from 1990 to 2005
due to efficiencies, use of more recycled material rather than pulp, and closure of the bag plant. We
forecast no change in emissions from 2005 to 2050. Although there may be an ongoing J % per yeaeXHIBIT
Ii l3
I
(GMA). The GM estimates are given in three different levelJ, corresponding to a high, medium and
low estimate of growth rate. The CAC selected the medium Ifvel growth rate of our future population
estimates from 2024 to 2030 and then the same projected gro~th rates between 2030 and 2050.
OFM Projections 1990 2005
OFM GM Low none none
OFM GM Medium none none
OFM GM HiKh none none
2012
28.167
32,158
35,553 .
2020
31,( 82
37447
43,l14
2024
33,252
40,148
46959
2030
34,940
43,858
52,778
2050
none
none
none
These projections assumed a constant annual growth rate bet,jveen 2000 and 2024 of ] .78%. This
would produce a 2005 population of28,724, Thereafter the trend in the medium GM population data is
used to project the 2024 population to 2030. OFM does not give GM population estimates beyond
2030. Between 2020 and 2030, OFM estimated a regular O.O~% decrease per year in the average
growth rates for the GM medium level population estimates. ! From 2030 to 2050 we used this same
decreasing 0.02% trend in the per cent increase to obtain the trojected 2050 population,
Appendix #2
Industrial Emissions I
Emissions from industry were not adjusted for population sin~e there is only one major industry in the
community (the Port Townsend Paper Corporation) and its e~issions were considered to be
independent of population changes. Estimates for backcastin$ and forecasting were made using a
variety of data and assumptions.
The CAC has no data from before 2005 on the GHG emissio 1S from the Port Townsend Paper
Corporation (PTPC), which accounts for over 99% oflocal iT dustrial emissions and 29% of all
emissions in 2005. For the period from] 990 to 2000, the Am,erican Forest & Paper Association
estimates that the national average emissions per ton of papetl produced were reduced by 28% through
more efficient processes and fuels, or about 3.2% per year. TJiIe Association further estimates that
emissions are currently decreasing by 1 % per year since 200Q. (data supplied by Kristin Marshall at
PTPC, who believes that reductions currently are about 1.5%!per year)
Supplimentary evidence for the above assumption that PTP'c emissions parallel those of the
industries's national data are: !
There have been many changes at PTPC since 1990, accordi~g to a former long-term manager at PTPC
(Bruce McComas, former VP and General Manager for Pulp ~nd Paper). "My guess would be that
between ] 990 and ] 997 emissions went up 5 - 10% due to production increases. Between 1997 and
200] I would estimate that emissions went down 25to 30 % ~ue to the start up ofthe OCC recycle
plant and using more recycled fiber and less virgin fiber. In ~001 the Bag Plant was shut down and the
. mill started running more contain erboard and less b3... g paper~ThiS all owed the plant to use even more
OCC and less virgin (chip) fiber. So between 2001 and 2005 I would guess the emissions would have
dropped another 10- 15%. Then between 2005 and2008 the energy efficiency and environmental
initiatives would have dropped the emissions another 5 - 100 . In summary, between 1990 and 2005 I
would guess the emissions dropped between 30 and 35%..." me warns that these estimates are
unconfirmed.
(Data calculated by Stanley Willard, CAC Member)
i
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Jefferson County
Base year, Backcasts, Forecasts and Reduction Targets
I Ii: I Iii i I
!! ! I! !! i i
! I i'i. i ! I I }>
!! i i i ! i j !
nnn Iii . 'I i!! I
-notal ~f Sta,~iOnary & transbort~tion tmissions tlf Nd Chahges)V
I
i
i
I "'7 E:n
0
0
0
w-t
X
cu
N
0
U
V)
s::
~ lE:nn
s::
V)
s::
0
V)
V)
E
LU
''lE:n
--
j i
i ,
j i
i
,
i I
i
! !
i !
i
Y ,
: i
i
i i
i i
I !
i
,
! i
i
I !
~
i
,
i
~
Y'
,
i
,
i I; ,/1
I "/I:!
Iii i
j i
YI
/1 I
I !
i
/
!/
'A
i
i
..i ~ J-9:f I
~_: 11 I
,~ -r\..-. I I.
r I --",
! ~ Ii,
, ii,!
! i~" i I
i I \,.,., i ~ i ./1,
f I !.... ~ I Y" '
: -L ! .v~ : Y I
..!.. ;~ ! ~ I I i
'1" !./ ,.." i!
