The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 15 - COUNCIL READING FILE_f_CAP Appendix B - Reduction Measure Quantification Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Appendix B: GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................1 2. GHG Reduction Analysis.........................................................................................................2 2.1 Lead by Example ...............................................................................................................3 2.2 Clean Energy Systems ......................................................................................................3 2.3 Green Buildings .................................................................................................................5 2.4 Connected Community ......................................................................................................8 2.5 Circular Economy ............................................................................................................10 2.6 Natural Solutions .............................................................................................................11 3. Carbon Neutrality Uncertainties + Future Opportunities ........................................................13 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Measures and GHG Emissions for Clean Energy Systems ...........................................4 Table 2. Measures and GHG Emissions for Green Buildings ......................................................7 Table 3. Measure and GHG Emissions for Connected Community .............................................9 Table 4. Measures and GHG Emissions for Circular Economy .................................................11 Table 5. Measures and GHG Emissions for Natural Solutions ..................................................12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Projected Community GHG Emissions, 2005 -2035 ......................................................3 Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-1 1. INTRODUCTION Background CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1) establishes criteria to guide the preparation of a “plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Subsection (D) notes that a CEQA Guideline consistent climate action plan must include, “measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project -by- project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.” In support of achieving the City of San Luis Obispo City Council’s goal of carbon neutrality, the City has established greenhouse gas emissions sector specific goals and foundational actions to achieve them. The sector goals and the foundational actions were established through quantification estimates of programs at full implementation. These estimates and underlying calculations, provided in this report, show substantial evidence that there is a transparent and defensible approach to achieving the City’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. To focus efforts on achieving the 2035 goal, City staff established six pillars of climate action: Lead by Example, Clean Energy Systems, Green Buildings, Connected Community, Circular Economy, and Natural Solutions. In February of 2019, the City partnered with Raimi + Associates to identify a quantified path to carbon neutrality by 2035. The Raimi + Associates team worked with staff, who has worked closely with the community, to identify actions within each of the pillars that are able to generate meaningfu l reductions in GHG emissions. Each pillar requires a “foundational action” to innovate, pilot ideas, and build support for programs that generate the magnitude, speed, and scale of GHG reductions needed to achieve the City’s goal. The quantification in this report is intended to illustrate one of several viable paths to pursue as these foundational moves are implemented and transition from pilots to fully implementable programs operating at the appropriate speed and scale. The quantification in this report also provides substantial evidence that the City can achieve consistency with SB32’s target of 40 percent below 1990 by 2030. The sector-specific goals are: • Pillar 1: Lead by Example – Carbon neutral government operations by 2030i • Pillar 2: Clean Energy Systems –100 percent carbon free electricity by 2020 • Pillar 3: Green Buildings – No net new emissions from new buildings’ onsite energy use by 2020; 50 percent reduction in existing building onsite emissions by 2030 • Pillar 4: Connected Community – Achieve General Plan mode split objective by 2030; 40 percent of vehicle miles travelled by electric vehicles by 2030 • Pillar 5: Circular Economy – 75 percent diversion of landfilled organic waste by 2025 90 percent by 2035 • Pillar 6: Natural Solutions – Increase carbon sequestration on the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and Urban Forest through compost application -based carbon farming activities and tree planting; ongoing through 2035 Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-2 2. GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS This report presents an analysis of one GHG reduction pathway to achieve reductions consistent with and beyond those required for SB 32 and to establish a trajectory to achieve progress toward the 2035 goal of carbon neutrality. Raimi + Associates in partnership with the City used a tool developed internally to evaluate the GHG reductions of various measures and to determine the magnitude with which the measures must be implemented in order to achieve emission reduction goals. The reduction measures reflect adopted state regulations, local policy, an d documented industry best practices for achieving deep decarbonization. The measures are applied individually to identify which measures are most impactful for each climate action pillar and then combined to determine the total emissions reductions that can be achieved. Based on this analysis, combined annual reductions from existing state law and participation in Monterey Bay Community Power is expected to result in an annual reduction of 39,010 MTCO 2e in 2035. The combined