HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-ACITY OF * Memorandum
,AljBURN
WASHINGTON
TO: Planning & Community Development and Municipal Services Committees
FROM: Jennifer Shih, Environmental Planner
CC: Pete Lewis, Mayor
Kevin Snyder, Interim Director, Planning and Development Department
Chris Andersen, Environmental Protection Manager
DATE: April 15, 2010
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting - Work Session to discuss findings and recommendations of
draft greenhouse gas inventory report
The April 26, 2010 Joint Meeting of the Planning & Community Development and Municipal
Services Committees will be a work session to discuss the findings and recommendations of the
draft greenhouse gas inventory report. The meeting will include a presentation providing
background information, summarizing key findings, and highlighting recommendations of the draft
greenhouse gas inventory report. Following the presentation, City staff and Cascadia Consulting
Group, the project consultant, will be available to answer questions about the draft report. The draft
greenhouse gas inventory report is attached for your review.
Please call or e-mail if you have any questions about the packet materials.
Jennifer Shih, Environmental Planner
253-804-5092
jshih@auburnwa.gov
Draft Greenhouse
Gas Inventory
for the City of Auburn,
Washington
prepared by
N
CASCADIA
CONSULTING GROUP
.dnwT ---z
"The City Council of the City of
Auburn acknowledges its
support for actions of local,
regional, national, and global
level sustainability by nurturing
Auburn to be environmentally,
economically, and socially
vital....
Council Resolution 4368
April 2010 July 2008
MY OF IUBURN
WASHINGTON
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Acknowledgments
Mayor and City Council
Peter B. Lewis, Mayor
Sue Singer, Deputy Mayor
Nancy Backus, Councilmember
Virginia Haugen, Councilmember
Lynn Norman, Councilmember
John Partridge, Councilmember
Bill Peloza, Councilmember
Rich Wagner, Councilmember
City Departments
Finance
Human Resources/ Facilities/ Risk & Property Management
Information Services
Legal
Mayor's Office
Parks, Arts & Recreation
Planning & Development
Police
Public Works
Other Agencies
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability Puget Sound Regional Council
King County Metro Sound Transit
Puget Sound Energy Valley Regional Fire Authority
Cascad is
t
J611% URN
WASHTNVTQtr
Michelle Caulfield, Dominique Gomez, and Christy Shelton of Cascadia Consulting Group
compiled this report with the help of many staff members at the City of Auburn.
Cascadia gratefully acknowledges Mayor Lewis and the members of the Auburn City Council for
their support of this project.
1
Acknowledgments
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Table of Contents
t
IIrSUR.N
WANRTNUTotl
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................................3
Greenhouse Gas Inventory ....................................................................................................................4
Background and Key Objectives 4
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology
5
Step 1. Define the Scope and Set the Base Year
5
Step 2. Collect Data
9
Step 3. Analyze Data and Calculate Emissions
11
Key Findings
14
Municipal Inventory
14
Base Year (2008) Municipal Emissions
18
Community Inventory
29
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals
............35
Emissions Forecast
35
Background on Emissions Reduction Frameworks
37
Emissions Reductions Goals of Local Municipalities
39
Discussion of Auburn's Inventory and Forecast
41
Municipal Inventory and Forecast
41
Community Inventory and Forecast
41
Recommendations for Emissions Reduction Targets
42
Auburn's Existing Commitment: U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement
42
Choosing a Baseline Year
42
Community vs. Municipal Reduction Targets
43
Taking Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................44
Municipal Recommendations
45
Building Energy Consumption
45
Fleet
46
Water
50
Solid Waste
51
Street and Traffic Lights
52
Employee Commuting
53
Community Best Practices
54
Transportation
54
Building Energy Use
57
Solid Waste
59
Next Steps 61
Appendix A: Detailed Data Sources ......................................................................................................62
Table of Contents 2
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Executive Summary
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
In 2007, City of Auburn Mayor Peter Lewis signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement, formalizing Auburn's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In June
2009, the City of Auburn contracted with Cascadia Consulting Group to conduct the City's first
greenhouse gas inventory. The inventory was designed to help the City understand current
impacts, set targets, and measure progress in its municipal and community carbon footprints.
Cascadia conducted inventories for the City's municipal operations and the Auburn community
as a whole using ICLEI's Clean Air and Climate Protection software. In consultation with City
staff, Cascadia established 2008 as the baseline year for conducting measurements and setting
targets. This report summarizes inventory results, forecasts emissions for 2015 and 2030,
discusses emissions reduction targets, and provides recommendations for municipal actions and
options for community best practices.
The City of Auburn's municipal operations generated approximately 10,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents (mtC02e) in the base year 2008. The emissions inventory covered the
following sectors: building energy use, fleet fuel consumption, electricity used by water and
wastewater pump stations, solid waste, refrigerants, traffic and street lights, business travel,
and employee commuting. Emissions sources included electricity consumption, natural gas,
gasoline, and diesel. At the municipal level, building energy use generated the most emissions,
accounting for 34% of the City's total. Electricity consumption was the single largest source of
emissions, representing 56% of total municipal emissions.
In 2008, the Auburn community generated just over 840,000 mtC02e. The sectors for the
community inventory included transportation; solid waste; and residential, commercial, and
industrial energy use. Again, sources included electricity consumption, natural gas, gasoline, and
diesel. For the community inventory, transportation was the largest sector contributor,
accounting for more than 40% of total emissions for the year 2008. Electricity use was the single
largest source of emissions. Electricity use in residential, commercial, and industrial buildings
accounted for over 40% of emissions.
Cascadia also forecasted emissions for the years 2015 and 2030, based on current use and
growth rates. The forecast estimates emissions for a scenario in which no significant actions to
reduce emissions take place. Largely due to the high rate of population growth projected in the
City, community and municipal emissions are expected to increase approximately 10% by 2015
and approximately 40% by 2030, unless Auburn takes significant actions to reduce its emissions.
All actions that the City of Auburn takes to reduce emissions will improve this "worst-case
scenario" forecast of emissions.
As Auburn moves forward by setting emissions reduction goals, several existing frameworks can
offer guidance, including scientific frameworks (based on necessary emissions reductions to
stabilize global temperatures) and political action frameworks. The prevailing framework for the
past decade has been the Kyoto Protocol, which stipulates a reduction of emissions below
1990 levels by 2012. More recently, prominent frameworks - including Washington State's
reduction goals and the federal government's reduction standards (from a recent Executive
Order) - set longer-term goals based on more recent base years. We recommend using 2008 as
a baseline year from which to set reduction goals, given the detailed inventory data available for
2008 as well as the current state and federal trends toward using more recent base years.
Executive Summary
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~~U i►T
WASHTNUMN
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Background and Key Objectives
Conducting a baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is an important first step toward
understanding and taking steps to reduce emissions in the City of Auburn. Key objectives for this
project include:
• Producing an accurate and well-documented baseline inventory that can be reproduced
in future years.
• Obtaining a better understanding of the most significant greenhouse gas sources at the
municipal and community levels.
• Collecting the data necessary to inform climate action planning efforts, including
potential policy action by the Auburn City Council to set targets for reducing emissions.
• Making recommendations for reducing emissions from municipal operations.
• Identifying best practices that reduce community emissions.
This report presents the methodology and results for Auburn's municipal and community
greenhouse gas inventories for the baseline year of 2008. It also includes emissions forecasts for
2015 and 2030 and provides information on setting goals to reduce emissions. The discussion of
emissions reduction goals is followed by a look at what Auburn is already doing to reduce
emissions from municipal sources, recommendations for further action, and a section on
community best practices for climate action.
Background and Key Objectives 4
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
►IWASHTNVTQtr
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology
This section provides an overview of the methodology for Auburn's community and municipal
inventories. Planning for and conducting the inventories included these three primary steps:
1. Define the scope and set the base year.
2. Collect data.
3. Analyze data and calculate emissions.
The sections below explain each of these steps in more detail.
STEP 1. DEFINE THE SCOPE AND SET THE BASE YEAR
The first step in conducting a greenhouse gas inventory is to determine which activities to
include in the inventory and to draw boundaries. Using a standard methodology, including
consistent boundaries, allows for inventory results and benchmarking that can be compared
with other entities conducting similar inventories. In 1998, the World Resources Institute (WRI),
an environmental think tank, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD), a coalition of 200 international companies focused on sustainable development,
convened the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP), a nongovernmental organization dedicated to
addressing the need for standardized methods for GHG accounting. In 2001, the GHGP released
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. Now widely
used as the basis for greenhouse gas accounting, this protocol delineates emissions sources
using the three following scopes:
Scope 1 includes all direct sources of greenhouse gas emissions that originate from
equipment and facilities owned or operated by the entity. Scope 1 sources include fuels
burned through on-site combustion (such as natural gas consumption in buildings or
fleet diesel and gasoline consumption), on-site refrigerant losses, and electricity
produced on the site, if applicable.
Scope 2 includes all indirect greenhouse gas emissions from electricity, heat, or steam
imported from other entities.
Scope 3 includes all other indirect sources of greenhouse gas emissions that may result
from the activities of the institution but that occur from sources owned or controlled by
another company or entity, such as emissions from leased spaces, business travel and
employee commuting (when not conducted in an organization's own fleet); embodied
emissions in material goods purchased by the institution; emissions from solid waste
disposal; and emissions from vendor services such as shipping or catering.
The World Resources Institute developed Figure 1 below to illustrate this method for drawing
boundaries for inventories.' WRI and WBCSD suggest that entities separately account for and
measure emissions from Scopes 1 and 2 at a minimum.
1 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Version), World
Resources Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Figure 3. "Overview of
scopes and emissions across a value chain." Available online at http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-
protocol-revised.pdf
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
SCOPE 1
0IRECr
PURCHASED ELECTRICITY
FOR OWN LOSE
SCOPE 2
INDIRECT
SCOPE 3
IN DIM ~cT
EMPLOYEE BUSINESS TRAVEL
0WHE D
FUFL C{IMFLk15TION
Graphic courtesy of World Resources Institute
While most municipal and community inventories generally follow the three scopes outlined
above, more specific guidelines are needed for the special situations common to inventories of
communities and city government operations, which differ from GHG accounting for individual
businesses. The sections below describe these considerations in more detail.
Municipal Inventory
In consultation with City staff, Cascadia determined that the Local Government Operations
Protocol (LGOP) was the most appropriate guide for Auburn's municipal inventory. Although this
protocol generally adheres to the principals and methods outlined in The Greenhouse Gas
Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, the LGOP is specifically tailored for
local governments and offers guidance on how to draw system boundaries, what activities and
information to include in the greenhouse gas inventories, and how to translate collected data
into greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board, California Climate Action
Registry, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, and The Climate Registry developed the
LGOP and released it in September 2008. Using this protocol better enables Auburn to compare
its greenhouse gas inventory with other municipalities that have drawn similar boundaries by
following the LGOP, although no two inventories are exactly alike.'
The LGOP recommends that cities measure emissions using an "operational control approach"
in which emissions from buildings, equipment, and activities under their own operational
control are the basis of the emissions inventory. The LGOP states that this approach "most
2In particular, emissions inventories may look very different depending on what community service
operations a city is responsible for. These operations may include water conveyance, wastewater
treatment, public transit operation, solid waste collection, and landfilling. Of these services, Auburn is
responsible for only water conveyance.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 6
t
_ SUR.N
WA$F1TNWMT4F
Figure 1: Overview of Emissions Sources and Scopes
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
accurately represents the emissions sources that local governments can influence.i3 Based on
this approach, facilities and activities over which the City of Auburn has operational control
(including the authority to introduce operating policies) are included as Scope 1 or 2 emissions.
Other emissions sources are included as "optional" Scope 3 emissions.
Following the guidelines provided in the LGOP, emissions from activities at buildings owned and
operated by the City of Auburn are included as Scope 1 and 2 emissions. These buildings include
City Hall, police and parks facilities, and other buildings that are owned by the City and primarily
house City staff and are used for City functions. Similarly, emissions from municipal operations
such as water pumps, street and traffic lights, and vehicle fleet use are included as Scope 1 or 2.
While the City does own a municipal airport, the emissions from the airport are considered
Scope 3 because the City does not operate the airport.4 Similarly, several buildings that the City
owns but leases to tenants are included in the inventory but are considered Scope 3 emissions.
This category includes City-owned spaces that are leased to the Valley Regional Fire Authority,
the Auburn Chamber of Commerce, and the Auburn Avenue Theater, among others. Employee
commuting, business travel, and waste disposal are also included as Scope 3 emissions. More
information on each of these emissions sources is provided below.
Municipal Scope.. The municipal inventory includes greenhouse gas emissions from
sources under the operational control of the City of Auburn. Primary emissions sources
include the following list. Most of the data from the municipal inventory is also included
in the community inventory (all electricity and natural gas consumption, solid waste,
and vehicle use within City boundaries).:
o Building energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption in City-
owned buildings. Natural gas that is combusted on-site is considered Scope 1,
and electricity is considered Scope 2. City-owned spaces that are leased and
operated by outside tenants are included as Scope 3 emissions.
o Vehicle fleet. Includes gasoline, diesel, propane, and other fuels used in both
on-road and off-road vehicles and equipment. All emissions from fleet vehicles
are considered Scope 1.
o Street lights and traffic signals. Includes electricity used by street lights and
traffic signals. All emissions from municipal electricity consumption are
considered Scope 2.
o Water and sewer pump stations. Includes electricity used by water and
wastewater pump stations. All emissions from municipal electricity
consumption are considered Scope 2.
o Solid waste. Includes all solid waste produced by municipal operations including
waste from City-owned facilities, street cleaning, and parks.
3 Local Government Operations Protocol: For the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventories, Version 1.1, September 2008, p. 14. California Air Resources Board, California
Climate Action Registry, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, The Climate Registry. Available
online at http://www.icleiusa.org/actioncenter/tools/Igo-protocol-1.