V I '~~rl~J(-tihn T ,.UIH.'I'
~l- 1 i '~I - i
I "L r,
, I'''r: '
i i~,!
i i, \, :
1 i
I
I
!
i
:
i
!
i
I
I
!
,
1
I
,
i
,
!
i '
i
I
!
i
I
i
I
I ~'
~ \
~V>
!
!
I
I
":"9
i
i
,
:
!
,
~
~
y-
i
1
~ Y"""
1
......~
..,..
!
! ! ' ;
! !
- , I ! ,
, ;
i ! I
i
; i i
j i I ; i
i i
j ! ! Yo
i
i ! I 20 25 I ;
i j
! j j
,
Year
....
i
I
I
I
I
i
1
I
I
I
j
2000
-+-
2050
,
1
j
x= Total Stationary emissions (If No Changes)
D =Subsector Industrial emissions (If No Changes)
o -Transportation emissions (If No Changes)
Draft 12/10/08 (Emissions in tons of C02 equivalents)
'<<
Jefferson County/City of Port Townsend
Climate Action Committee
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Climate Action Committee
Chair Kees Kolff, Karen Barrows and Judy Surber
January 8, 2009
Climate Action Committee Work Plan -
This memo describes the proposed scope of work to be completed by the Climate Action
Committee (CAC). Several documents were reviewed to assist in preparation ofthis
work plan and the following provided the most relevant guidance:
. ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Milestone Guide
. Sample "action plans" and our 2005 inventory
. The State Climate Action Team (CAT) Memorandum proposing the scope
of work for the CAT 2008
. US Mayor's Climate Protection Handbook (will be key for committee
work)
Purpose of the Climate Action Committee
The CAC is tasked with developing a Local Climate Action Plan. Specifically, the
committee is to provide recommendations for achieving a community-wide goal of
cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent lower than 1990 levels by 2050, with
preliminary reduction targets to be set for earlier years. Further, the CAC shall
recommend implementing policies and measures to meet the emission reduction targets,
and to monitor and verify results (Resolutions 44-07,07-022).
Contents of the Final Product:
The draft Climate Action Plan to be approved by the City Council (CC) and the Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) shall include at a minimum
2.3.1 Preliminary reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions for years prior to
2050.
2.3.2 A set of strategies and relative priorities
2.3.3 Climate Action Plan implementation steps
2.3.4 A monitoring plan including quantifiable benchmarks
2.3.5 Recommended amendments to the county and city codes and comprehensive
plans in accordance with the Climate Action Plan strategies
- 1 -
I
I
i
Relationship of the CAC to other Committees 1
State Climate Action Team (CAT) - The CAC will ~onitor the progress of the CAT and
coordinate local efforts.
I
Alternative Electric Management Committee (AEM) 1- The City Council created the
AEM to advise the city on energy management issue$ including:
Energy Management I
Energy Conservation I
Energy Independence for Municipal F~cilities
Encouraging the use of renewable enetgy
The primary task of the AEM is to explore issues coqcerning alternate energy
management; specifically the committee is to provid<:t a recommendation on whether the
City should take further steps to form an electric utili~y. The CAC and AEM overlap on
the issues of energy conservation, independence and tenewable energy. Efforts will need
to be coordinated to avoid duplication. I
I
Planning Commission - Once the Action Plan is adowted by the BoCC and CC, proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan/development regulations would be addressed by
the County and City Planning Commissions. .
Items Not Included in the CAC Workplan I
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Develobment regulations - The CAC will
not process any proposed amendments to Comp Plan~ or Development regulations
subsequent to Action Plan adoption by the BOCC/Cq. This will be handled by the
appropriate Planning Commissions. I
Adaptation strategies - The CAC is only tasked Withfrafting a plan to reduce emissions.
Several model plans also include adaptation strategie and this is something the CAC
may wish to consider in the preliminary recommend ions.
Phase I - Development of Draft Climate A~tion Plan - Preliminary
Recommendations for BOCC/CC (First 18 mps.)
Task 1: Approve Inventory of 2005 Emissions
Task 2: Public Involvement I
I
Ongoing throughout the process - website and city n~wsletter, CAC meetings open to
public, capacity building (CAC members present to s~ice clubs, Homebuilders,
Chamber, etc.). Develop a supporting constituency by having each member of the CAC
keep their contacts informed of our work and our pro~ess. -
I
Task 3: Set Interim Targets I
The CACwill backcast emissions to 1990, forecast emissions for business as usual to
2050, set the emissions reduction goal for 20. 50, and ~et interim targets for reduction. The
CAC will use projected population growth data for b~ckcasting and forecasting.