local reductions from the rema ining pillars can result in an annual reduction of 98,200 MTCO2e in 2030 and 145,260 MTCO2e in 2035. This represents a total reduction in annual greenhouse gas emissions of 204,330 MTCO 2e in 2030, or 53% from the 2005 baseline, and 275,600 MTCO2e in 2035, or 71% from the 2005 baseline with a remaining gap of 111,030 MTCO2e. While not true zero, the total reduction that can be achieved across the six pillars by applying established measures that are within the City’s authority or influence shows the massive potential for the City reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, while currently creating healthier homes, safer streets, a more active and engaged citizenry, and stronger connections to regional ecosystems. It also illustrates that if true carbon neutrality i s to be achieved, substantial support from the federal government and the State of California is required. Analysis Approach The analysis for each of the six pillars of climate action that is outlined in the following pages includes: • Description of baseline conditions • Description of the applicable strategies for achieving GHG reductions • A summary of the measures selected and the magnitude of application • Summary of the impact that the specific pillar has on the overall GHG profile of the City in 2035. Limitations and uncertainties regarding future trends in technology, behavior, and social norms are discussed in the final section of this analysis. Given time and the increasing shifts in financial markets, private industry, and governmental programs towards carbon reduction programs, these shifts may be able to help close the gap between San Luis Obispo’s projected GHG reductions and true carbon neutrality. Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-3 Figure 1. Projected Community GHG Emissions, 2005-2035 2.1 Lead by Example The “Lead by Example” pillar is focused on achieving carbon neutrality in the City’s municipal operations, which include emissions inside and outside of the City of San Luis Obispo City Limi ts. The quantified reduction estimates for this pillar will be included in the municipal climate action plan and are not counted in the community climate action plan. 2.2 Clean Energy Systems Background This analysis explores the impact of using carbon -free grid-based electricity in the City of San Luis Obispo. Like the State, energy decarbonization is essential to help San Luis Obispo achieve its climate goals as it has cross-sectoral impacts on buildings and transportation. The analysis tool evaluated the greenhouse gas emissions reductions that occur as the result of procuring carbon free energy through joining the community choice aggregation energy (CCE) program administered by Monterey Bay Community Power. Because the quantity of electricity consumed is an important variable, and because it is assumed that some percentage of the community will choose to stay with PG&E, the calculations for this pillar include information about increasing energy efficiency through triennial updates to the California Bui lding Code and state law regarding the carbon content of PG&E’s electricity portfolio. Since the City has already enrolled in the program and is receiving service as of January 2020, the reduction estimates are treated as avoided emissions in the adjusted forecast. Following is a description of the magnitude of implementation and resulting GHG emissions reductions projected by 2035. GHG Reduction Measures + Assumptions 1. Clean Energy Supply: San Luis Obispo joined the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) community choice aggregation program in 2018 and began service 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 2005 2016 2020 2030 2035Greenhouse Gas Emission (MTCO2e)Baseline Forecast (BAU)Scenario Emissions Target Emissions 71% potential GHG emissions reduction 111,030 MTCO2e GHG emissions gap Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-4 in January 2020. CCEs are a way for government agencies to buy and/or generate cleaner electricity for residents and businesses. CCEs create a partnership between a municipality and its existing utility provider, giving communities the option to purchase carbon -free electricity from other sources while working with the utility to deliver energy to customers at competitive rates. The GHG analysis assumes that customers opt -in to MBCP at a rate of 98% for residential customers and 97% for non -residential customers. The analysis also assumes a very low intensity emissions coefficient for MBCP based on recent IRP filings with a downward trajectory to full neutrality by 2035. GHG Emissions Analysis Results The measures included in the Carbon -Free Energy sector result in a reduction of 26,050 MTCO 2e in 2030 and 39,010 MTCO2e in 2035, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Measures and GHG Emissions for Clean Energy Systems 2030 2035 Projected residential electricity (kWh) 79,178,790 79,178,790 Opt out rate (%) 2% 2% Projected MBCP residential kWh 77,595,214 77,595,214 Projected PG&E residential kWh 1,583,576 1,583,576 Projected nonresidential electricity (kWh) 187,482,010 187,482,010 Opt out rate (%) 3% 3% Projected MBCP nonresidential kWh 181,857,550 181,857,550 Projected PG&E nonresidential kWh 5,624,460 5,624,460 Projected MBCP Coefficient (MTCO2e/kWh) 0.00004 0.00000 Projected PG&E Coefficient (MTCO2e/kWh) 0.000112 0.000112 Projected MBCP Emissions (MTCO2e) 10,380 0 Projected PG&E Emissions (MTCO2e) 810 810 Total Emissions (MTCO2e) 11,190 810 Emissions w/out RPS or MBCP (MTCO2e) 37,790 39,900 Emissions Savings from Title 24 Electricity (to avoid double counting) (MTCO2e) 550 80 Emissions reductions (MTCO2e) 26,050 39,010 Source: Monterey Bay Community Power. (2018). Integrated Resources Plan. Accessed from: https://www.mbcommunitypower.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/MBCP-IRP_LSE-Plan_v3_Final.pdf. Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-5 2.3 Green Buildings Since the City joined Monterey Bay Community Power, which provides carbon -free electricity, emissions associated with electricity use in buildings have been reduced to nearly zero. The remaining opportunities are to reduce natural gas use through energy efficiency or to remove the gas-burning equipment. Since electricity emissions have been reduced through Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP), emissions reductions from energy efficiency have only been applie d to natural gas use.ii It should be noted that even though participation in MBCP negates the GHG reductions from electricity energy efficiency and installation of local solar PV resources, these strategies provide multiple sustainability benefits includin g electric grid stability, local resiliency, improved indoor air quality, energy cost savings, and protection from utility rate volatility.iii The energy efficiency strategies included in the GHG analysis are building electrification, local clean energy generation, building benchmarking, retrocommissioning and retrofits, and increased stringency of the California Building Standards Code Part 6: Building Energy Efficiency Standards through continued adoption of local reach codes. The following is a descripti on of the measures included in the analysis, the magnitude of implementation, and resulting GHG emissions reductions in line with the City’s goal. GHG Reduction Measures + Assumptions 1. Building Electrification: Building electrification is the process of rep lacing fossil fuel end uses in existing residential and nonresidential buildings with electric alternatives. Electrification switches building systems and appliances used for space heating, water heating, cooking, and clothes drying from natural gas to ele ctricity. The 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan highlights the growing consensus that electrification is the most-viable and least-cost path to zero-emission buildings.iv Building electrification can reduce GHG emissions when coupled with a decarbonized electricity supply such as the carbon-free energy supplied by MBCP. For locations with access to 100% carbon -free energy, removing natural gas from buildings will generate a 100% reduction in GHG emissions, but will increase electricity usage. This measure is only applied to existing buildings as new construction electrification is encouraged by the adoption of local building reach code. 2. Commercial Benchmarking: Benchmarking is the practice of measuring and comparing energy use of a single building, relative to similar buildings or a building standard, with the goal of informing building owners and motivating improved performance over time. According to the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Options for Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings report, commercial benchmarking results in 0.13kWh/SF/year and 0.002 therms/SF/year savings.v The CEC report also notes that the voluntary adoption rate for this measure is only 20 -25% of eligible buildings. This scenario assumes 100% participation by eligible buildings, which would require a mandate. 3. Retrocommissiong: Retrocommissioning is the practice of applying commissioning, the process of ensuring that building systems are designed, installed, functionally tested, and being operated and maintained according to the owner’s operational needs, to existing buildings. The California Energy Commission found that retrocommissioning of commercial buildings accounts for 1.3 kWh/SF/year and 0.065 therms/SF/year savings Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-6 and that residential retrocommissioning saves 328kWh and 74 therms per residential dwelling unit per year.vi 4. Building Retrofits: Energy efficiency retrofits involve modifications to the existing building envelope or systems that improve energy efficiency and/or decrease energy demand. The GHG analysis tool assumes that the following efficiency packages are implemented as part of the retrofit measure: Residential • Home energy assessment • Insulation under the raised floor, above the roof deck and at all walls, • Replacement of existing single pane windows with double pane product, • Envelope sealing, • New ductless high efficiency mini-split heat pump, • New heat recovery ventilation system for mechanical ventilation, and • Installation of a one-switch load control device. Commercialvii • Install occupancy censors, • Add daylight harvesting, • Re-circuit and schedule lighting system by end use, • Retrofit interior fixtures to reduce lighting power density by 13%, • Retrofit exterior fixtures to reduce lighting power density, and add exterior lighting control, • Remove heat from front entry, • Widen zone temperature deadband (replace pneumatic thermostats), and • Lower VAV box minimum flow setpoints (rebalance pneumatic boxes). According to the California Energy Commission’s Large Scale Residential Retrofit Program, residential retrofits save 570kWh and 53 therms per unit per y ear.viii According to the United States Department of Energy Advanced Energy Retrofit Guides, the commercial retrofit package presented above for small to medium office and retail buildings reduces total energy use by approximately 33%. Adding retrocommissio ning to the package nearly doubles the energy savings.ix 5. Reach Code: Local jurisdictions can establish building energy performance requirements above the baseline California Building Standards Code. The baseline code is updated triennially to help California achieve its climate goals and to reflect changes in building technologies. The State has adopted the goal of carbon neutral buildings by 2030. The emissions reductions associated with these triennial updates have been built into the analysis tool. The City of San Luis Obispo is currently pursuing the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which states that new construction all -electric buildings must meet the baseline code efficiency requirements, while mixed -fuel buildings must be more efficient than code by 9 Energy Design Rating points for residential and 8 -15% more efficient for nonresidential. Since electric-preferred reach codes will not be implemented until 2020, there is no data on how the construction industry will respond to the requir ements nor the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-7 proportion of buildings that will be built as all -electric. According to Monterey