4 The Auburn Municipal Airport is operated by an outside contractor which has control over maintenance,
utility payments, and daily operations.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 7
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNWMt4r
Emissions are based on greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste
decomposition in landfill. All solid waste emissions from municipal wastes are
considered Scope 3.5
o Refrigerants. Includes refrigerants used in building and vehicular air
conditioning. All refrigerant-based emissions from City-owned facilities and fleet
vehicles are considered Scope 1.
o Employee commuting. Includes employee travel to the City of Auburn for work
each day not conducted in City-owned vehicles. All emissions from employee
commuting are considered Scope 3.
o Business travel. Includes employee travel for City business not conducted in
City-owned fleet. Does not include daily commuting to and from City for work
each day. May be within City boundaries or outside City boundaries. All
emissions from business travel are considered Scope 3.
Community Inventory
At the time of conducting the Auburn greenhouse gas inventory, the California Air Resources
Board, California Climate Action Registry, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, and The
Climate Registry reported that they were in the early stages of creating a Community
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Protocol. As no documents have been released yet, the City of
Auburn's community protocol is based largely on ICLEI standards and common standards used
by other ICLEI members and available for review in their completed community inventory
reports. Community inventories typically include energy use within city boundaries, solid waste
produced in city boundaries, and vehicle miles traveled on roads within city boundaries.
Because the emissions from the community are from a variety of residential, commercial,
industrial, and municipal sources, the emissions from the community inventory do not fall into
Scope 1, 2, and 3 categories which are used for an entity measuring its own emissions, such as
the City's municipal operations inventory.
Community Scope. The community inventory includes greenhouse gas emissions
sources throughout the City and also includes Auburn's municipal operations. Primary
emissions sources include:
o Residential energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption from
residences within the City of Auburn's boundaries.
o Commercial energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption from
commercial buildings within the City of Auburn's boundaries.
o Industrial energy use. Includes natural gas and electricity consumption from
industrial facilities within the City of Auburn's boundaries.
o Transportation. Includes vehicle miles traveled on roads within the City of
Auburn's boundaries. Does not differentiate between trips made by City
residents, trips that originate or end in City boundaries, and other drive-through
traffic (such as trips through Auburn's boundaries on State Routes 167 and 18).
5 Solid waste collection is conducted by an outside contractor, and emissions from contracted solid waste
collection vehicles are not included in the municipal inventory. These vehicles are included in total
transportation emissions within the community of Auburn in the community inventory. Emissions from
upstream manufacturing of goods consumed in City operations or in the community are not included in
the inventory.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 8
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory _jV%U 3 i►T
WA5ffXN Gantr
o Solid waste. Includes emissions from the solid waste produced by Auburn's
residential, commercial, and industrial sectors. Waste from municipal
operations is included in the commercial sector. Does not include emissions
from solid waste collection services, which are included in "transportation"
emissions.
Setting a Base Year
Equally important as determining boundaries is setting a base year and determining which year
to inventory. Considerations include which years offer a complete and accurate data set and will
be representative of the general level of annual emissions, providing a useful base year to
forecast emissions for future years. The City of Auburn, in consultation with Cascadia Consulting
Group, decided to conduct inventories of the years 2007 and 2008 as they offered the most
complete data sets. On January 1, 2008, the City of Auburn annexed the Lea Hill and West Hill
communities, which were formerly part of unincorporated King County. Given this change in the
City's boundaries, the City of Auburn designated the 2008 calendar year as its base year. A
secondary consideration was that a more complete data set was available for the year 2008.
(Data regarding 2007 business travel were not available. Commuting data for 2007 were
available only for employees who worked at Auburn City Hall.)
STEP 2. COLLECT DATA
Collecting data is often the most time-intensive step of conducting a greenhouse gas inventory.
Many Auburn staff members, working with utility providers and other vendors, provided
extensive sets of data for the various facilities and activities included in the municipal and
community inventories.
The City of Auburn's Planning & Development Department coordinated data collection for the
inventory. The main sources of data included utility bills and fleet records. Table 1 shows key
data elements and sources for the community and municipal inventories. For more information,
see Appendix A: Detailed Data Sources and Resulting Documents.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 9
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory A-%U i►T
WASHTNUMN
Table 1: Data Collection Elements and Sources
Community
Electricitv and natural Ras usage Pullet Sound EnerRv (PSE)
Vehicle miles traveled _ Puget Sound Regional Council
Street traffic counts City of Auburn Department of Public Works
Solid waste City of Auburn, Department of Finance; drawn from
Waste Management, Allied Waste, and Murrey's Disposal
Utility invoices City of Auburn Department of Finance and Puget Sound
Energy
Vehicle fleet records City of Auburn Maintenance & Operations Department
Employee business travel miles City of Auburn departmental reimbursement records
traveled
Employee commuting miles Commute Trip Reduction Survey, web survey of City of
traveled Auburn employees
Solid waste City of Auburn estimation based on size of container and
frequency of pick-up by building
Emissions sources with special considerations regarding data sources are discussed below.
Leased Space Emissions
Emissions from leased spaces (facilities owned by the City but operated by outside entities),
including the municipal airport, are considered an "optional" Scope 3 emission in the LGOP and
are included in this base year inventory. Because the City does not pay utility bills directly for
these spaces, the City requested permission from tenants to obtain these utility records.
Business Travel
Similar to utility information in leased spaces, business travel information was not tracked in a
central form or location prior to this project. For this reason, business travel information was
calculated by reviewing reimbursed expenses in each department. Business travel data were
collected only for the base year of 2008 to streamline the process during preparation of this
inventory.
Utility Use at Individual Facilities
Utility use at individual facilities was calculated based on meter data from PSE electricity and
natural gas invoices collected by the City of Auburn Finance Department. During the collection
effort, it was determined that not all meter numbers were initially correlated with individual
buildings. Cascadia worked with the Finance Department, PSE, and building managers to link
unidentified meter numbers with the correct buildings.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 10
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Employee Commuting
t
_ SUR.N
►IWASHTNVTQtr
The data collected on employee commuting habits led to slightly different calculation
methodologies for the 2007 and 2008 inventories. For the 2007 inventory, employee commuting
practices were based on the findings of Auburn's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) survey.'
Because the CTR survey covered only employees that worked at Auburn City Hall, it was scaled
to estimate commuting emissions from all City employees based on the ratio of total City of
Auburn full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) versus the FTE count that took the survey. For the
year 2008, Cascadia surveyed all City staff members employed during the time of conducting the
inventory (summer 2009) who were also employed by the City during the year 2008. Over 370
staff, or 84% of employees, completed the online survey regarding their commuting habits.
While calculations of commuting emissions based on these two sources were as consistent as
possible, the 2007 CTR survey reported data in aggregate and did not allow for the same level of
specificity of emissions calculations as the online survey for 2008. In addition, the 2007 CTR
survey only provided information for City employees that worked at Auburn City Hall, and may
not accurately reflect the commuting habits of employees commuting to different buildings.
Solid Waste
Through contracts with waste haulers for residential and commercial waste collection, the City
of Auburn receives free waste pick-up from its municipal operations. Waste tonnages from
municipal operations were not tracked for 2007 or 2008. City of Auburn staff estimated waste
tonnages based on the size of containers and frequency of collection for each City building.
STEP 3. ANALYZE DATA AND CALCULATE EMISSIONS
In consultation with Cascadia, the City of Auburn chose to use the ICLEI Clean Air and Climate
Protection (CACP) software for the Auburn inventory. In 2001, ICLEI developed the CACP tool in
partnership with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The software is intended to help local governments conduct
greenhouse gas inventories, quantify the benefits of specific initiatives to reduce GHGs, and
create climate action plans for their communities and municipal operations.
With the release of the Local Government Operations Protocol, ICLEI worked to update the
original CACP software to more closely follow the methods, standards, and data requirements
that the LGOP specified.
The CACP software, which is in use by over a dozen municipalities in Washington and many
more throughout the U.S., offered the most standard and comparable methodology for the City.
As an ICLEI member, Auburn will have continued technical assistance and access to CACP
updates for future inventories, making this an attractive tool for future greenhouse gas
inventories.
To supplement the CACP tool, Cascadia also developed in-house tools to facilitate the inventory
calculations. These tools included a web-based commuting survey to capture employee
commuting and an Excel-based module to help calculate emissions from both the employee
e City employees complete a CTR survey every two years. The Washington State Department of
Transportation requires all Washington organizations with more than 100 employees to complete a CTR
report, as mandated by the state's Commute Trip Reduction laws.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 11
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
►I A$HTl t4r
commuting survey and the Commute Trip Reduction survey (the Data Collection section
provides more information about these sources of data). These tools will also be available to the
City for future inventory calculations.
Figure 2. Screenshot of the CACP Tool Showing 2008 Energy Use Data for Auburn's City Hall
(2 Clean Air and Climate Prot
ection 11' Software V
File Year Record Report Assistants Settings Help
COI11111tillityAnalysis
C011111111111tyIrleasilles
GOVeflllllellthleaStl
Y-
Government Analysis for
Year 2009
:Buildings........................... dFacilities.., I Streetlights & Traffic Signals Port Facilities I Airport Facilities
I Water Delivery Facilities
Wastewater Facilities
I Solid Waste
1
Name of Building or Facilities Group
Tyne
units
❑wultrt: Energy C-10Jl
Ciry Hall
Elecn iclty lGri[I AVeragel (kWl1}
1;199,536
103,830
COm..-, 11 c-1
0.11sp
0
0
Insert Select
Delete Fuel nil 1=1211
(Us galp
0
0
14 .I ►
N kerosene
1US gale
0
0
L-Iffill Gas. OI hiogas
fklhlBtn)
0
0
RQP01t
'
-I
~
1latu1al Gas
Rheims)
32.980
36.556
Assistants Categories Indicators Coefficients Propane
fUs gale
0
0
llldiC.ltOl 1111MIS
St.eionarr Gasoline
1US gal}
0
0
Stationary LPG
4U5 gal)
0
0
Operating Hours
Wood 12 pct moisttn a
Rons)
0
0
v
Notes Regarding Buildings and Other Facilities Data
Occupants
57
Floor Area
1000 sq. ft.
57.32
Energy Consumption
(MMBtu) Equivalent CO,Produdion (tons) Cost
W
7,392
738
140,386
r
s;s2
Entering and Analyzing Data
While the CACP software has many emissions factors and data pre-loaded to facilitate
greenhouse gas calculations, several decisions had to be made prior to adding city-specific data.
In these decisions, Cascadia consulted with the LGOP, City of Auburn staff, ICLEI staff, and other
city inventories in the region to standardize the inventory to the extent possible.
First, Cascadia and City staff determined which emissions factors were appropriate for electricity
use in the City of Auburn. While the CACP software has electricity emissions factors pre-filled for
a number of utilities, no emissions factors for the Northwest were pre-loaded in the CACP tool.
Accordingly, the City of Auburn had two possible sources of emissions factors for electricity. The
first source of data is actual emissions reports from the City's utility provider, Puget Sound
Energy (PSE). The second source of data is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Emissions
& Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). USEPA compiles and updates the eGRID
database of regional emissions factors every few years. The most recent eGRID data (eGRID
2007 Version 1.1) refers to emissions from the year 2005.
Though Puget Sound Energy supplies electricity to the City of Auburn, the consultant team, in
consultation with City staff, chose to use eGRID emissions data for several reasons. First, while
PSE publishes information on its own fuel mix, nearly two-thirds of the electricity it provides is
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 12
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
purchased from other utility providers.' Thus, using PSE's specific emissions factor based on its
own fuel production may not accurately reflect the emissions from purchased energy. Second,
having a common regional emissions factor facilitates comparisons among greenhouse gas
inventories of different cities.
Another decision involved determining the appropriate "level" for entering data into the CACP
tool. While some data were only available at one level (for instance, the community electricity
and natural gas information from PSE covered aggregate use citywide), other data were
available in more detail. For instance, fleet data could be entered into the CACP by individual
vehicle, by vehicle type, or by department. In consultation with City staff, Cascadia chose to
enter data at the department level wherever possible in order to provide some additional detail
on the source of emissions while keeping in mind the need to efficiency replicate the inventory
in the future.
A final decision in data entry was to determine which other indicators to include. Wherever
possible, Cascadia included supplementary information to help track progress and develop
relevant metrics. For instance, wherever possible, square footage information was included for
each building.
After working with Auburn staff to determine the most appropriate emissions factors, level of
detail, and additional indicators, Cascadia staff members entered all collected data into the
CACP tool. Information was checked for accuracy, and ICLEI staff members were consulted
where anomalies existed. One major adjustment was made regarding solid waste data, as
discussed in the Solid Waste Discussion on page 32.
Once model selection and data input were completed, municipal and community greenhouse
gas emissions were calculated using the CACP software. Emissions are reported in metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (mtCO2e), the standard unit used in the LGOP and other greenhouse
gas reporting.
'Puget Sound Energy, "Electricity: Overview." Available online at
http://www.pse.com/energvEnvironment/energvsupply/Pages/EnergySUpply ElectricityOverview.aspx.
Accessed August 2009.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology 13
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNWTQtr
Key Findings
This section presents the key findings from Auburn's community and municipal greenhouse gas
inventories. These results are intended to provide an understanding of Auburn's greenhouse gas
impacts, including the sources and sectors contributing to the city's emissions. The findings will
also assist the City in any future climate action planning efforts and provide the ability to track
progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in future years.