-2 -
Task 4. Identify Strategies and Measures to Reduce Emissions
The CAC will assess existing measures and develop draft measures to reduce carbon
emissions in the following sectors:
A. Energy/Stationary Source Emissions
B. Transportation Emissions
C. Land Use
D. Water, Sewer, Solid Waste Emissions
F or each sector, measures will be grouped by category as appropriate: ,
Community-wide emissions
Jefferson County Government
Port Townsend City Government
Any officially designated work group meetings will be conducted in accordance with the
Open Public Meetings Act. Work group members may invite individuals to participate in
the group discussions thereby allowing the group to draw upon the expertise within the
community.
The CAC will proceed through the following steps:
Step1: Develop List of Potential Measures (Worksheet #1)
CAC will develop an initial list based upon review of ICLEI Milestone guide, State
CAT report, models from other jurisdictions. The CAC will brainstorm a list of
additional measures (e.g., Provide energy services to businesses; increase use of
alternative transit).
Step 2: Identify Existing Measures (Worksheet #2)
Through research and interviews, identify existing measures and estimate emissions
savings for some of the most significant measures that can be easily quantified. The
committee will also consider state-wide efforts, for example ESSHB 2815.
Step 3: Series of Open Houses - Three open houses will be held in various locations
throughout the County. Each open house offer a short presentation by a CAC committee
member providing an overview of the CAe's task, the proposed work plan, what has
been accomplished, and the draft list of measures to be considered. Following the
presentation, there will be opportunity for participants to ask questions and brainstorm
additional measures.
- 3 -
Step 4: Develop Additional Recommended Measur~s ,
What more can be done? During this step, the CAC kvill pare down the list to those that
seem the most promising. These will be fuhher refi~ed into implementation steps,
guided by the following hierarchical approa.. ch: t'
Conservation/Efficiency Meas res
V oluntary/Incentive based int rventions
I
Regulatory controls
I
The CAC will identify those measures on the Potenti~l Measures List that provide the
major opportunities for reducing emissions. Determilne basic feasibility and effectiveness
(Worksheet 3). ~
Step 5: Estimate GHG Emission Reductions of New Recommended Measures
The CAC will estimate emissions reductions for som of the most significant measures
,
for which reduction benefits can be easily quantified.1
Step 6: Solicit input on Recommended Measures fro~ CTEDIDOE/ICLEI
i
Step 7: Report to BoCC/CC - Prior to refining reco mended measures, the CAC will
report to the BoCC and Council at a joint wprkshop eeting to ask for input.
Step 8: Road Show - A series of at least three publi meetings will be held around the
County. Each event shan follow the same agenda inc uding an open house of
informational displays, a slideshow lecture, presentat~on of "preliminary
recommendations" and an audience participation acti~ity. Attendees will learn more
about the issue of Climate Change and provide input Iduring this development phase of
the draft Climate Action'Plan.
Step 9: Refine Measures and Implementation Steps/.~reliminary recommendations
(Worksheet #4). For each measure identify I
a. Description I
b. Any barriers to implementation and propos~ solutions to address them
c. Lead entity (e.g., Jefferson County Solid Vvj"aste Department, Jefferson
Transit, etc.) :
d. Timeframe I
d. Re~ources needed to continue developing td implementing these
actIons.
e. Cost - upfront and annual i
f. Funding sources (e.g., state, energy-saving tneasures may free up municipal
funds) i
,
I
,
Step 10: Fiscal Impact Analysis
The fiscal impact analysis will assess the estimated c sts and savings associated with
implementation and monitoring of the action plan. C sts may include staff time, outside
assistance, upfront capital expenditures. Cost savings are anticipated as a result of
reduced energy/fuel bills, but may also include reduc d staff time or materials.
-4-
Step 11: Develop a monitoring program
For each strategy (existing and proposed) identify quantifiable benchmarks and
monitoring procedure (How will we monitor, who will do it? At what cost?)
Establish an interdepartmental committee to ensure effective communication and
coordination.
Set monitoring schedule (e.g., annually) and produce progress reports (e.g., every 2-3
years)
Step 12: Solicit input on Draft Action Plan from CTED/DOE/ICLEI
Step 13: Draft proposed policy amendments
Step 14: Present Preliminary Draft Action Plan at joint BoCC/City Council
workshop.
Phase II - Climate Action Plan Adoption
Step 1: Conduct an agency/public review process for the draft Action Plan
Step 2: Road Show to Interest Groups (Interest groups may include but are not limited
to: Tribes, Chamber, Homebuilders Association Rotary, Port of Port Townsend,
Jefferson Transit, Port Townsend School District, Port Townsend Paper Company,
Jefferson Health Care, PUD No.1, etc.).