Bay Community Power’s Electrification Strategic Plan, market saturation for residential electric building systems such as space heating is low, about 12 -15% and for cooktops is about 25%.x However, all-electric design uptake is expected to be swift and the City’s program includes incentives, regulations, and an offset program. As such, this analysis assumes that 95% of new buildings built in 2030, and 100% in 2035.xi GHG Emissions Analysis Results The measures included in the Green Buildings sector result in a reduction of 11,960 MTCO 2e in 2030 and 26,740 MTCO2e in 2035, as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Measures and GHG Emissions for Green Buildings 2030 2035 Commercial electrification retrofits (Cumulative Participating Buildings) 629 1,183 Natural gas reduction/ft2 (Therms)xii 0.3 0.3 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 670 870 Residential electrification retrofits (Cumulative Participating Buildings) 2,494 10,358 Natural gas reduction/unit (Therms)xiii 257 257 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 4,170 13,540 Commercial Benchmarking 649 2,186 Natural gas reductionxiv /ft2 (Therms) 0.002 0.002 Electricity reduction/ft2 (kWh) 0.13 0.13 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 40 120 Commercial retrocommissioning (Cumulative Participating Buildings) 274 466 Natural gas reductionxv/ft2 (Therms) 0.065 0.065 Electricity reduction/ft2 (kWh) 1.30 1.30 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 530 820 Residential Retrocommissioning (Cumulative Participating Buildings) 2,241 3,876 Natural gas reductionxvi/unit (Therms) 74 74 Electricity reduction/unit (kWh) 328 328 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 990 1,530 Commercial retrofits (Cumulative Participating Buildings) 283 582 Energy use reductionxvii (%) 33% 33% Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 950 1,710 Residential retrofits (Cumulative Participating Buildings) 1,523 4,179 Natural gas reductionxviii/unit (Therms) 53 53 Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-8 Electricity reductions/year (kWh) 570 570 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 830 1,900 Commercial all-electric new construction (Cumulative Participating Square Footage) 2,181,258 3,425,753 Therm reduction per square footxix 0.07 0.07 kWh addition per square footxx 0.67 0.67 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 760 1,200 Residential all-electric new construction (Cumulative Participating Units) 2,622 4,129 Therm reduction per unitxxi 230 230 kWh addition per unitxxii 3,232 3,232 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 3,020 5,050 Emissions Reductions (MTCO2e) 11,960 26,740 2.4 Connected Community Background Transportation related GHG emissions can be reduced through two main strategies: 1) reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and 2) vehicle electrification. Shifting trips to lower -emission options (carpool and bus) or zero -carbon options (walking and biking) reduces the VMT of single - occupancy vehicles, traditionally the most carbon -intensive mobility option. Beyond GHG emissions reductions, reductions in VMT provide multiple co -benefits such as improved air quality, transportation-related physical activity, less traffic congestion, increased cycli sts and pedestrian safety, and support for the creation of human -scale bike and pedestrian priority streetscapes and districts. The second option is to transition to electric vehicles, which leads to direct GHG emissions reductions, as electric vehicles in San Luis Obispo can be charged with 100% carbon -free energy. California’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan set the goal of 5 million EVs in California by 2030. While an aggressive goal, the EV market continues to grow and in 2018 constituted 5% of new car sales.xxiii Based on data from the California Plug -In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projections: 2017 -2025 report, the current EV adoption rate in San Luis Obispo County is about 0.66%.xxiv The rate of EV adoption is likely somewhat higher in the City of San Luis Obisp o as compared to the County, because the City population features many of the factors that determine the propensity to buy an EV such as higher household incomes, higher levels of educational attainment, and higher levels of environmental awareness.xxv The strategies included in the GHG analysis tool for transportation are electric vehicle (EV) adoption, electrification of the transit fleet, and mode shift from on -road vehicles to active transportation and transit. The analysis is based on the City’s curren t transportation patterns in terms of mode share and VMT, projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as generated by the City’s transportation demand model. GHG reductions are determined based on the mode share objectives and the policies in the Circulation el ement of the General Plan. The analysis also Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-9 incorporates the emissions reductions projected to result from state policies and regulations related to vehicle fuel efficiency. GHG Reduction Measures + Assumptions 1. EV Adoption: EV adoption is a critical component of transportation GHG emissions reductions. Transitioning vehicles from fossil fuels to clean electricity is an impactful strategy to reduce transportation related GHG emissions. Since San Luis Obispo supplies carbon-free electricity from MBCP, electric vehicles charged within the City are essentially zero-emission. Over time, shifting some VMT to EVs to create an increasing amount of “clean VMT” has the effect of gradually reducing the overall GHG intensity of VMT. EVs currently account for less than 1% of total vehicles registered in the County,xxvi so achieving a significantly higher rate requires a combination of infrastructure investments, reductions in the price of EVs, manufacturers producing high quality and cost comparable models, programs that enable access to EVs for low and moderate income households, and electricity tariffs that make total cost of ownership cheaper that fossil fuel vehicles. However, rapid advances in technology are putting EV usage on an aggressive adoption curve; the most recent electric vehicle outlook published by Bloomberg NEF notes, “By 2040 we expect 57% of all passenger vehicle sales, and over 30% of the global passenger vehicle fleet, will be electric.”xxvii In 2019, there were approximately 200,000 registered light duty vehicles and 67,000 trucks registered in San Luis Obispo County.xxviii The 22,289 new electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles identified in Table 3 represent under 10 percent of the total passenger fleet in 2016 and will represent an even lower total in 2035. 