MUNICIPAL INVENTORY
Auburn's municipal inventory is a measure of all greenhouse gas emissions produced by the City
of Auburn's municipal facilities and operations in a given year. Cascadia calculated Auburn's
greenhouse gas inventories for the years 2007 and 2008. In 2007, the City's operations
generated an estimated total of 9,000 mtC02e.8
As Figure 3 illustrates, water/wastewater operations and building operations are the largest
emissions sectors for municipal operations.' Sectors are industry or activity types such as
transportation, industrial energy use, or waste. In addition to emissions sectors, emissions
sources are energy types such as electricity, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline. Figure 4 shows
electricity is the single largest source of emissions, accounting for 61% of emissions from
municipal operations. Building emissions for the year 2007 include the municipal airport and
other leased spaces for 2007.10 Business travel was not included in the 2007 inventory.
8 Although emissions tonnages are presented in tables and graphs as exact figures, all reported emissions
in this report are estimates.
9 The use of pie charts to represent emissions is not intended to indicate that 100% of emissions are
accounted for. This is an estimate of emissions, and while Scope 1 and2 emissions are as complete as
possible, only a few key Scope 3 emissions sources are included in the inventory. Each pie chart in this
document is meant to only represent the emissions measured in this inventory based on the boundaries
recommended by the LGOP.
10 The Valley Regional Fire Authority (VRFA), which leases space from the City, was established in 2007.
The VRFA merged the City-run Auburn Fire Department with other regional fire departments to create a
separate entity. Although the VRFA was established in 2007, its utility use was not separated from the City
until 2008. Thus, energy consumption from the VRFA are included in both inventories, but only marked as
'leased space' in 2008.
Municipal Findings 14
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Figure 3: 2007 Municipal Inventory by Emissions Sector (mtC02e)
Figure 4: 2007 Municipal Inventory by Emissions Source (mtC02e)*
D
Natural Ga
465
*"Other" includes solid waste and refrigerants.
t
SUR.N
WASHTNWMt4r
Municipal Findings 15
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNWMt4r
In 2008, the City's operations generated an estimated total of 10,000 mtC02e. Figure 5 and
Figure 6 show a breakdown of these emissions by sector and source.
Figure 5: 2008 Municipal Inventory by Emissions Sector (mtC02e)
(Solid Waste,
less Travel &
igerants), 39
Figure 6: 2008 Municipal Inventory by Emissions Source (mtC02e)
Diesel, 44
Natur.
*Other sources include solid waste, refrigerants, and business travel.
Municipal Findings 16
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
As in 2007, buildings and water/wastewater operations are the sectors responsible for the most
emissions. Electricity use is the single largest source of emissions, representing 56% of total
emissions. The inventory for the baseline year 2008 includes emissions from all leased spaces
including the municipal airport.
While overall emissions grew from 2007 to 2008, the rough breakdown of emissions by source
and sector stayed largely the same. In both inventories, building energy use, electricity use for
water and wastewater pump stations, and emissions from the vehicle fleet were the the largest
emissions sectors. Electricity use was the largest source of emissions, accounting for 56% of
total emissions in the base year 2008. Table 2 shows the changes by source and sector.
Table 2: Comparison between 2007 and 2008 Municipal Emissions by Sector and Source
Buildings- Electricity I
1,623
1,725
I 6%
Buildings - Natural Gas
465
461
-1%
Vehicle Fleet - Diesel
287
424
48%
Vehicle Fleet - Gasoline
1,132
1,317
16%
Water/Wastewater- Electricity
2,715
2,671
-2%
Streetlights and Traffic Signals -Electricity
1,308
1,332
2%
Employee Commute - Gasoline & Diesel*
1,296
963
-26%
Waste
121
114
-6%
Refrigerants
3
4
33%
Business Travel
0
47
n/a
Leased Buildings - Electricity & Natural 489 1305 n/a
Gas**
*A different methodology was used to calculate employee commuting from 2007 to 2008.For more information, see
the Employee Commuting section on page 11.
**The number of leased buildings changed from 2007 to 2008. Most notably, the account for the Valley Regional Fire
Authority was not considered "leased space" until 2008. See the footnote on page 14 for more information.
As Table 2 shows, vehicle fleet emissions, both from gasoline and diesel consumption, were the
areas with the greatest growth in emissions from 2007 to 2008. Refrigerant emissions (from air
conditioning refrigerant losses) also increased from 2007 to 2008. Given that refrigerants are a
small source of overall emissions, however, this change represents a relatively small difference
in overall emissions (less than 1 MtC02e). Emissions from employee commuting appear to have
decreased over 25% from 2007 to 2008. However, the emissions from employee commuting
were calculated using different data sources (see Step 3. Data Collection on page 9).
While 2007 offers a valuable data point, given that a more complete data set was available for
2008 and given the annexation of Lea Hill and West Hill at the start of 2008, the inventory for
the year 2008 is considered a more accurate metric from which to measure progress in future
yea rs.
Municipal Findings 17
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory _jV%U 3 i►T
WA5ffXNUMtr
BASE YEAR (2008) MUNICIPAL EMISSIONS
Figure 5 on page 16 shows Auburn's municipal emissions broken down by sector and source.
Scope is also a helpful framework to detail emissions sources (see discussion on page 5 for more
information). Figure 7 and Table 3 show emissions by scope and sector.
Figure 2008 Municipal Emissions by Scope (mtC02e)
Solid Waste,
Business Tr:
47
4rigerants, 4
Natural Gas
om Buildings,
461
Scope 1
Scope 2
Scope 3
Table 3: 2008 Municipal Emissions by Scope
Scope 1 Vehicle Fleet
1,741 2,206
Natural Gas (part of Building Energy Use)
461
Refrigerants
4
Scope 2 Electricity- Buildings
1,725 5,728
Electricity - Streetlights and Traffic Signals
1,332
Electricity- Water & Wastewater Pump
2,671
Scope 3 Employee Commuting
963 2,429
Business Travel
47
Emissions from Leased Spaces
1,305
L Solid Waste
114
Scope 2 emissions, or electricity use for City-owned and operated facilities, are the largest
source of emissions at approximately 6,000 mtC02e, or 55% of total emissions. Scope 1
emissions, which include emissions from the vehicle fleet, refrigerant losses, and natural gas
usage at City-owned and operated buildings account for roughly 2,000 mtC02e, or 21% of all
Municipal Findings 18
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTINVTQtr
emissions. Scope 3 emissions, which include emissions from employee commuting, business
travel, leased spaces, and solid waste account for approximately 2,000 mtCO2e, or 22% of total
emissions. Emissions from each of these sectors, as well as data on cost and other metrics, are
provided in more detail below.
Municipal emissions from 2008 result primarily from energy use in different sectors (e.g.,
employee commuting, building energy use). In addition to the resulting greenhouse gas
emissions, energy consumption in each sector represents a significant portion of the City
operations budget. Figure 8 shows the relative costs and emissions from energy consumption in
each sector. While electricity consumption at water and wastewater pump stations represents
the largest contributor to overall emissions at approximately 2,700 mtCO2e, fuel to power
Auburn's vehicle fleet represents the largest energy cost to the City at $668,281 annually.
Figure 8: 2008 Municipal Emissions and Costs by Sector
$3,000
$2,500
2,186
$2,000 $482,816
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Buildings
$42,819
51
Business Travel Streetlights&
Traffic Signals
0 Energy Cost mtC02e
2,671
water&Waste Vehicle Fleet
Water Pump
Stations
mtCo2e
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
In addition to cost, other metrics allow for comparison across years and benchmarking with
similar municipal operations. Table 4 provides metrics for Auburn's overall municipal
greenhouse gas inventory and for the City's specific sectors and sources. Metrics and
information on the emissions from each sector are provided in more detail below.
Municipal Findings 19
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Table 4: Key Metrics for the 2008 Municipal Inventory
Building Emissions (per 1000 scl ft)
9.90
$10.30
Vehicle Fleet Emissions (per FTE)
3.91
$10.90
Streetlight and Traffic Signal Emissions (per light)
0.50
$3.70
Water/Sewage Emissions (per capita)
0.04
$8.42
Water Emissions (per 1000 gallon)
0.01
$1.07
Waste Emissions (per FTE)
0.11
n/a*
Employee Commute (per FTE)
2.16
n/a*
Business Travel (per FTE)
0.11
$96.22
t
cnycwSUR.N
WANRTNUTotl
Overall Emissions (per capita) 0.15 n/a
*The City of Auburn pays for neither waste disposal from municipal operations (free municipal solid waste pickup is
included in the City's waste contract) nor employee commuting costs.
City buildings contribute about one-third (34%) of Auburn's municipal footprint. Table 5 shows
the emissions per square foot of the ten buildings with the highest emissions per square foot.
Table 5: Emissions and Energy Cost per 1000 sq ft for 10 Buildings with Highest Energy Use per sq ft
n1tC
02e/1,001,'.
Veteran's Memorial Building
11
$2,287
City Hall
12
$2,449
Isaac Evans Restroom
12
$2,798
Justice Center
13
$2,820
Parks Recreation and Arts Administration
17
$2,873
Building
Senior Center
14
$3,085
Vet's Restroom
11
$3,162
Brannan Restroom
29
$16,830
Game Farm Park #1 (restroom)
78
$29,920
Game Farm Park #2 (restroom)
16
$32,479
Vehicle Fleet
Auburn's fleet contributes nearly 2,000 mtCOze to the City's overall municipal footprint,
representing roughly 17% of the 2008 municipal emissions. Figure 9 shows the breakdown of
emissions by department.
Municipal Findings 20
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Figure 9: 2008 Vehicle Fleet Emissions by Department (MtC02e)*
Sewer, 81-1-1
Engineering
Other, 34
t
_ SUR.N
►IWASHi1V'TQtr
* "Other" includes emissions from the following departments: Finance, Legol, Planning, Solid Waste, Equipment
Rental, Mayor, and Court/Probation. Toble 6 shows the emissions from the fleet use of those departments.
Washington State Department of Ecology Mandatory Reporting Requirements - Fleet
In 2008, the Washington State Legislature directed the Department of Ecology to establish a
mandatory reporting system for emissions of greenhouse gases. Initially, the Department of
Ecology proposal stipulated that owners of fleets emitting 2,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MtC02e) annually from on-road vehicles must report emissions. Based partially on
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's adoption of its own greenhouse gas reporting rules
in the 2009-2010 legislative session the Department of Ecology attempted to amend its rule
through House Bill 2545 to align with federal reporting requirements, but the amendment did
not pass. This amendment would replace the individual fleet owner reporting requirements with
a requirement on fuel suppliers and importers to report emissions from transportation fuels,
using the same information provided to the Washington State Department of Licensing."
While at the time of writing this document it is unclear whether the Department of Ecology will
enforce a fleet-specific reporting requirement, it is worth measuring Auburn's fleet emissions
against the possible rule. On-road vehicles in the City fleet produced just over 1,600 mtC02e in
2008. While this amount would not require Auburn to report to Ecology in 2010 if the 2,500
mtC02e reporting requirement stands, taking action now to reduce vehicle emissions will
decrease the likelihood of needing to report to Ecology in the future.
11 Information about House Bill 2545 can be found at the Washington State Legislature Bill Information
website, http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2545&vear=2009.
Municipal Findings 21
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Cost
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNWMt4r
Auburn's vehicle fleet is a significant source of municipal energy costs. In 2008, vehicle fuel costs
accounted for 30% of Auburn's energy-related costs (total costs also include buildings,
streetlights and traffic signals, water and wastewater pump stations, and business travel). Figure
10 shows a detailed cost breakdown of 2008 municipal fleet costs.
Figure 10: 2008 Municipal Energy Costs with Additional Detail on Fleet Costs by Department
Building. Engineering'
Business
42819
* "Other" includes emissions from the following departments: Finance, Legol, Planning, Solid Waste, Equipment
Rental, Mayor, and Court/Probation.
Fuel efficiency is a useful indicator of greenhouse gas impacts. Table 6 shows the average fuel
efficiency for fleet vehicles used in 2008 by department.
Municipal Findings 22
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Table 6: 2008 Fleet Detailed Report by Department
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Building
47
$18,120
11.0
Court/Probation
11
$4,368
12.3
Engineering
88
$33,972
10.4
Equip Rental
8
$2,988
14.7
Finance
1
$373
15.9
Legal
0
_
$76
21.0
Mayor
8
_
_ $2,998
18.7
Parks
195
$74,848
11.1
Planning
2
$712
29.7
Police
736
$283,177
9.0
Sewer
81
$30,954
8.5
Solid Waste
4
$1,568
38.7
Storm
147
$56,256
8.5
Street
229
$87,276
7.3
Water
184
$70,595
10.0
*Does not include off-rood vehicles. Fuel efficiency is calculated by dividing total miles traveled in on-rood vehicles by
fuel purchased for on-rood vehicles. The Solid Waste Division primarily used one of three Toyota Priuses, which
accounted for their high mileage-weighted fuel efficiency of 38.7 mpg.
Employee Commuting
Employee commuting makes up roughly 9% of Auburn's municipal inventory. Auburn employees
use various forms of transportation for commuting, including driving, carpooling, taking the bus,
taking the train, walking, and biking. Figure 11 shows the employee mode split (each mode is
represented by the number of employees that participate in that mode at least once per week).
Municipal Findings 23
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNWTQtr
Figure 11: Auburn Employee Commuting Habits by Staff Member Participation in Various Modes (at
least once per week)
Carpoi
Business Travel
At less than 50 mtCOze in 2008, business travel accounts for less than half of 1 percent of
Auburn's overall inventory, but it does represent over $40,000 in expenses to the city. Table 7
shows the miles, emissions, and cost by mode of business travel.
Table Miles, Emissions, and Cost for 2008 Business Travel
Ferry
280
0.1
$12
Train
747
0.1
$301
Car
42,042
16.6
$24,322
Plane
128,645
29.6
$18,185
Total
171,714
46.4
$42,819
Street and Traffic Lights
Cumulatively, street and traffic lighting make up 12% of the total municipal inventory. The City
has two kinds of street and traffic lights: metered and flat-rate. Electricity use for metered lights
is measured by PSE, and the City pays for these lights based on monthly electricity consumption.