Step 3: A SEP A environmental review will be conducted with cumulative impacts
analysis.
Step 4: Distribute to CTED GMA services for a sixty day agency comment period
Step 5: A final draft action plan will be presented for adoption at a Public Hearing before
the BoCC and separately, before the City Council.
Deliverables:
1. SEP A Threshold Determination including cumulative impacts analysis
3. Minutes of public meetings and hearings
4. Final draft action plan
- 5 -
,
i
I
PHASE III - Climate Action Plan Implem~ntation
Task 1: Process Amendments to Comprehensive PI~n/Development Regulations -
Regulatory amendments requiring amendments to the Comprehensive Plan /Development
Regulations are subject to the approval process codi~ed in **UDC, Chapter 20 PTMC.
The process includes public hearings and recommen~ations by the County/City Planning
Commissions. !
I
Implementation of Government ConservationlEffici~ncy Measures and Voluntary
Measures may be implemented as resources allow. !
i
Task 2: Implement Public Outreach & Education Pr~grams identified in the Action Plan.
Task 3: Invite local agencies and major employers tt endorse the plan.
PHASE IV - Climate Change Preparation}Adaptation Plan
This phase involves an examination of the possible itppacts of future climate changes
(e.g., increased risk of drought, flooding, forest fires,! disease, and other impacts) and
developing strategies to overcome these impacts. !
Key resources: Preparing for Climate Change - A G~idebook for Local, Regional, and
State Governments. i
!
Timing: This phase could run concurrently with PhJse II, given adequate staff and
funding.
- i6-
PHASE I - PROCESS & TIMELINE -
Month Action Notes Resources
(Task- Step) Required
Start May First CAC Meeting Starts clock -
6 months to work plan
18 months to Preliminary
Recommendations
1 June Tacoma Green Ribbon Task
Force Presents to CAC
2 July . CAC Adopts 2005 Send adopted inventory to
Inventory BoCC/Council
. Draft 1 of work plan
. Draft 2 of work plan
3 August . Draft 3 of work plan
. Develop List of Potential
Measures (4-1)
4 Sept . Draft 4 of work plan Staff notices Public Forum Notice: $150.00
. Adopt Backcast & forecast
(3)
. Develop List of Potential
Measures( 4-1 )
5 Oct . CAC finalizes work plan
. Identify Existing Measures
(4-2)
. Open House Series (4-3)
6 Nov CAC meeting
. Identify Existing Measures
(4-2)
7 Dee . CAC Meeting - Identify
Existing Measures (4-2)
8 Jan . 1-12-09 - Joint BoCC/CC
2009 Meeting to approve
inventory, castings, and
work plan.
Develop Recommend Additional
Measures (4-4)
9 Feb Develop Recommend Additional
Measures (4-4)
10 March Quantify Reductions of New
Recommended Measures (4-5)
11 April . Solicit input on Staff issue Press Release Notice: $300.00
Recommended Measures and Schedule Road Shows
from CTEDIDOE/ICLEI Copying (50 pgs x
(4-6) 30) $225.00
. Report to BoCC/CC (4-7)
- 7 -
12 May . Road Show (minimum of3) Recruit consultant for Display ad, meeting
(4-8) Fiscal Impact Analysis materials, room
.' . Refine Measures and rental, refreshments
Implementation (x3) $600
Steps/Preliminary
recommendations (4-9)
13 June Refine Measures and Consultant begins work as
Implementation Steps/Preliminary soon as Preliminary
recommendations (4-9) Recommendations are
drafted.
14 July . Fiscal Impact Anal~sis (4- ,Timing of Fiscal Impact Consultant fees
10) analysis intended to $10,000
. Develop a monitorililg precede 20] 0 municipal
program (4-11) budget process.
15 August Develop a monitoring program (4-
11)
16 Sept . Solicit input on Draft
Action Plan from
CTED/DOE/ICLEI (4-12)
. Draft proposed policy
amendments (4-13)
17 Oct Draft proposed policy amendments
(4-13) I
18 Nov Present Preliminary Draft Action Notice: $150.00
Plan at joint BoCC/City Council Copying: (75 pgs)
workshop. (4-12) $337.00
Binders (30@ $6.00)
$180.00
Total: $11,942
Plus Staff hours:
0.25 FTE each for
City/county staff
planner. (This
estimate assumes an
average 40
hours/month.
Additional hours may
be required for
months involving
public presentations)
,
-8 -