2. Mode Shift: Mode shift is the switch away from traveling in single occupancy vehicles to using other modes such as active transportation, transit, and carpool. GHG analysis assumes that mode share stated in the Circulation Element of 12% transit, 20% bike, 18% walking and carpool, and 50% single -occupant vehicles. GHG Emissions Analysis Results The measures included in the decarbonized transportation sector result in a reduction of 45,240 MTCO2e in 2030 and 64,170 MTCO2e in 2035, as shown in Table 3. Table 3. Measure and GHG Emissions for Connected Community 2030 2035 New Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (cumulative, inclusive of residents and regional commuters) 12,670 23,652 EV and Plug-in Hybrid VMT 94,321,187 168,610,303 Emissions reduction/EV VMT (MTCO2e) 0.00031 0.00026 Emissions reduction/Plug-in Hybrid VMT (MTCO2e) 0.00011 0.00009 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 22,180 34,920 Carpool Mode Share 23% 23% Carpool Trips 2,958,069 3,446,971 Emissions reduction/trip (MTCO2e) 0.0017 0.0015 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 5,100 5,100 Transit Mode Share 7% 12% Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-10 Transit trips 3,095,474 5,918,352 Emissions reduction/trip (MTCO2e) 0.0017 0.0015 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 5,340 8,750 Active Transportation Mode Share 20% 25% Walk + bike trips 7,319,928 10,419,143 Emissions reduction/trip (MTCO2e) 0.0017 0.0015 Projected emissions reduction (MTCO2e) 12,620 15,400 Emissions Reductions (MTCO2e) 45,240 64,170 2.5 Circular Economy Background Organic materials are the focus of the recent landmark legislation SB 1383 (Short -Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Reductions). Now in the final rulemaking stage, this new state law has the immediate goal of reducing organic waste sent to landfill a nd the ultimate objective of reaching statewide methane emissions reduction targets. Specifically, it sets a statewide goal for the reduction in organic waste to landfills – 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025 – in addition to the recovery of 20% of edible food wa ste for human consumption. SB 1383 will require local governments to provide organics collection to all generators, and all generators to subscribe. It also has specific mandates for container systems, education and outreach programs, monitoring and contamination reporting, and enforcement of regulations. Full SB 1383 implementation will begin in 2022, allowing some time for jurisdictions to plan and prepare for achieving compliance.xxix The City, the San Luis Obispo Integrated Waste Management Authority, and the local hauler, San Luis Garbage, must work together to comply with the various state laws, in addition to SB 1383, regulating solid waste services. AB 32 recognizes solid waste as a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and set the goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 341 Mandatory Commercial Recycling (2012) and AB 1826 Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (2014) place waste diversion program participation requirements on commercial and multi-family properties. AB 341 and AB 1826 also increased statewide goals to 75 percent diversion for recycling and 50 percent reduction of organic waste by 2020. San Luis Obispo has already started to build out the infrastructure to achieve zero waste. On November 18, 2018, the Kompogas SLO dry anaerobic plant was opened. The plant, built by Hitachi Zosen Inova, is currently accepting material that is then turned into methane (combusted to generate electricity) and soil amendments (compost and liquid). The facility has the following capacity: • Permitted TPW: 700 tons per week • Maximum Permitted Capacity: 36,500 tons per year Estimates of GHG emissions reductions for this pillar focus on the direct benefit of diverting 75% of the community’ organic waste from the landfill to the anerobic digester consistent with SB 1383 by 2030 and a stretch goal of 90% by 2035. Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-11 GHG Emissions Analysis Results The quantification estimates result in a reduction of 37,410 MTCO 2e in 2030 and 47,300 MTCO2e in 2035, as shown in Table 4. Table 4. Measures and GHG Emissions for Circular Economy 2030 2035 Projected annual emissions from organic decomposition/fugitive emissions (MTCO2e) 49,884 52,557 Organic diversion rates 75% 90% Reduction in annual emissions from organic decomposition/fugitive emissions (MTCO2e) 37,410 47,300 2.6 Natural Solutions Background San Luis Obispo has a unique opportunity to engage in sequestration activities, due to the combination of access to both protected open space and suitable composted organic material to apply to these opens spaces. Approximately 4,000 acres of open space are owned and managed by the City, as part of the larger regional greenbelt. Of this area the City has determined that approximately 400 acres are currently accessible and of a low enough slope to be suitable for compost application. Additional areas for compost application include other protected greenbelt properties located in the County that the City could use through a partnership agreement. The City operates a biodigester that processes organic material to produce biomethane and compost. The composted material is suitable for application to the City owned open space areas, thus creating a well aligned source -sink relationship. The application of compost allows for carbon to be stored in the soil and, over time, to be captured in the stems, leaves, and roo ts of grasses, woody plants, and trees. Other opportunities