Flat-rate lights are not metered; the City pays PSE a flat monthly rate for these lights. The split
between metered and flat-rate lights and street versus traffic light greenhouse gas impacts is
shown in Figure 12.
Municipal Findings 24
BikejWalk i11.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Figure 12: Greenhouse Gas Impacts from Street and Traffic Lights (mtCO2e)
Flat-rate Traffic
Signals, 69
Water and Wastewater Pump Stations
t
_ SUR.N
WASFFiF tr
Auburn does not have a wastewater treatment plant within its boundaries, so emissions from
the treatment of water and wastewater are not included in Auburn's municipal inventory (the
City of Auburn is served by the King County Wastewater Treatment Division). However, Auburn
does operate municipal water pumps. The energy used to pump and deliver clean water,
remove wastewater from the community, and pump excess stormwater contributed nearly
3,000 mtCOze to Auburn's municipal inventory in 2008, roughly 26% of Auburn's total municipal
inventory. As Figure 13 indicates, 94% of these emissions result from water delivery.
Municipal Findings 25
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Figure 13: Emissions from Energy Used at Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Pump Stations (mtC02e)
ce, - 0--
In 2008, water pump stations delivered nearly 500 million gallons of water. As shown in Figure 5
on page 16, the City generated roughly 0.01 mtCOze of GHG emissions per 1,000 gallons of
freshwater pumped. In addition to these emissions, the electricity used at water, wastewater,
and stormwater pump stations cost the City of Auburn $568,651 in 2008. Figure 14 shows that
the delivery of freshwater to Auburn residents and businesses accounts for 94% of pump station
costs and 24% of Auburn's total municipal energy costs.
Municipal Findings 26
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Figure 14: 2008 Municipal Energy Costs with Additional Detail on Water Pump Station Costs
t
►I A$HTl t4r
_ aSUR.N
ter Pump
$15,942
Business Travel,
$42,819
Waste
According to the ICLEI CACP software, emissions from solid waste produced by the City of
Auburn contributed just over 100 mtCO2e to Auburn's emissions in 2008, or less than 1% of the
municipal inventory. For a more thorough discussion of emissions from waste, see Solid Waste
Discussion on page 32. Regardless of the methodology used to calculate emissions from waste,
several metrics can help track progress in waste reduction.
At the time of the inventory, solid waste tonnages generated by municipal operations at City
buildings were not tracked. As part of its solid waste contact, the City receives free solid waste
pick-up at all City buildings, and thus the City has not receive invoices indicating garbage,
recycling, or yard waste tonnages. Solid waste tonnages generated at City buildings were
estimated based on the size of containers and the frequency of collection (see Table 8).
Municipal Findings 27
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~~U i►T
WASHTNUMN
Table 8: 2008 Solid Waste Tonnage Estimates by Building/Activity
A
1190 Az"Q
l~
Auburn Airport
28
28
0
General Services Administration
42
28
1
Mountain View Cemetery
42
6
3
Parks Recreation and Arts
42
56
1
Administration Building
Auburn Maintenance & Operations
42
42
105
Golf Course - Maintenance
56
6
0
Litter and Illegal Dumping from City
106
0
0
Streets
Justice Center
112
4
1
Parks Maintenance & Operations
112
10
168
Senior Center
112
56
1
City Hall
168
225
1
Golf Course - Clubhouse
225
42
0
Street Sweepings/Decant Facility
972
0
0
City of Auburn Parks
2,050
91
112
Based on the estimates of solid waste tonnages, the City of Auburn achieved a 19% recycling
rate in the year 2008 for municipal waste generation. 12 Figure 15 shows the breakdown of total
garbage, recycling, and yard waste disposed based on City estimates.
Figure 15: 2008 Estimated Solid Waste Disposal by Type
12 More information on solid waste and recycling is provided in the Municipal Recommendations on page
50.
Municipal Findings 28
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
COMMUNITY INVENTORY
t
J611% URN
WASHi1V'TQtr
Auburn's community inventory is a measure of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from
activities within the city limits. The inventory was compiled for both 2007 and 2008; as noted
previously. A key difference between the two years was the increase in the physical size and
population of the City of Auburn at the beginning of 2008 with the annexations of Lea Hill and
West Hill.
In 2007, the Auburn community generated approximately 800,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalents (mtC02e). Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the breakdown of community emissions by
sector and source.13 As in the municipal inventory, sectors are industry or activity types such as
transportation, industrial energy use, or waste. Emissions sources are energy types such as
electricity, natural gas, diesel, and gasoline.
Figure 16: 2007 Community Inventory by Emissions Sector (mtC02e)
13 Although emissions tonnages are presented in tables and graphs as exact figures, all reported emissions
in this report are estimates.
Community Findings 29
Solid Waste, 1,588
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Figure 17: 2007 Community Inventory by Emissions Source (mtCO2e)
N_~-UR N
t
WASHTNVTQtr
Transportation accounts for approximately 367,000 mtCO2e, or 46% of the Auburn's community
emissions for 2007. This figure corresponds with similar estimations of transportation's impact
in other regional and statewide inventories. The State of Washington estimates that
transportation makes up 48% of emissions statewide. Commercial energy use was the second
largest sector contributing to community emissions, accounting for approximately 160,000
mtCO2e, or 20% of total community emissions. Electricity and gasoline were the two largest
emissions sources in 2007, accounting for 40% and 39% of the inventory, respectively.
In the base year 2008, the Auburn community generated 843,000 mtCO2e. Figure 18 and Figure
19 show the breakdown of 2008 community emissions by source and sector.
Community Findings 30
Waste, 1,588
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Figure 18: 2008 Community Inventory by Emissions Sector (mtCO2e)
Solid Waste, 1,072
Figure 19: 2008 Community Inventory by Emissions Source (mtCO2e)
t
_~-UR N
WASHTNWMt4r
Similar to the 2007 inventory, 2008 transportation emissions account for approximately 356,000
mtC02e, or 42%, of the city's community emissions for 2008. Commercial energy use was the
second largest sector contributor to community emissions, accounting for approximate 178,000
mtC02e, or 21% of total community emissions. Electricity was the single largest emissions source
in 2008. Electricity emissions accounted for 41% of the community inventory, or 343,000
mtC02e. Gasoline was the second largest source of emissions, accounting for 35% of the
community inventory by source.
Community Findings 31
Waste, 1,072
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHi1V'TQtr
Solid waste, as calculated by the ICLEI CACP software, accounts for less than 1% of the total
community inventory. A full discussion of the greenhouse gas impact of solid waste and
alternative calculations to the CACP methodology is provided under Solid Waste Discussion
below.
While estimated emissions from transportation decreased from 2007 to 2008, all other
emissions sectors increased during this time period. Part of this increase may be due to
the annexation of Lea Hill and West Hill, which expanded the City of Auburn's
boundaries on January 1, 2008. Table 9 provides a comparison between 2007 and 2008
community emissions by source and sector.
Solid Waste Discussion
The solid waste section of the CACP tool has several inputs. First, a user specifies the total waste
production in tons. In this inventory, the community of Auburn generated roughly 47,000 tons
of municipal solid waste during 2008. Second, the user determines which "waste disposal
technology" is used for solid waste management. Options include Uncollected, Open Dump,
Open Burning, Managed Landfill, Controlled Incineration, and Compost. Auburn's municipal
solid waste is sent to the King County's Cedar Hills Landfill, a managed landfill. Then, the user
specifies the waste composition mix by percentage of the following: Paper Products, Food
Waste, Plant Debris, Wood or Textiles, and All Other Waste. Data for this field for the City of
Auburn came from the King County Waste Monitoring Program, 2007 Waste Characterization
Study, June 2008. Lastly, the CACP tool requires a methane recovery rate for the managed
landfill. King County reports that Cedar Hills attains a 90% methane capture rate. 14
14 Personal Communication Mizanur Rahman, Ph.D., MBA, P.Eng., Engineer III and Project Manager,
Engineering Services Section, Solid Waste Division, King County Dept. of Natural Resources & Parks.
August 04 2009.
Community Findings 32
Table 9: Comparison between 2007 and 2008 Community Emissions by Sector and Source
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Based on these data, the original reports from the CACP tool indicated that solid waste
production in the community inventory resulted in net negative emissions (or emissions
reductions). This calculation was largely dependent on the default data regarding the landfill
carbon sequestration rates and the high methane capture at Cedar Hills. Although the high
methane capture certainly decreases overall emissions, the greenhouse gas inventory results
should not indicate that increasing waste production results in lowering overall emissions. To
address this issue, ICLEI staff suggested that the default sequestration rates be lowered in the
CACP model. With lower sequestration rates, the CACP model analysis showed some net
emissions (albeit small) from solid waste production. Based on these updated sequestration
rates, the nearly 39,000 tons of solid waste disposed by Auburn was responsible for
approximately 2,042 mtC02e. The compost produced by the community was responsible for a
net negative -906 mtC02e, for a net total of 1,072 mtC02e from solid waste. The ICLEI tool does
not account for recycling tonnages.
A 2009 USEPA report notes that material production and waste management are responsible for
42% of U.S. emissions.15 The CACP tool's emissions from waste do not account for any upstream
processing or embodied emissions of products or for the energy used for waste collection or
processing. The emissions shown in this inventory are only from decomposition of waste in a
landfill. A more thorough review of the emissions associated with materials consumed in the
City of Auburn was beyond the scope of this inventory. Some additional information on
emissions reductions from recycling is provided in the Municipal Recommendations section on
page 51.
Discussion of Community Inventory
Auburn's community inventory shows that, like Washington State as a whole, transportation
emissions are the largest contributor to community emissions. Although transportation
emissions actually decreased between 2007 and 2008, transportation emissions account for
over 40% of the overall footprint of the community for both inventory years. The largest
emissions source for the 2008 inventory was electricity.
With 2008 as a base year, the City has the ability to track progress in reducing emissions. The
development of key metrics also allows for comparison across years. Table 10 provides key
metrics for Auburn's overall community emissions in relevant categories.
is "Opportunities to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Materials and Land Management
Practices," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
September 2009. Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/ghg land and materials management.pdf. Accessed October 2009.
Community Findings 33
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~~U i►T
WASHTNUMN
Table 10: Key Metrics for 2008 Community Inventory
2008 Inventory'
(MtC02e)"
Residential emissions per household 5.22
Residential emissions per capita 2.33
Commercial and Industrial emissions per employee 14.66
Waste emissions per capita 0.02
Overall Community emissions per capita 12.50
In addition to key metrics, viewing Auburn's community emissions in relation to county, state,
and federal emissions may provide context. Table 11 shows annual emissions estimates for the
world, the United States, Washington State, King County, and the City of Auburn. Auburn makes
up a little more than 0.003% of global emissions, while accounting for less than 0.001% of the
world population. More locally, Auburn is responsible for 3.7% of King County's emissions while
comprising 3.6% of the population. For more information about emissions in King County and
emissions reduction goals on the international, federal, state, and county level, see Emissions
Forecast and Reduction Goals on page 35.
Table 11: Auburn Annual Community Emissions in Context 16
27,000,000,000
100.0%
6,700,000,000
100.0%
7,100,000,000
26.3%
299,000,000
4.5%
84,000,000
0.31%
6,550,000
0.10%
23,000,000
0.09%
1,875,500
0.03%
843,328
less than 0.01%
67,500
less than 0.001%
16 Adapted from King County 2007 Climate Action Plan, p. 52. Available online at
httP://www.metroI<c.gov/exec/news/2007/pdf/cIimatepIan.pdf. Accessed September 2009. Additional
data from The World Bank, http://geo.worldbank.org/, and U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division,
http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.htm1. These estimates are provided to give a sense of the City
of Auburn's place in a larger global greenhouse gas context and does not represent a precise comparison
of all emissions.
Community Findings 34
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~~U i►T
WASHTNUMN
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals
Emissions Forecast
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), Auburn is one of the ten fastest growing
cities in the Puget Sound region. 17 To determine how emissions levels for the community and
municipal inventory are likely to change, Cascadia calculated an emissions forecast for the years
2015 and 2030 based on baseline year (2008) data. Emissions forecasts are calculated by scaling
baseline emissions (calculated in the inventory) to approximate the rate of growth of key
indicators including population, economic growth, and energy demand. To provide a long-range
forecast of emissions, Cascadia staff reviewed available data sources and identified 2030 as the
longest-term goal with reliable forecasts for population, economic growth, and energy demand.
2015 was chosen as an interim year to provide a view of shorter-term emissions changes.
Based on population forecast data from PSRC and energy information from the U.S. Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration, initial forecasts show that community emissions
are projected to increase 11% by 2015 and 43% by 2030, in the absence of new efforts to reduce
emissions. 18 Figure 20 shows the increase in each area from 2008 levels to 2015 and 2030
projections. Emissions from municipal operations are likely to increase at a slightly lower rate, as
shown in Figure 21. Table 12 on page 37 provides more detail on the changes in both
inventories.
17PugetSound Trends, Puget Sound Regional Council. Released October 2008. Available online at
http://Psrc.org/publications/pubs/trends/d3oct08.pdf. Accessed September 2009.
18 Population data from: 2006 Sub-County (Small Area) Forecasts of Population and Employment, Central
Puget Sound Region, Puget Sound Regional Council. Released October 26, 2006. Available online at
http://www.psrc.org/data/forecasts/index.htm. Accessed September 2009.
Energy data from: Annual Energy Outlook 2009, Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009,
Updated Reference Case with ARRA, Energy Information Administration. Released April 2009. Available
online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/supplement/stimulus/regionalarra.html. Accessed September
2009.
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 35
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Figure 20: Community Emissions Forecast for 2015 and 2030 (in mtCO2e)
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
2008 2015 2030
Figure 21: Municipal Emissions Forecast for 2015 and 2030 (in mtC02e)*
16,000
14,000
12,000 -
10,000 1
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2008
*"Other" includes Solid Waste, Business Travel, and Refrigerants.