for sequestration are in the City’s urban forest and protected riparian areas. The current urban forest stock consists of approximately 20,000 trees. A rough estimate of total amount of greenhouse gases that are captured in the urban forest is 14,680 MTCO 2e. This amount is in the City’s current stock and cannot be counted as a GHG reduction measures. The goal is to maintain the amount and health of the current tree stock and then add trees to inc rease the carbon storage capacity of the urban forest. Assuming that the urban forest is not 100 percent stocked, which is typical even of communities that have well -managed forests such as Santa Monica, there is likely the ability to increase the size of the urban forest by 15% - 25%, or to add 3,000 – 5,000 additional trees. If a more aggressive tree planting program were to be implemented that included tree planting in parks and other City owned properties combined with encouraged planting on private property, an additional 5,000 trees could be added for a total of approximately 10,000 additional trees. San Luis Obispo also features several creeks that run through the City that are largely unchannelized condition. There is existing vegetation and riparian habitat, albeit somewhat degraded, that could be restored and enhanced with additional native trees and woody shrubs. The additional biomass created by the restoration and enhancement efforts would also contribute to the City’s overall GHG reductions thro ugh biological sequestration. Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-12 GHG Reduction Measures + Assumptions 1. Compost Application/Carbon Farming: Application of biomass such as compost or biochar onto open lands in areas that will not be disturbed. The analysis assumes a total of 1,260 acres are designated for this measure by 2035. The COMET Planner GHG factor for grassland is used as this is assumed to be the best fit for areas that include both grasses and small woody shrubs. 2. Urban Forestry: This measure assumes an increase of 10,670 trees to the existing urban forest by 2035. The carbon capture factor for mixed hardwoods is applied for a 20 -year growing period. 3. Creek Restoration: This measure assumes that 2 miles of creeks within the San Luis Obispo City limits are restored and that the riparian area has an average width of 50 feet, resulting in a total of 12 acres of restored area. Based on the output of the CREEC model developed by the California Department of Conservation, if these riparian areas were to be restored with a combination of common riparian trees and woods shrubs a mix of (20% sycamore, 20% black walnut, 20% oak, 20% bay laurel, and 20% poison oak was assumed), a total of 62.95 Mg C/hectare would be captured by 2035. For the 12 -acre potential restoration area and converting from C to CO2 this results in a total sequestration potential of 1,123 MTCO2. GHG Emissions Analysis Results The measures included in the Sequestration sector result in a reduction of 3,610 MTCO 2e in 2030 and 7,060 MTCO2e in 2035, as shown in Table 5. Table 5. Measures and GHG Emissions for Natural Solutions 2030 2035 Number of trees planted (cumulative) 7,337 10,672 Emissions reduction per tree (MTCO2e) 0.0354 0.0354 Annual GHG reductions (MTCO2e) 260 380 Acres of compost applied (cumulative) 760 1,260 Emissions reduction per acre (MTCO2e) 4.41 4.41 Annual GHG reductions (MTCO2e) 3,350 5,560 Miles of creek restoration (cumulative) 2.00000 Emissions reduction per mile (MTCO2e) Method described above Annual GHG reductions (MTCO2e) 1,120 Emissions reductions (MTCO2e) 3,610 7,060 Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-13 3. UNCERTAINTIES + OPPORTUNITIES There are several factors that are uncertain or unknown. These can have a significant impact on the ability on the City’s ability to achieve the final 15% -20% of GHG reductions needed to achieve neutrality: Transportation Rate of EV adoption. Estimates of the rate of EV adoption over the next fifteen years vary widely. What is needed to achieve statewide GHG reduction goals for vehicle s range from the 5 million stated by Governor Brown’s ZEV Action Plan to the 6 million in the CEC Deep Decarbonization report.xxx Estimates of the number of vehicles that will actually be on the road in the State depend on assumptions including the future c ost of vehicles, extension of current or existence of future tax incentives or other rebates, access to charging facilities to decrease consumer hesitancy regarding purchases, and the development of lease, subscription or other financial structures. Overall car ownership. Current trends show that millennials are less likely to own cars and more likely to use public transportation or cycle than previous generations.xxxi It is unknown whether this trend will continue as millennials age, start families, and move from dense urban areas to more suburban or rural locations. Acceptance and market share of autonomous vehicles . If shared and powered by renewable electricity autonomous vehicles could be instrumental in reducing GHG emissions and the total number of vehicles in San Luis Obispo. This advancement could result in changes to land use, zoning, and parking standards in order to allow for slightly higher development density as a result of less space needing to be allocated to parking. Acceptance of autonomous vehicles by consumers, City officials, and residents is uncertain, especially as some early efforts to deploy autonomous vehicles have experienced challenges with integrating with current street designs and driver behaviors.xxxii There is also a risk that autonomous vehicles are fossil fuel driven and privately owned, which would not contribute GHG emissions reduction and could lead to an increase in trips and Citywide VMT. Employee work culture and travel patterns . With the rapid growth in mobile technologies and the ability to access the internet remotely, there is the potential for employees to conduct their work-related tasks at home or at shared work facilities close to home, through telepresence, rather than commute to a central office. This has the potential to reduce the number of work-related trips and associated VMT. The City has limited ability to influence these trends, through transportation demand management (TDM) policies, so the degree to which remote work options are offered is determined by individual employers. However, this is a regional issue that SLOCOG could explore further. Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-14 Implementation of SB 743. This bill requires a shift in transportation impact analysis from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), as well as greenhouse gas reductions and support for active transportation. While the analysis methods are being developed for determining impacts from a CEQA perspective, there is still uncertainty regarding how mitigation measures will be identified. Previously mos t mitigation measures were focused on the area in proximity to the proposed project, to reduce congestion and decrease in LOS. Using VMT as the measurement of impact creates the possibility of mitigation measures occurring in more distant locations for items such as removing a gap in the bicycle network or on non -roadway items such as improving transit facilities or reducing bus headways. The feasibility and legality of VMT driven mitigations that focus on reducing GHG emissions and/or promoting active tran sportation, rather that solving localized roadway issues, will need to be defined as this shift in practice is put into place in the coming years. Willingness to prioritize biking and walking. The current roadway system in San Luis Obispo is designed primarily to accommodate private vehicles. There are ongoing local examples of bike-priority streets, protected bikeways, trails, paseos, and plazas that serve the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. The reduction estimated in this analysis depends on an equitable allocation of public rights of way among the various travel modes, so that biking, walking, and transit use are presented as equally viable and important methods of transportation. Furthermore, there is the potential to establish certain streets and cor ridors as bike-priority or bike/ped-only and to implement a comprehensive bus rapid transit network on 2-4 major boulevards in the City. The City could explore these options more fully in its update of the Active Transportation Plan and future strategic transit planning efforts. Future of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. The current federal government administration is actively opposing climate action and is decidedly anti - environment. As such, the White House has proposed to weaken the fede ral fuel-economy standards set by previous administrations administration and has taken action to revoke California’s ability to set its own environmental laws. This legal challenge could have significant adverse impacts on vehicle fuel efficiency throughout the State but will most likely remain undecided as it progresses through the judicial system. Statewide Housing Law. The California Legislature has recently considered dozens of bills related to housing production. Although the bills cover many differe nt topics, it is likely that the state will create conditions that expand housing production, which could affect emissions from regional trips. Energy + Energy Use State building code updates to require carbon neutrality. California’s energy efficiency laws will continue to drive significant improvements in building efficiency, particularly for new buildings. The State’s goal is for near-zero net energy new construction by 2020 for residential buildings and 2030 for commercial properties. It is unknown whe ther the State regulations will go into effect along their stated timeline. CCA participation rate persistence. As discussed above, CCAs are a new development within the energy sector in California; not much data is available on which to base future assumptions. Current trends in the industry suggest that CCAs will continue to be a viable alternative to traditional investor-owned utilities (IOUs). For example, the State’s first CCA, Marin Clean Energy, established in 2010, continues to expand their service area and successfully procure and distribute clean electricity. Furthermore, the number of CCAs Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-15 across California continues to increase. There are now 19 CCAs that are projected to serve over 10 million customers.xxxiii Furthermore, considering the recent Public Safety Power Shutoffs and PG&E’s pending bankruptcy, there is significant uncertainty in the electricity utility landscape. Other Uncertainties Ability to account for land sequestration outside of the City’s Green Belt. Expanding sequestration efforts from the 400 identified acres to larger areas would significantly increase emissions reduction capacity. However, accounting and reporting methods for out of boundary emissions reductions are currently under develop ment and will not be ready for inclusion in this report. Should the City be able to support sequestration or regenerative agriculture in regional rangeland or farmland, potential additional reductions could be substantial. Regional collaboration. Regional collaboration is a difficult tool to employ but can have wide-reaching GHG implications. Many of the high GHG intensity development patterns cannot be corrected without coordination among jurisdictions throughout the County. However, the level of willingn ess for cross-jurisdictional willingness and capacity to collaborate on future patterns of growth, land use, and transportation is currently unknown. Although the GHG analysis demonstrates that San Luis Obispo is not able to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035, the City is well positioned to proceed down the pathway to carbon neutrality. The City has a relatively compact urban form, a local and regional bus system, rail service, examples of appropriately scaled density, participation in a community choice agg regation option to receive grid-delivered renewable energy, and publicly owned open space that could be used for carbon farming or forms of biological carbon sequestration. The City also has an appetite for innovation as evidenced by the biodigester, EV ch arging station, and photovoltaic installations. As the future of climate action