Solid Waste
■ Transportation
Industrial Energy Use
■ Commercial Energy Use
■ Residential Energy Use
t
cnytrSUR.N
WANRtKCrotr
Other
Commuting
■ Vehicle Fleet
Streetlights & Traffic Signals
■ Water & Wastewater Delivery
■ Buildings and Facilities
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 36
2015 2030
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Table 12: Community and Municipal Inventory Forecasts for 2015 and 2030 without Action to Reduce
Emissions
Buildings and Facilities
2,186
2,433
10.1%
2,961
35.5%
Water & Wastewater
21671
2,972
10.1%
3,618
35.5%
Delivery
Streetlights & Traffic
1,332
1,482
10.1%
1,804
35.5%
Signals
Vehicle Fleet
1,741
1,859
6.4%
2,436
39.9%
Commuting
963
1,028
6.4%
1,348
39.9%
Other (Solid Waste,
1,469
1,635
10.1%
1,990
35.5%
Business Travel, and
Refrigerants)
Total
10,362
11,410
9.2%
14,157
36.6%
Residential Energy Use
157,433
175,192
10.1%
213,246
35.5%
Commercial Energy Use
177,780
223,275
20.4%
287,060
61.5%
Industrial Energy Use
150,861
163,524
207,029
37.2%
Transportation
356,182
380,381
6.4%
498,398
39.9%
Solid Waste
1,072
1,193
10.1%
1,452
35.5%
Total
843,328
943,565
10.6%
1,207,184
43.1%
Background on Emissions Reduction Frameworks
Several types of emissions reduction frameworks can inform and guide the City of Auburn as it
sets its emissions reduction goals. The first type of framework is science-based in that it bases
the emissions reduction targets on the necessary reductions to stabilize greenhouse gas levels
and minimize climate change impacts. One such example is the recommendations put forth by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC recommends a reduction of
50-85% below 1990 levels in worldwide emissions to stabilize global temperature at an increase
of no more than 2.5 degrees Celsius.
A second type of framework is a political action emissions reduction agreement, such as the
Kyoto Protocol or the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. Both of these agreements
recommend that governments strive to reduce emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012. The
Kyoto Protocol goals were reviewed during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP
15) held in Copenhagen in December 2009. The meeting in Copenhagen did not produce an
updated reduction agreement.
A third framework blends political considerations, climate science, and greenhouse gas
inventory data. For example, the State of Washington and King County have set emissions
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 37
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNWMt4r
reduction goals based in part on existing political frameworks such as the Kyoto Protocol and in
part on an examination of their own emissions inventories to evaluate the realistic
opportunities.
Table 13 shows examples of these three frameworks.
Table 13: Existing Frameworks for Emissions Reduction Goals
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 38
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Kyoto Protocol
U.S. Conference of
Mayors' Climate
Protection Agreement
U.S. Federal Government
State of Washington
Washington State
Departments
State of California
King County
1990 levels by 2050 to
stabilize carbon dioxide
levels at 450 parts per
million
below 1990 levels by
2012
below 1990 levels by
2012
28% below 2008 baseline by
2020 for Scope 1 & 2
emissions
Reduce to 1990 levels by
2020, 25% below 1990 levels
by 2035, 50% below 1990
levels by 2050
15% below 2005 emissions
levels by 2020, 36% below
2005 levels by 2035, 57.5%
below 2005 levels by 2050 or
70% below the expected
2050 emissions19
Reduce to 1990 levels by
2020, 80% below 1990 levels
by 2050
80% below 2007 levels by
2050
IPCC 4th Assessment Report,
Working Group III
t
~SUR.N
WASHTNVTotr
United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change,
Kyoto Protocol, 1997
Some 900 mayors across U.S.
have signed on (including
Auburn's Mayor Peter Lewis)
Executive Order - Federal
Leadership in Environmental,
Energy, and Economic
Performance, E.O. 13514,
October 5, 2009
Executive Order 07-02
Washington Climate Change
Challenge
Senate Bill 5560 (2009-10)
Regarding state agency climate
leadership
Executive Order S-03-05,
Establishing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reduction Targets
Part of the Cool Counties
initiative
Emissions Reductions Goals of Local Municipalities
As the City of Auburn sets emissions reduction targets, examples from other local jurisdictions
may be helpful in understanding the regional context for emissions reduction goals. Table 14
shows the inventory results and emissions reduction goals for 11 local municipalities. Of these
local jurisdictions, Bellingham has set the most aggressive target of 70% below year 2000
emissions levels by 2020. A common emissions reduction target, below 1990 levels by 2012,
follows the example of the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent U.S. Conference of Mayors'
Climate Protection Agreement (of which the City of Auburn is a signatory). For most cities, if the
19 Reductions of this level are estimated to be needed in order to meet the targets set in Executive Order
07-02 using a more current baseline year (2005).
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 39
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
city's mayor signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement and did not
set a separate goal through Council Resolution or other means, the Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement goal is listed as the goal for both their municipal and community inventory.
Table 14: Local Municipalities' Reduction Goals for their Municipal Emissions
Anacortes
2000
12,219
14,557
0.84
15% below 2000 levels by 2020
Bellingham
2000
19,945
67,171
0.3
70% below 2000 levels by 2020
Bellevue
2001
14,716
109,569
0.13
below 1990 levels by 2012
Edmonds
1999
2,645
39,515
0.07
None available
Kirkland
2000
5,422
45,054
0.12
20% below 2005 levels by 2020
Lynnwood
2001
11,182
33,847
0.33
below 1990 levels by 2012
Seattle
1990
*
563,374
-
below 1990 levels by 2012
Spokane
2005
70,835
195,629
0.36
30% below 2005 levels by 2030
Tacoma
1990
113,880
176,664
0.64
below 1990 levels by 2012
Vancouver
2006
45,925
143,560
0.32
below 1990 levels by 2012
Washougal
2008
2,360
11,326
0.21
None available
* The City of Seattle's community inventory was calculated befo
re the development of o common municipal inventory
calculation method. The results of this invent
ory ore not compar
able with the City of Auburn's municipal inventory.
Table 15 shows the community emissions reduction targets of seven local jurisdictions. There
are fewer examples of community emissions reduction targets because fewer Washington cities
have measured community emissions and made emissions reduction targets publicly available.
The City of Spokane has set an aggressive target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2020. Like the
municipal inventory reduction targets, a common emissions reduction target, below 1990
levels by 2012, follows the example of the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent U.S. Conference
of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement.
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 40
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Table 15: Local Municipalities' Reduction Goals for their Community Emissions
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
rmunicipainy
e-opuiation
missions
Anacortes
2000
178,910
14,557
12
15% below 2000 levels by 2020
Bellingham
2000
950,793
67,171
14
28% below 2000 levels by 2020
Bellevue
2001
1,692,197
109,569
34
below 1990 levels by 2012
Lynnwood
2001
11,182
33,847
12
below 1990 levels by 2012
Seattle
1990
7,187,000
563,374
13
7 % below 1990 levels by 2012
Spokane
2005
3,229,308
195,629
17
30% below 2005 levels by 2030
Tacoma
1990
5,109,675
176,664
28
below 1990 levels by 2012
Discussion of Auburn's Inventory and Forecast
MUNICIPAL INVENTORY AND FORECAST
Emissions from building energy consumption (including leased buildings), travel in the City's
vehicle fleet, and energy used by water and wastewater pump stations account for over 7,900
mtCOze or nearly 80% of emissions from municipal operations. Therefore, aggressive energy-
saving measures in these areas - such as building system optimization, energy efficiency
retrofits, fuel-efficiency requirements, and vehicle maintenance best practices - may
dramatically reduce emissions. Furthermore, the City has direct control over these emissions
sources and can readily implement energy-saving measures. While the municipal inventory is
likely to increase in the absence of new efforts to reduce emissions, population growth is
unlikely to affect overall municipal emissions at the same rate as community emissions.
As the City takes action to reduce emissions, it is also worth noting that initiatives that reduce
energy consumption generally will reduce costs as well. Although many efforts may require
upfront investment, they will also help the City cut total operating costs over time.
COMMUNITY INVENTORY AND FORECAST
The main sources of emissions in the community of Auburn as a whole are transportation and
energy use from industrial, commercial, and residential sources. Transportation is the single
largest emissions source, but building energy use is more significant when taken as a whole
(instead of broken into residential, commercial, and industrial). While the City can encourage
Auburn residents and businesses to reduce energy consumption and reduce vehicle miles, the
City does not have direct control over most of the emissions in the community inventory.
Initiatives to encourage energy conservation include educational campaigns regarding utility
partnerships and energy efficiency rebates or changing city code to support energy efficiency in
new and existing buildings. Commute trip reduction campaigns, improving and increasing bike
lanes, increasing the number of park-and-ride spaces, and improving access to public
transportation are examples of ways to help reduce vehicle miles traveled. While important,
these activities may not generate reductions quickly.
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 41
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Furthermore, due in part to Washington State's efforts to reduce emissions statewide through
the Growth Management Act, the City of Auburn will likely take on significant population growth
over the next decade. This population growth within the City of Auburn helps the state to meet
its own emissions reduction goals through increased urban density and reduced land sprawl, but
may mean that even if Auburn significantly reduces emissions reductions per person, its overall
(or absolute) emissions may continue to grow. This situation does not mean that the City cannot
take important action to reduce emissions from community sources, but it may suggest that an
absolute emissions reduction goal will be difficult to reach.
Recommendations for Emissions Reduction Targets
AUBURN'S EXISTING COMMITMENT: U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS' CLIMATE PROTECTION
AGREEMENT
In 2007, City of Auburn Mayor Peter Lewis signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement. In signing this agreement, Mayor Lewis committed the City of Auburn to the
following three actions:
1. Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through
actions ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to
public information campaigns;
2. Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and
programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the
United States in the Kyoto Protocol reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and
3. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which
would establish a national emission trading system20
This agreement is a good starting point for Auburn in considering emissions reductions targets.
Although the agreement includes a quantitative target, the emphasis of the agreement is on
taking action rather than on the specific numerical goal, particularly now that there is a
relatively short time frame for meeting the target (by 2012). Given this time frame, many other
cities that are signatories of the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement have followed up
on their commitment with longer-term goals, often linked to more recent base years. Locally,
this group includes Bellevue, Bellingham, Kirkland, and Spokane. In addition, many of these
cities specify separate goals for community and municipal operations, which the U.S. Mayors'
Climate Protection Agreement does not distinguish. For more information on these reduction
goals, see Table 14 and Table 15 starting on page 40. Thus, in setting emissions reduction
targets, Auburn can look to many examples that use the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection
Agreement as a starting point but set longer-term emissions reduction targets (beyond 2012),
with more recent baselines and separate targets for municipal and community reductions.
CHOOSING A BASELINE YEAR
Emissions reduction targets are usually framed as a reduction target of a certain percentage
below an entity's base year inventory. The baseline year for the Auburn community and
municipal inventory was 2008. The inventory baseline year, 2008, is most likely the best baseline
year for the emissions reduction targets as well. While 1990 is a common baseline year for
20 U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. Available online at
http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm. Accessed October 2009.
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 42
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
emissions reduction targets (following from the Kyoto Protocol), there are several reasons that
2008 is a more appropriate reduction goal base year for the City of Auburn.
First, to use 1990, the City would need to "backcast" to estimate emissions from 1990. Like
forecasting, backcasting (estimating emissions from years previous to an inventory) is not an
exact science. While population and other data could be used to estimate 1990 emissions levels,
2008 data will be far more accurate. Second, although many of the example emissions reduction
frameworks provided in
Table 13, Table 14, and Table 15 use the Kyoto framework and set 1990 as a baseline, using
1990 as a baseline year is becoming less common in more recent emissions reduction
frameworks. Planned reductions in the recent Executive Order for federal agencies and the 2009
Washington State legislation for state agencies use more recent base years (2008 and 2005,
respectively).21 Given these trends, Cascadia recommends Auburn set an emissions reduction
goal that references the baseline inventory of 2008, a year for which actual inventory data
exists.
COMMUNITY VS. MUNICIPAL REDUCTION TARGETS
Given the differences in the level of control and influence that the City has over the community
and municipal inventories, Auburn should consider setting separate targets for the municipal
and community inventories.
Based on the many opportunities for emissions reduction that may also yield significant cost
savings and other benefits, Auburn is well-placed to join with other climate leaders in the Puget
Sound region to set an aggressive reduction target for its municipal emissions. Many energy and
cost-saving programs, incentives, and rebates can support local governments in saving energy
and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including energy efficiency projects that may qualify for
federal stimulus or other grant funding. The City should consider setting an emissions reduction
goal close to the State's goals for its own agencies - 15% below 2005 emissions levels by 2020,
and 36% below 2005 levels by 2035, using the City's own baseline year of 2008.
As part of the State of Washington's emissions reduction strategy through the Growth
Management Act, the City of Auburn expects to increase its population in the coming decades.
While Auburn's growth and the growth of other urban centers may help Washington to reduce
overall emissions through concentrating population in urban centers, helping to reduce sprawl
and decrease transportation emissions, this growth poses an additional challenge for Auburn to
reduce net community emissions.
Nevertheless, the City can build on existing efforts and look to successful initiatives in other
cities for ways to reduce emissions from both municipal and community sources. More detail on
taking action is provided in the next sections.
21 See
Table 13: Existing Frameworks for Emissions Reduction Goals on page 38 for more detail.
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Goals 43
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~~U i►T
WASHTNUMN
Taking Action to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Auburn's greenhouse gas inventory offers a solid foundation for taking action. As with the
inventory, this section addresses emissions both from the City's municipal operations and from
the larger Auburn community. It includes the following sections:
Recommendations to reduce the emissions from Auburn's municipal operations. The
City of Auburn's major greenhouse gas emissions arise from energy use in buildings,
fleet travel, business travel and commuting, water and wastewater pumping, street and
traffic lighting, and waste generation.
• Best practices that affect community emissions. Emissions in the community inventory
stem from energy used (electricity and natural gas); solid waste produced by residential,
commercial, and industrial sectors; and transportation that takes place within Auburn's
city boundaries.
Options to reduce emissions from community and municipal sources are discussed in detail in
the next section. A section on Next Steps follows, summarizing main themes and providing some
guidance on how to establish priorities and implement key strategies.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies 44
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Municipal Recommendations
BUILDING ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Auburn Making Strides
Auburn is already taking several steps to reduce energy consumption at municipal facilities.
These actions include:
• Turning off computers at night.
• Using LED lights for display signs.
• Installing occupancy sensors in many City buildings.
• Currently working to upgrade heating and air conditioning system in City Hall.
• Using VendorMiser (a device that reduces energy use on vending machines by
connecting machine lighting to a motion sensor) on soda dispensing machines.
• Purchasing Energy Star-certified replacement appliances wherever possible.
• Designing to achieve a LEED Silver rating for a planned future Community Center.
• Conducting audits of building energy use.
Recommendations
Even with Auburn's current actions to reduce energy use, the City's 2008 municipal inventory
showed that City building energy use was responsible for over a third of total municipal
emissions and cost the City nearly $500,000 in utility charges.
Furthermore, utility invoices indicated that just nine buildings
were responsible for over 80% of all building emissions. Key
opportunities to reduce emissions from building energy use
include the following actions.
Implement energy efficiency management and
performance monitoring systems. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and U.S.
Department of Energy's Energy Star Portfolio
Manager is a free online tool to track building energy
and water use. To use Portfolio Manager, the City can
set up a free account, enter basic information about
each building such as square footage and location,
and then upload monthly energy and water
consumption from bills. Using Portfolio Manager will
help the City monitor building performance, identify
efficiency opportunities, and benchmark against
similar buildings. Using this online tool will also
streamline future greenhouse gas inventories by
providing all necessary municipal building energy use
data in a single easy-to-use database."
Focus on Key Buildings
The City of San Diego focused
on key buildings to reduce
energy use. Upgrades at the
City's Operations Center
included new heat-reducing
window awnings, efficient T8
fluorescent lighting with
daylight and occupancy
sensors, and a high-efficiency
air conditioning system with
programmable thermostats.
The retrofit has reduced energy
consumption by 38%, saving
the City $14,000 a year.
httP://www.sandiego.gov/envir
onmental-
services/energy/prop rams proie
cts/savi ng/retrofits. shtm I
22 ENERGY STAR, "Portfolio Manager." Available online at https://www.energvstar.gov/istar/pmpam/.
Accessed September 2009.
Municipal Recommendations 45
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Install additional motion sensor-controlled lighting in municipal building spaces. The
City has begun to use motion sensors in City buildings to reduce energy consumption in
unoccupied spaces. Auburn should continue to add motion sensors; bathrooms,
kitchens, and conference rooms are often key opportunities for electricity savings.
Work with utilities to conduct energy audits of all City buildings and identify cost-
effective updates and retrofits. Auburn can work with utilities to continue to improve
the energy efficiency of municipal buildings. The City has also secured funding to hire a
Resource Conservation Manager in partnership with Puget Sound Energy, Washington
State University, and the City of Federal Way. The Resource Conservation Manager can
lead this effort, and the City can ensure the RCM has access to City records, to staff
assistance, and to the City Council to present findings and recommendations.
Focus on key buildings including City Hall, the Justice Center, and the Senior Center.
Prioritizing retrofits and upgrades at key buildings will provide the quickest return on
investment. These three buildings represent the largest energy consumers of all City
buildings and are all included in an energy audit produced by McKinstry (Rough Order of
Magnitude, March 2010). Continuing to work with McKinstry and investing in efficiency
at these buildings can have a significant impact on Auburn's overall municipal footprint.
FLEET
Auburn Making Strides
Auburn is reducing emissions from fleet driving in several
ways. These reductions include the following efforts:
• Practicing preventative maintenance practices to
ensure that vehicles run as efficiently as possible
(e.g., regularly checking tire pressure, replacing air
filters regularly, keeping tires aligned).
• Encouraging employees to use the most fuel-
efficient vehicle possible for a task and to carpool
when possible.
• Purchasing smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles
where possible.
Recommendations
Transportation using fleet vehicles accounts for 17% of the
overall emissions from municipal operations and the largest
energy expense for the sectors evaluated in the inventory.
While the City is already taking steps to upgrade vehicles,
significant opportunities remain to reduce emissions and
costs associated with fleet miles.
Hybrid Police Vehicles
The police fleet of the City of
Mountlake Terrace currently includes
hybrid vehicles. Other cities around
the country have also purchased
hybrid vehicles for police use,
including cities in New York, Hawaii,
North Carolina, New Jersey, Utah,
Texas, and California. The City of
Mercer Island estimates that
replacing two Crown Victoria models
with hybrid Toyota Highlanders will
save $4,000 a year and reduce
emissions by 13 mtC02e annually.
www.ci.mountlake-
terrace.wa.us/.../090320 GreenFleet
4HybridslnService.pdf,
www.mercergov.org/files/05`/`2OSust
ainabilitv.pdf
In 2008, the Auburn fleet included 141 light trucks and 65 passenger cars. Table 16 on page 48
compares the fuel efficiency and weighted fuel efficiency (based on how many miles were
driven in each vehicle) of on-road vehicles to federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
Municipal Recommendations 46
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
standards for that model year. CAFE standards were established by the U.S. Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975.
These data indicate the significant opportunity for the City to increase fuel efficiency by
continuing to "swap out" less efficient vehicles for more efficient ones and by creating policies
for employees to use the most fuel-efficient vehicles whenever possible. In addition to the
specific vehicles and fuels used, driving and maintenance practices can also affect fuel efficiency.
Specific recommendations for Auburn to increase fuel efficiency of its fleet through smart
vehicle choices and best management practices include the following.
• Join Evergreen Fleets. Coordinated by the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, Evergreen Fleets
provides members with tools, best practices, and "green star" certification for greening
fleets.23 Benefits include lower operating costs, reduced emissions, improved operating
efficiency, and recognition. Current membership includes more than 50 public and private
entities in Washington State.
• Purchase the most fuel-efficient vehicles possible. Appropriately sizing vehicles is the first
step to greater fuel efficiency.
• Establish a commitment to purchase the greenest options possible. Hybrid, E-85 Flex Fuel
(a motor fuel blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline), biodiesel, and natural
gas vehicles are readily available in a variety of diverse applications to meet the needs of
many fleets. Auburn has already demonstrated a commitment in this direction by
purchasing several hybrid vehicles.
• Formalize vehicle use policies. The City currently has informal vehicle use policies to
encourage employees to choose the most fuel-efficient
vehicle appropriate for a given errand or task. Auburn should
formalize this policy to increase travel in fuel-efficient Washington State
vahirIP-, and rlarraa-,a travel in lac-, fi ial-affiriant vahirla-,
o Look across Auburn's departments to ensure that
vehicles are appropriately scaled to the need. The
Parks, Police, and Street departments are among
those with the lowest fuel efficiencies and highest
annual mileage. While the duties of these
departments often require larger vehicles, there may
be instances in which smaller vehicles can be
substituted.
o A review of the information collected for the Auburn
inventory points to the potential benefits of having
vehicle choice policies. The data shows that while the
Reporting
Requirements
Jurisdictions must report
2009 emissions in 2010 if
emissions are greater or
equal to 2,500 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent
(C02e) from on-road
vehicles.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pro
grams/air/globalwarm RegH
aze/Green HouseGasreportin
g rule.html
City does have several hybrid vehicles, the average
fuel efficiency of the 15 most used vehicles (not
including the police fleet) is 11 miles per gallon. City
staff drove the City's Toyota Prius hybrid vehicles an average of 5,000 miles each,
23 Evergreen Fleets. Available online at http://www.evergreenfleets.org/. Accessed September 2009.
Municipal Recommendations 47
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
compared to an average of nearly 16,500 miles in the three most used (non-Police)
vehicles overall. Table 17 on page 49 provides more detail on the 15 most used non-
police vehicles.
Formalize best management practices for fleets and facilities. Auburn should build on
existing policies to implement best management practices for maintaining and using fleet
vehicles and formalize these practices as policy. This effort may include establishing and
enforcing a "no idle" policy. (The EPA estimates that idling diesel trucks consume 0.8 gallons
of fuel per hour when idling.) In addition, Auburn can formalize the regular preventive
maintenance including keeping tires inflated, monitoring fuel filters, and changing motor oil
regularly to ensure that these practices continue.
Capitalize on the upcoming electric vehicle investments and programs in the Puget Sound
region. Some $22 million in electric vehicle infrastructure investments will be coming to the
Puget Sound region in the next several years through American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) funds for the Nissan/eTec pilot grant, 24 the Puget Sound Clean Cities Coalition
grant, 2s and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant funds to specific jurisdictions
for electric vehicles and plug-in stations (including Auburn, Bellevue, and King County).
Auburn should be aggressive about leveraging these opportunities to improve its overall
fleet efficiency with additional electric vehicles and to foster greater citizen adoption of
electric vehicles (see Community Measures).
Work to increase the fuel efficiency of the police fleet. As in most cities, Auburn's Police
Department is the largest fleet user. In 2008, the Auburn police fleet traveled roughly
777,000 miles and used 83,000 gallons of gas for a total of over $283,000 in fuel costs. The
average fuel efficiency of the 15 most used police vehicles, shown in Table 18 on page 49,
was 8 miles per gallon. While the effectiveness of the police fleet is of utmost importance,
Auburn can save money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by driving the more fuel-
efficient vehicles already in the fleet and by upgrading to hybrid and efficient vehicles
wherever possible.
Promote alternative modes. Look into the feasibility of making a bicycle and helmet
available to City employees for short work trips.
24 The EV Project Overview, http://www.theevproiect.com/overview.php
25 US Department of Energy, "Recovery Act Announcement: Secretary Chu Announces Nearly $300 Million
in Clean Cities Grants to Support Clean Fuels, Vehicles, and Infrastructure Development." Available online
at http://appsi.eere.energy.gov/news/progress alerts.cfm/pa id=232. Accessed February 2010.
26 Fuel efficiency is weighted by how many miles were driven in each vehicle.
Municipal Recommendations 48
Table 16: On-Road Vehicles by Fuel Efficiency in Comparison to Federal CAFE Standards
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
SUR.N
WASHTNWTQtr
Table 18: Average Fuel Efficiency, Miles Traveled, and Fuel Consumption of 15 Most Used
(Highest Mileage) Vehicles in Auburn Police Fleet*
*Staff from the Maintenance & Operations Department provided information on fuel efficiency, mileage, and fuel
consumption for all fleet vehicles. Fuel efficiency varies by make, model, and model year. Maintenance & Operations
staff were not able to provide the model year for each vehicle.
Municipal Recommendations 49
Table 17: Average Fuel Efficiency, Miles Traveled, and Fuel Consumption of 15 Most Used
(Highest Mileage) Vehicles in Auburn Fleet (not including police fleet)
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~~U i►T
WASHTNUMN
WATER
Auburn Making Strides
Auburn is responsible for delivering clean water to residents, managing stormwater, and
conveying wastewater to the King County wastewater treatment plant. The City has already
implemented many best practices including the following:
• Using inclining block rate structure for water bills to promote conservation.
• Fully metering the entire water system.
• Implementing a low-flow showerhead giveaway program, estimated to save 2 million
gallons of water annually.
• Establishing goals to become a leader in water conservation and becoming a member of
the Partnership for Water Conservation.
• Putting in place policies to reduce irrigation needs for public and private landscaping,
including use of timed sprinklers and rain sensors.
• Having infrastructure monitoring and improvements such as leak detection and repair,
estimated to save 6.6 million gallons annually and reduce the City's leakage rate to
8.4%.
• Using variable-frequency drives (VFD) on water pumps to save energy.
Recommendations
Electricity used to pump water and wastewater represents 25 percent of Auburn's municipal
greenhouse gas emissions. These activities also translate into significant energy costs to the city
-the second largest sector in the inventory, just behind vehicle fleets. The City has direct
control over these activities and equipment, and it can use utility rebates to help offset upfront
costs and achieve a greater return on investment over a shorter period of time. Water
conservation as a whole will also become an increasingly important strategy for local
governments to adapt to the impacts of climate change on water availability. Below are some
key recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with the use and
transport of water and wastewater in Auburn.
Reduce the amount of water that needs to be treated. Use low impact development
(LID) techniques to capture rainwater where it falls, thereby minimizing the amount of
stormwater captured in storm drains and subsequently pumped to nearby creeks and
rivers. Permit LID techniques by applicants and develop materials to educate applicants
about how these techniques might be applied. Create incentives to foster LID
techniques where possible.
Minimize the amount of water being delivered. Auburn can reduce water demand by
promoting conservation measures such as expanding the existing efficient fixture
upgrade program for residences and other customers; offering rebates or other
incentives for residents and business to install water-saving devices; and promoting
efficient irrigation techniques with major water users such as golf courses, parks, and
schools. For more information, see US EPA's WaterSense Program."
z' EPA WaterSense, www.epa.gov/watersense.
Municipal Recommendations 5o
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHi1V'TQtr
Improve the efficiency of equipment to treat, store, and transport water. Continue to
retrofit pump stations with high efficiency motors, variable-frequency drives, and
controls, beginning with planned pump replacements and expansions. When the City of
Bremerton added variable-frequency drives to pumps, PSE paid for 50% of project costs.