in California becomes clearer in the next decade, answers to many of the uncertainties presented above could help San Luis Obispo close its remaining GHG gap and reach carbon neutrality within its timeframe. Additionally, having a carbon neutrality framework in place will allow the City to capitalize on private foundation investments and federal and state funding sources as they become available. i The “Lead by Example” pillar’s reductions are for municipal operations, which include emissions inside and outside of the City of San Luis Obispo City Limits. The quantified reduction estimates for this pillar will be included in the municipal climate action plan and are not counted in the community climate action plan. ii The proportion of natural gas use in buildings was determined using building energy use data from San Luis Obispo’s 2016 GHG inventory. In residential buildings, natural gas use accounts for 68% of total building energy use, while electricity accounts for the remaining 32%. In commercial buildings, natural gas use accounts for 43% of total building energy use, while electricity accounts for the remaining 57%. iii Kenney, M et al. (2019). iv Kenney, Michael, Heather Bird, Heriberto Rosales, and Antonio Cano. (2019). 2019 California Energy Efficiency Action Plan. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-400-2019-010-SD. v California Energy Commission. (2005). Options for Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings. Accessed from: https://www.m.gosolarcalifornia.org/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-039/CEC-400-2005-039- CMF.PDF. vi California Energy Commission. (2017). Large Scale Residential Retrofit Program. Accessed from: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-500-2017-009/CEC-500-2017-009.pdf. vii This package combines measures from the Department of Energy’s office building and retail building retrofit guides. See endnote 18. Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery Appendix B – GHG Emissions Reductions Estimates & Basis for Quantification City of San Luis Obispo Page B-16 viii California Energy Commission. (2017) and Department of Energy. (2011). Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide for Office Buildings. Accessed from: https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20761.pdf; Department of Energy. (2011). Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide for Retail Buildings. Accessed from: https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20814.pdf. ix Department of Energy. (2011). x Monterey Bay Community Power. (2019). Electrification Strategic Plan. Accessed from: https://mbcommunity.onbaseonline.com/1800AgendaAppNet/Meetings/ViewMeeting?id=251&doctype=1. xi These more aggressive rates of adoption were determined based on a conversation with the City. xii Therm per square foot calculated by dividing total nonresidential therms by total nonresidential square footage for each calendar year. xiii Therm per residential unit calculated by dividing total residential therms by total residential units for each calendar year. xiv California Energy Commission. (2005). xv California Energy Commission. (2017). xvi California Energy Commission. (2017). xvii Department of Energy. (2011). xviii California Energy Commission. (2017). xix Per square foot therm savings and kWh increases calculated using City data and the 2019 Statewide Cost Effectiveness Studies. Accessed from www.slocity.org/cleanenergychoice. xx Per square foot therm savings and kWh increases calculated using City data and the 2019 Statewide Cost Effectiveness Studies. Accessed from www.slocity.org/cleanenergychoice. xxi Per unit therm savings and kWh increases calculated using City data and the 2019 Statewide Cost Effectiveness Studies. Accessed from www.slocity.org/cleanenergychoice. xxii Per unit therm savings and kWh increases calculated using City data and the 2019 Statewide Cost Effectiveness Studies. Accessed from www.slocity.org/cleanenergychoice. xxiii Governor’s Interagency Working Group on Zero-Emission Vehicles. (2018). 2018 ZEV Action Plan Priorities Update. xxiv Bedir, Abdulkadir, Noel Crisostomo, Jennifer Allen, Eric Wood, and Clément Rames. (2018.) California Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Projections: 2017-2025. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-600-2018-001. xxv UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation. (2015). Factors Affecting Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales in California. Accessed from: https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/2019/03/Factors_Affecting_PEV_Sales_in_CA.pdf. xxvi California Department of Motor Vehicles. (2019). California Motor Vehicle Fuel Types by County, January 1, 2019. Accessed from: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/pubs/media_center/statistics. xxvii Bloomberg NEF. (2019). 2019 Electric Vehicle Outlook. Accessed from: https:// about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/#toc-download xxviii California Department of Motor Vehicles. (2020). Estimated vehicles registered by county for the period of January 1 through December 31, 2019. Accessed from: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/add5eb07-c676-40b4-98b5- 8011b059260a/est_fees_pd_by_county.pdf?MOD=AJPERES xxix California Air Resources Board. (2017). Short-Lived Climate Pollution Reduction Strategy. xxx Mahone, Amber, Zachary Subin, Jenya Kahn-Lang, Douglas Allen, Vivian Li, Gerrit De Moor, Nancy Ryan, Snuller Price. (2018). Deep Decarbonization in a High Renewables Future: Updated Results from the California PATHWAYS Model. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-500-2018- 012 xxxi Cortright, Joe. (2016). Are Millennials Racing to Buy Cars? Nope. StreetsblogUSA. Accessed from: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/04/25/are-millennials-racing-to-buy-cars-again-nope/. xxxii Yonah Freemark, Anne Hudson & Jinhua Zhao. (2019). Are Cities Prepared for Autonomous Vehicles? Journal of the American Planning Association, DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2019.1603760. xxxiii CALCCA. (2019). CCA Purchasing Power. Accessed from: https://cal-cca.org/resources/.