The City saw a payback period of 1.5 years and cut pump energy use by 80%.28
Continue to locate and fix leaks. In the City's 2008 Water Use Efficiency report to the
Washington State Department of Health, Auburn city engineers estimated an 8.4%
leakage rate in its distribution system, or an annual volume of 264 million gallon S.29
While the City is meeting its targets in this area, it could take further action to reduce its
leakage rate.
Ensure sources can provide adequate capacity. Auburn's Comprehensive Water Plan
indicates that declines have been observed in the production of several supply wells.30
Pumps at these wells may operate in excess of the available supply, using energy that
does not translate into water supply.
SOLID WASTE
Auburn Making Strides
The City has infrastructure to recycle a wide range of materials in all City buildings, and it
recently added food waste composting to several buildings in December 2008. The City was able
to achieve a 19% recycling rate in 2008, meaning that of all municipally generated waste, the
City diverted approximately 19% by volume to recycling or composting.31 Other examples of
steps Auburn is already taking to reduce waste are listed below.
• Recycling in City buildings, including food scraps and compostables in six City buildings.
• Providing recycling infrastructure in most public parks.
• Recycling electronic waste, automotive parts, and rechargeable batteries.
• Using double sided printing.
• Using e-mail for employee and vendor communication.
• Sharing office equipment (cameras, laptops, projectors) to reduce consumption.
• Using water filtration instead of water bottles at City buildings.
• Providing durable dishes in each City facility lunch room to reduce consumption on
paper goods.
• Conducting waste audits of City buildings, parks, and facilities
28 Personal Communication with Tom Baker, Electronics Technician, City of Bremerton Electronics
Department, May 15, 2009.
29 Annual Water Use Efficiency Performance Report Form, 2008. Available online at
http://www.auburnwa.gov/Assets/PW/AuburnWA/Docs/WaterUseEfficiencyReport.pdf. Accessed
September 2009.
30 Comprehensive Water Plan, 2008. Available online at
http://weblinl<.auburnwa.gov/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=160537. Accessed September 2009.
31 The estimates are based on the size and frequency of collection of waste, recycling, and yard waste
containers at City buildings in 2008. The City did not track actual waste tonnages in 2008 as waste
collection is included in the City's waste contract.
Municipal Recommendations 51
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Recommendations
t
_~_UR N
WASHTNVTQtr
While emissions from waste are only a small part of the municipal emissions based on the model
used for Auburn's inventory, USEPA's WAste Reduction Model (WARM) indicates that increasing
the recycling rate to 50% by diverting an additional 1,000 tons to recycling and an additional 500
tons to compost/yard waste would reduce waste-related emissions by over 1,800 mtC02e a
year. 12 Auburn can get started with the steps below.
• Track waste production at City buildings by requiring the City's hauler to report waste,
recycling, and compost tonnages on monthly basis. Share cost and tonnage
information with building staff during educational campaigns.
• Continue to conduct waste audits of City buildings, parks, and facilities. Continuing to
monitor progress and identifying key target materials will help focus the City's efforts
and increase recycling overtime.
• Based on waste audit results, determine what additional infrastructure is needed to
increase diversion. Continue to add compost bins to City facilities where possible,
especially in facilities that have food service areas (e.g., Golf Course Clubhouse, Senior
Center, parks). Work with food vendors at City parks to use compostable or recyclable
serviceware.
• Add a waste and recycling component to the City's new employee training to ensure
that employees are aware of recycling policies and waste prevention procedures (e.g.,
duplex printing, electronic communication).
STREET AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS
Auburn Making Strides
To reduce energy consumption associated with street and traffic lights, Auburn has worked to
replace approximately 95% of City traffic signals with LED lights. Efforts are underway to convert
approximately 1,000 streetlights along arterial streets within the City to lower-wattage LED
fixtures.
Recommendations
Electricity used to power street and traffic lights accounted for over 1,300 mtCO2e in Auburn's
2008 municipal inventory, and cost the City $500,000. Street and pedestrian lights are the next
frontier for lighting efficiency for municipalities. Governments across the country are using
ARRA funds to pilot some of these new technologies. Auburn should continue to monitor these
new technologies as well as local demonstrations to assess street lighting efficiencies.
Where possible, switch to metered traffic and street lights to take advantage of the
cost savings from efficient fixtures (including LED lights). The City pays a significant
amount more on "flat-rate" lighting. Wherever possible, the City should move to
metered street lighting and then upgrade to energy-efficient LED bulbs to reduce costs
and emissions.
32 Unlike the CACP calculations, WARM includes upstream emissions calculated through a life-cycle
analysis. The inclusion of upstream emissions greatly increases the emissions associated with waste.
Municipal Recommendations 52
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTINVTQtr
• Investigate solar-powered fixtures. Solar panels can help power street lights, reducing
emissions and saving utility costs after an initial investment.
EMPLOYEE COMMUTING
Auburn Making Strides
The City of Auburn is addressing emissions from employee commuting through participation in
Washington's Commute Trip Reduction programs. This includes filling out the Commute Trip
Reduction survey and offering employees a $50/month subsidy for taking public transit.
Recommendations
Auburn can continue to reduce single occupancy vehicle miles through several initiatives that
encourage carpooling and reduce commuting miles.
Encourage employees to use alternative
transportation for commuting. Review the
City's policies on public transportation
passes and determine whether increasing
public transportation subsidies could
increase the use of public transportation.
Where possible, encourage biking by
providing bike racks, showers, and locker
rooms in all major City buildings. Adding
bike lockers and shower rooms to public
buildings will allow City staff and visitors to
Four Day Work-Week
The State of Utah switched to a four day
work week during 2008. Over the first
year, the "4/10" weeks saved$2.3 million
in energy and fleet costs and $4.1 million
in overtime pay.
http://www.dhrm.utah.gov/Working4Uta
h FinalReport Dec2009.pdf
travel to work by bike. Bike facilities can
help buildings to qualify for Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) points.
Add a carpooling feature to the employee intranet. Such a feature could help employees
identify possible carpool options.
Encourage flex-work policies that reduce commuting. Wherever possible, make "flex"
schedule options available to employees. Possible schedules include four ten-hour days, or
working remotely at least one day a week.
Municipal Recommendations 53
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Community Best Practices
The City of Auburn has more control over greenhouse gas emissions from its own municipal
activities than emissions from the community as a whole. The City, however, can take steps to
promote and provide incentives for GHG reductions throughout the broader community.
Transportation and building energy use were by far the largest contributors to Auburn's
communitywide GHG inventory in 2008, representing about 40% and 60% of emissions,
respectively. The discussion below addresses these two categories as well as solid waste, which,
though its impacts are smaller, offers significant opportunities for savings.
The following sections highlight examples of best practices from other jurisdictions around the
region and the nation. The lists are not intended to be prescriptive recommendations or to be
exhaustive, but rather they offer illustrative examples the City may consider in planning new
initiatives that aim to reduce emissions from the larger Auburn community.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation accounted for more than 40% of Auburn's community emissions for the base
year inventory in 2008. Transportation in the community inventory includes all emissions from
vehicle miles traveled on roads within city boundaries. These emissions are not limited to
vehicle miles traveled by Auburn residents, although residents are certainly responsible for a
portion of the total. While many transportation patterns and overall emissions will depend on
larger regional planning and national fuel efficiency standards, cities can take several steps to
reduce transportation emissions in their communities. Reducing transportation emissions can
involve changes increasing vehicle and travel system efficiency, using alternative fuels, and
reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or demand management. Best practices for reducing GHG
emissions from transportation include the following examples.
Cities around the nation are successfully using many transportation demand
management and commute trip reduction strategies to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and increase the use of alternative modes. Broad efforts include improving
transit access and frequency, supporting ridesharing, improving infrastructure to
support walking and biking, and compact and transit-oriented development or
smart growth. For example, Washington State's Growth and Transportation
Efficiency Center (GTEC) program works with local governments, businesses,
schools, and neighborhoods to encourage commuters to ride transit, carpool,
vanpool, walk, bike, telecommute, and use other commute options besides driving
alone. In Tukwila, the GTEC program involves an area wide transit flexpass,
vanpools, marketing, parking management, bus and rail transit stations, and
sidewalk and roadway improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists.33 Some cities
have had success with downtown circulators or shuttles connecting significant
employment, education, and retail centers. For example, in Emeryville, California,
33 Washington State Department of Transportation, "Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers."
Available online at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TDM/GTEC.htm. Accessed February 2010.
Community Best Practices 54
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory ~~U i►T
WASHTNUMN
local businesses fund Emery Go Round, a entirely privately funded shuttle
connecting rapid transit and rail to the business district.34
Electric vehicles and other forms of clean mobility offer opportunities for reducing
GHG emissions associated with commuting, freight movement, and other travel.
The federal government is investing more than $20 million in the Puget Sound
region through the eTec/Nissan's EV Project and other federal funding.35 Local
governments can position themselves for EV infrastructure investments, including
public charging stations and "smart" vehicle-to-grid connections for EVs.
In addition to leading by example through their own use of electric vehicles and
development of supportive infrastructure, cities can use rebates, special parking
spaces or reduced fees, permitting, and other incentives to promote and support
cleaner cars and fuels among residents and businesses. For example, electric
vehicles in Sacramento, California are eligible for free parking and recharging in
designated facilities.36 Washington State offers a sales tax exemption for the
purchase of new vehicles that exceed 40 miles per gallon, and the City of Aspen,
Colorado offers a $100 rebate on license registration for hybrid vehicles.
Parking policies-including minimums, maximums, on-street parking, and private
parking-can support VMT reductions. A number of cities use parking maximum
ratios to limit the number of parking spaces included in new construction; some
have also lowered or removed minimum parking requirements. These efforts can
help "unbundle" the price of parking from the purchase price of a property and
identify the cost of "free" parking. On-street parking prices and time limits can
encourage parking turnover, facilitate business access, and support alternative
modes of travel into downtown areas, as can taxes on private parking facilities. For
example, Redmond uses parking maximums to help reduce single-occupant vehicle
travel and support transit, ridesharing, biking, and walking; the parking maximums
may be lowered further.37 Free parking for hybrids, electric cars, and car-share
vehicles can also support their use.
• Car-sharing can reduce vehicle use when households (or businesses) are able to
reduce the number of cars they own. Studies in North America show that each car-
sharing vehicle removes 15 private cars from the community, on average, reducing
parking demand and VMT."The cars they replace tend to be older, high polluters,
34 Emeryville Transportation Management Association, "Emery Go-Round." Available online at
http://www.emerygoround.com/aboutus. Accessed February 2010.
35 The EV Project, http://www.theevproiect.com.
36 City of Sacramento (California), "Parking Services: Electric Vehicles."Available online at
http://www.citvofsacramento.org/transportation/parl<ing/offstreetother.html; Hybrid Cars, "Hybrid and
Plug-in Incentives and Rebates." Available online at http://www.hybridcars.com/local-incentives/region-
by-region.html. Accessed February 2010.
37 City of Redmond (Washington), "Downtown Redmond Parking Study." Available online
athttp://www.redmond.gov/connectingredmond/studies/parkingstudy.asp. Accessed February 2010.
38 Cohen, Adam P., Susan A. Shaheen, and Ryan McKenzie, Carsharing: A Guide for Local Planners,
Research Report UCD-ITS-RP-08-16. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California-Davis,
2008. Available online at http://pubs. its.ucdavis.edu/publication detail.php?id=1240. Accessed February
2010.
Community Best Practices 55
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHi1V'TQtr
while the car-share vehicles are typically high-efficiency, low-emission vehicles. In
1999, King County issued the first Request for Proposals for car-sharing services
(and pledged support), and the result was the nation's first large-scale car-sharing
program. Today, Zipcar (a private company) has hundreds of shared vehicles in
Seattle, including hybrids, and is beginning to expand to the surrounding cities.
Cities can encourage car-sharing through using and promoting car-sharing, adopting
parking policies such as establishing designated parking locations for car-share
vehicles, and encouraging car-sharing in new developments. For example,
Philadelphia replaced its municipal fleet with car-sharing vehicles, and Seattle has
designating parking spots for car-sharing vehicles.39
Replacing stop signs and traffic signals with roundabouts can reduce fuel use
associated with stop-and-go traffic. According to the Washington State Department
of Transportation, roundabouts save lives, save time, and reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by more than one-third when they replace well-suited traffic signals and
stop signs. The nearby cities of Federal Way and Covington have several examples of
modern roundabouts.40 Other access management strategies can also improve
roadway safety and reduce emissions.
Coordinating traffic lights can minimize idling and traffic congestion. Optimizing
traffic signals can reduce idling time and the need for acceleration and deceleration,
in addition to reducing traffic in congestion areas. Portland's award-winning traffic
signal optimization effort has saved more than 157,000 metric tons of carbon
dioxide emissions in six years-the equivalent of removing 30,000 passenger
vehicles from the road for an entire year.41
Community anti-idling campaigns or ordinances can reduce greenhouse gas
emission and air pollution. Many anti-idling ordinances apply to commercial
vehicles, such as a delivery trucks and buses, but some rules can apply to all drivers,
including passenger cars. For example, the City of Aspen adopted an ordinance
limiting idling to five minutes with up to a $1,000 fine and conducted an "Idling Isn't
Cool!" campaign to educate community members. No-idling signs on businesses and
public places can also help remind drivers to reduce this emissions source .41
39 Ibid.
40 Washington State Department of Transportation, see "Why Build Roundabouts?" section,
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/N R/rdonlyres/8C13 D92B-A820-4669-A55 F-
7183678D6539/0/US395ColumbiaDrtoSR240Folio 07 29 2009.pdf; WSDOT, "Washington's
Roundabouts," http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/washingtons.htm.
41 ,Smart City award goes to Portland Bureau of Transportation," City of Portland (Oregon), February
2010. Available online at http://www.portlandonline.com/mayor/?a=288204&c=49521. Accessed
February 2010.
42 City of Aspen and Pitkin County, "Engine Idling," Code Section 13.08.110, Title 13: Health and Quality of
the Environment. Available online at
httP://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/clerl</municode/COAspenTl3.pdf. Accessed February
2010.
Community Best Practices 56
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
BUILDING ENERGY USE
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTotr
In 2008, building energy use - including electricity and natural gas -from residential,
commercial, and industrial sources accounted for roughly 60% of total community emissions,
40% of these emissions where from electricity consumption. The emissions from building energy
use depend on several key factors including the mix of fuel used to create electricity, energy
demand, and the efficiency with which energy is consumed. Accordingly, efforts to reduce
emissions from energy consumption include increasing availability of renewable energy,
conserving energy (decreasing demand), and increasing energy efficiency. While the City can
exert more control over its own energy consumption and facilities, many local governments
have also adopted best practices regarding building energy use in their communities. These
initiatives provide valuable examples for the City of Auburn to consider.
• Local government can partner with utilities to help link businesses and residents with
rebates and other incentives to support energy audits, weatherization, and other
building retrofits. Puget Sound Energy offers a range of rebates for lighting, controls,
HVAC, appliances, and other equipment and products. Cities can share information and
promote rebate programs through their website, community events, and other venues
to ensure that businesses and residents are aware of these programs.
Direct-install programs, though resource-intensive, can yield impressive energy
efficiency gains. Boulder, Colorado's ClimateSmart program conducts neighborhood
"sweeps" that send teams door-to-door to conduct energy audits, provide education,
weatherize homes, and install energy-efficient products, such as compact fluorescent
light bulbs, low-flow showerheads and faucet aerators, water heater wraps, water pipe
insulation, furnace filters, refrigerator/freezer thermometers, and setback
thermostats.43 Seattle City Light recently started a direct-install program for compact
fluorescent light bulbs.
• Funding and incentives support energy efficiency upgrades in homes and businesses.
Either on their own or in partnership with the private sector, cities can offer low-interest
loans, energy-efficient mortgages, local improvement districts for energy efficiency, or
bond measures. Jurisdictions can work to advance innovative repayment methods via
utility bills or property taxes, a strategy the City of Berkeley pioneered as part of its
Sustainable Energy Financing District. 44 Tax credits or "feebates" can also create
incentives for energy efficiency. For example, Montgomery County, Maryland, offers a
Green Building property tax credit for commercial buildings that achieve LEED-EB
(Existing Building) certification .41 Portland has proposed a fee on buildings that meet
only the state's minimum energy code requirement; funds collected would be used to
43 City of Boulder, City of Longmont, and Boulder County (Colorado), ClimateSmart. Available online at
http://www.beclimatesmart.com/. Accessed February 2010.
44 City of Berkeley (California), "Berkeley FIRST: Financing Initiative for Renewable and Solar
Tech nology."Available online at http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=26580. Accessed
February 2010.
45 Montgomery County (Maryland), "Property Tax Credit - Energy and Environmental Design." Available
online at
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/govtmpl.asp?url=/content/finance/CountyTaxes/Info%2OTaxes/t
ax credit exempt.ASP#p19. Accessed February 2010.
Community Best Practices 57
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory URN
WASHTNUMN
waive the fee or provide rewards for new buildings that exceed the performance
standard S.41
Energy disclosure reporting requirements inform potential buyers or renters about the
relative efficiency of a property and can create incentives for owners to retrofit their
buildings. Adopted in early 2010, Seattle's Energy Disclosure Ordinance requires large
commercial and multifamily property owners to measure energy use and provide the
City and prospective buyers or tenants with ratings to allow comparison across different
buildings.47 Disclosure mandates could include historical energy use, energy
performance checklists, and/or energy performance ratings or labels. Making energy
consumption data available provides useful information to potential tenants and
investors and encourages property owners to reduce energy use where possible.
• Integrating a green building or energy efficiency rating system into building codes can
boost energy efficiency throughout the community. For example, some cities have
adopted LEED standards or Energy Star Building standards (or other similar standards)
for their own buildings as well as new private developments.
Cities can enact mandates that require upgrades to commercial or residential
buildings. For example, Burlington, Vermont, has established minimum energy
efficiency standards for both single- and multifamily rental properties.48 Austin, Texas,
has proposed mandatory upgrades for "energy hog" properties that use 50% more
energy than the city's average building.49
Enacting policies to support and promote renewable energy and distributed
generation technologies, such as solar panels and rooftop wind turbines, can help
generate clean energy in urban settings. Cities can support and encourage renewable
energy through their own leadership as well as supportive regulations and permitting.
For example, Sonoma County, California, developed an Energy Independence Program
that includes financing, supportive policies, and other efforts to promote solar
photovoltaic, solar thermal, and other efficiency and renewable energy
improvements.50 Efforts can include promotion of "net-zero" or even net-positive
buildings that produce more energy than they consume.
46 City of Portland, "City of Portland Proposed High Performance Green Building Policy." Available online
at http://www. portIandonIine.com/bps/index.cfm?c=45879. Accessed February 2010.
47 City of Seattle, "Energy Disclosure Ordinance identifies energy waste, gives property owners and
tenants tools to improve energy efficiency," February 1, 2010. Available online at
http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/newsdetail.asp?ID=10497&dept=48. Accessed February 2010.
48 City of Burlington (Vermont) and Burlington Electric, Code of Ordinances, Article VII, "Minimum Energy
Efficiency Standards Ordinance." Available online at
https://www.burlingtonelectric.com/page.php?pid=43&name=time of sale. Accessed February 2010.
49 Austin Energy, "Energy Conservation Audit and Disclosure (ECAD) Ordinance for Owners of Commercial
Buildings." Available online at
http://www.austi nenergy.com/About%20Us/Environmental%201 nitiatives/ordinance/commercial.htm.
Accessed February 2010.
so Sonoma County Energy Independence, "Energy Independence Program." Available online at
http://www.sonomacountVenergV.org/. Accessed February 2010
Community Best Practices 58
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
SOLID WASTE
t
_ URN
WASfdiNVToti
Waste represented only a small part of Auburn's community emissions. However, alternative
methods of calculation such as the EPA's WAste Reduction Model (WARM) suggest that by
reducing its waste stream, communities can substantially reduce upstream emissions associated
with the manufacturing and transportation of materials.51 While these emissions are not
included Scope 1 or 2 inventories, and were not covered by Auburn's 2007 or 2008 inventory,
the benefits in terms of greenhouse gas reductions are real. 12 Key opportunities for Auburn
include actions that support source reduction efforts, increased recycling and composting, and
efficiency in collection and processing.
• Auburn's new solid waste contract slated for bid in 2012 offers a major opportunity
for waste prevention and increased diversion. The City's new waste contract offers an
excellent opportunity to focus efforts on waste prevention, increased recycling, and
food waste collection and reduce associated emissions. Best practices include adopting
pay-as-you-throw garbage rate structures that embed the cost of recycling collection
into the garbage fee and ensure communitywide organics collection. Contracts can also
require haulers to estimate their carbon emissions from collection and processing and
to identify the steps they will take to reduce emissions where possible. Cities can also
partner with their waste hauler to provide business incentives and education and
outreach that support recycling and composting.
Mandatory recycling and bans on the disposal of recyclable or compostable materials
can increase diversion and enhance recovery of valuable materials. For example,
multiple cities in King County ban yard waste from disposal as garbage, and Seattle
prohibits residents from disposing of recyclables and businesses from disposing of paper
and cardboard in their garbage.53 Including multifamily, commercial, and industrial
buildings in recycling programs will expand their impact and improve consistency
between home and workplace recycling. Local ordinances can also support reuse and
recycling of construction and demolition materials.
Local campaigns encouraging recycling, composting, reuse, and source reduction can
prevent waste-and its associated greenhouse gas impacts. Communitywide or
targeted promotional campaigns can focus on particular materials, practices, sectors, or
geographic areas. For example, Seattle's ban on non-recyclable or compostable food-
service packaging reduces waste going to the landfill and supports recycling and
composting. 54
51 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "WAste Reduction Model." Available online at
http://www.epa.gov/climate/WARM/Warm home.html; USEPA, "Climate Change -Waste." Available
online at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wvcd/waste/index.html. Accessed February 2010.
52 USEPA, "West Coast Forum on Climate Change, Waste Prevention, Recovery and Disposal." Available
online at http://vosemite.epa.gov/r10/ECOCOMM.NSF/Programs/wcf. Accessed February 2010.
53 City of Seattle, "Ban on Recyclables in Garbage." Available online at
http://www.citVofseattle.net/UTIL/About SPU/Recycling System/History & Overview/Ban on Recyclab
les in Garbage/index.asp. Accessed February 2010.
54 Resource Venture, "Seattle's New Food Packaging Requirements." Available online at
http://www.resourceventure.org/foodpluscompostables. Accessed February 2010.
Community Best Practices 59
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Commercial recycling or conservation assistance programs can help businesses reduce
waste, shrink their carbon footprints, and save money. For example, Portland Metro
Area's Recycle at Work program provides information, resources such as recycling
boxes, and technical assistance to help businesses reduce their waste." Seattle's
Resource Venture assists businesses with reducing waste, conserving water, and
reducing energy use.56
ss Metro (Oregon) Recycle at Work, http://www.recycleatworl<.com/
56 Resource Venture, www.resourceventure.org
Community Best Practices 60
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Next Steps
Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require a sustained effort over time and a
portfolio of actions and initiatives by Auburn, its citizens, and, indeed, communities across the
nation and around the globe. The actions presented above provide Auburn with a menu of
choices from which to forge a path forward and provide leadership on this vital issue.
It was beyond the scope of this study to
evaluate each of these options in terms of
GHG reductions achieved, cost-
effectiveness, leverage, feasibility, and
other related criteria. Therefore, the next
step in this process is for Auburn to review
and discuss these options, develop a short
list that makes sense for the City, quantify
potential savings and associated costs, and
then establish priorities.
Auburn then will be in a strong position to
formulate an action plan to reduce
emissions in both the short and longer
terms. With a plan in place,
implementation can begin immediately,
especially on some of the options that
represent "low-hanging fruit." The City will
then need to track and measure progress
overtime, reporting to its citizens and
businesses on progress made toward a
cleaner, sustainable, prosperous low-
carbon future.
Evaluating Actions
An extensive analysis of climate protection actions
was not a part of this study. As the City of Auburn
moves forward to meet its climate protection goals,
the following criteria should be considered when
evaluating actions.
• Reduction Potential: total achievable GHG
reduction potential.
• Cost-effectiveness: costs of
implementation and the potential savings
generated.
• Feasibility: ease of achievement and
potential to overcome barriers.
• Rapid Deployment: opportunity to effect
changes quickly.
• Regional Impact: level of opportunity in
the Puget Sound region.
Next Steps 61
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
Appendix A: Detailed Data Sources
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Organization/ Department _
Data Supplied _
City of Auburn Cemetery
Cemetery vehicle fleet
City of Auburn Finance
Finance Department Liaison, requested data from PSE
City of Auburn Finance
Relevant PSE account numbers for Auburn facilities,
cost information on PSE electric and natural gas
accounts, list of business travel invoices used to pull
_
records, fuel data
City of Auburn Engineering
Public Works greenhouse gas inventory liaison
City of Auburn Engineering
Electricity use for street and traffic lights
City of Auburn Golf Course
Golf course fleet data
City of Auburn Human Resources
Square footage, addresses of non-parks City facilities,
PSE data release forms for renters living in COA
properties, occupancy data
City of Auburn Maintenance &
Auburn fleet data, fuel usage, refrigerants, pump
Operations
station list
City of Auburn Maintenance &
Auburn fleet data
Operations
City of Auburn Parks
Parks Facilities energy use, Parks Department travel _
City of Auburn Parks
Parks Department liaison
City of Auburn Police
Police Department liaison, Police Department travel
City of Auburn Legal
Legal Department liaison, Legal Department travel
City of Auburn Finance
Solid waste data estimates (based on container size and
Department
frequency of pick-up)
City of Auburn White River Valley
White River Valley Museum electricity and natural gas
Museum
account numbers, cost information and data release
Puget Sound Energy
Electricity and natural gas consumption
King County Metro
Information on 2008 fuel use and passenger miles for
commuting calculations
Pierce Transit
Information on 2008 fuel use and passenger miles for
commuting calculations
Sound Transit
Information on 2008 fuel use and passenger miles for
commuting calculations
Appendix 62
Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory
t
_ SUR.N
WASHTNVTQtr
Community Inventory Data Sources
Organization/ Department Data Supplied
Puget Sound Regional Council
2006 Average Weekday VMT in City of Auburn
(PSRC)
boundaries
City of Auburn Public Works
City of Auburn Traffic Counts
Puget Sound Energy
Community Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption
City of Auburn Finance
Data from Waste Management, Allied Waste Services,
Department
and Murrey's Disposal on community waste generation
City of Auburn Human Resources
CTR report (2007)
Department
Other D. Sources
Organization/Department
Data Supplied
City of Auburn Engineering
City transportation projects that may reduce
Department
greenhouse gases
City of Auburn Finance
Full time Employee counts for City of Auburn - used for
Department
metrics
City of Auburn Human Resources
City Facilities projects that may reduce greenhouse
Department
gases
City of Auburn Maintenance and
Total gallons pumped by water pump stations - used for
Operations Department
metrics
City of Auburn Mayor's Office
Demographic data, City economic development efforts
City of Auburn Planning &
City planning projects and city code changes that may
Development Department
reduce greenhouse gases
Washington State Department of
WSDOT Internal Greenhouse Gas Inventory, WSDOT
Transportation (WSDOT)
Annual Traffic Report (2008)
Washington Office of Financial
Information on Auburn population - used for metrics
Management
and forecasting
Puget Sound Regional Council
Information on expected population growth in region -
used for forecasting
The Department of Energy, Energy
Information on expected growth in energy demand by
Information Administration
region and sector- used for forecasting
Appendix 63