Loading...
09-18-2018 Item 13 Climate Action Plan Update ReportMeeting Date: 9/18/2018 FROM: Robert Hill, Interim Deputy Director, Office of Sustainability Prepared By:Chris Read, Sustainability Manager Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director, Community Development SUBJECT:CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE STATUS REPORT, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY UPDATE, AND DIRECTION ON GHG REDUCTION TARGETS STUDY SESSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive and file the 2018 provisional community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory report and presentation; and 2. Provide direction to staff regarding updated GHG targets. REPORT-IN-BRIEF Consistent with the Climate Action Major City Goal identified in the 2017-19 Financial Plan, staff is currently updating the City’s Climate Action Plan that was adopted in 2012. This report provides a status report of the update process, an overview of the updated community GHG emissions inventory, and options for updated GHG reduction targets. DISCUSSION The California Air Resources Board’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017) notes that the evidence of climate change is undeniable. As the body of evidence continues to grow, the scientific record only becomes more definitive –and makes clear the need to take aggressive climate action now. In California, as in the rest of the world, climate change is contributing to an escalation of serious problems, including wildfires, coastal erosion, disruption of water supply, threats to agriculture and natural ecosystems, spread of insect-borne diseases and invasive species, and continuing health threats from heat and air pollution. Climate change is making events like the recent droughts and the consecutive historic wildfire seasons more frequent, more catastrophic, and more costly. Climate scientists agree that global warming and other shifts in the climate system observed over the past century are caused by human activities. These recorded changes are occurring at an unprecedented rate. Determined local climate action provides an opportunity to proportionally slow the impacts of climate change, create new economic development engines, ensure environmental integrity, address issues of equity and public health, enhance local quality of life and demonstrate climate leadership with actions that can be pot entially replicated in other locations. Packet Pg. 387 Item 13 Climate Action Major City Goal In June of 2017, the City Council adopted the 2017-2019 Financial Plan, which identifies Climate Action as a Major City Goal (MCG). The MCG goal statement directs staff to, “Implement the Climate Action Plan, assess requirements to achieve a “net -zero carbon City” target, and implement cost-effective measures, including implementation of a Sustainability Coordinator and formation of a Green Team.” The MCG provides fourteen tasks, most of which are associated with: 1. Implementing GHG reduction measures (e.g., community choice energy, energy efficiency upgrades to city facilities, electric vehicle chargers, etc.); 2. Establishing capacity for continuing climate action (e.g., creation of the Sustainability Manager position and the Green Team, and signing a memorandum of understanding with the SLO Climate Coalition Task Force); and 3. Updating the City’s Climate Action Plan (e.g., updating the City’s greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, benchmarking energy use at City facilities, assessing the requirements to achieve a “net -zero carbon City” target,and evaluating the feasibility or relevance of existing GHG reduction measures). Climate Action Plan Update Status In July 2012, the City Council adopted by resolution the City o f San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan. The Climate Action Plan was the result of a collaborative effort between the City, Cal Poly’s City and Regional Planning Department, and community members. The Climate Action Plan serves as the City’s policy document that sets forth objectives and strategies that the City and community members can implement to achieve the adopted GHG emissions reduction target of 15 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2020. Staff have been working on updating the City’s Climate Action Plan since April 2018. The project, which is co-managed by the Administration and the Community Development Departments, consists of three phases: 1. Phase 1) GHG inventory and target setting update for community and municipal operations 1. Phase 1, which is 90 percent complete, is reported on in the remaining sections of this report. This Study Session is focused on the community GHG emissions inventory and target. The municipal operations GHG emissions inventory update will be presented publicly when it is available and will be included as part of the updated Climate Action Plan. 2. Phase 2) Updated, actionable, and cost-effective Climate Action Plan for community and municipal operations emissions.Following this Study Session, staff will shift to Phase 2. The Study Session will inform how Phase 2 is conducted, including the scope and project description that will be articulated in an RFP for Climate Action Plan support services, which is currently scheduled to be considered by Council for authorization to release at the October 16, 2018 City Council meeting. 1 In climate action planning, “community” emissions refer to the GHG emissions generated as the result of activity in a geographic area; in this case, within the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. “Municipal operations” emissions refer to the GHG emissions generated as the result of the City of San Luis Obispo conducting its operations as an organization. Municipal operations emissions are a subset of community emissions. Packet Pg. 388 Item 13 3.Phase 3) A tool and approach to integrate climate change considerations into the biennial Financial Plan process. Phase 3 will run concurrent with the 2019-21 Financial Plan update process and will report the expected construction and operational GHG emissions of applicable projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Integrating climate action into the Financial Plan will allow for streamlined monit oring and reporting of climate action implementation. It should be noted that the recent catastrophic wildfires throughout the state have raised interest in addressing climate change adaptation among staff and the public. The 2017-19 Climate Action MCG is focused almost exclusively on GHG emissions reductions. The City is taking proactive measures to ensure community resiliency and will establish a city-wide strategic approach to climate adaptation when it updates the Safety Element of the General Plan concurrent with the Housing Element of the General Plan in Fall 2019. GHG Emissions Inventory and Target Setting Update GHG Emissions Inventory Introduction A GHG emissions inventory is an accounting and compilation of t he GHG emissions that occurs as the result of activity inside a geographic boundary. The City’s first GHG inventory, created in 2009 and adopted as part of the 2012 Climate Action Plan, established 2005 as the baseline inventory year. The provisional community GHG emissions invento ry update is provided as Attachment A and includes an updated estimate for the baseline year of 2005, a 2016 inventory for comparison, and projections for future emissions in 2020, 2030, and 2050. The inventory presented at this Study Session is titled “provisional” for two reasons : 1. The GHG accounting method used to estimate emissions from the transportation sector may be refined prior to the updated Climate Action Plan adoption. The transportation method presented in Attachment A is consistent with the approach taken in the 2012 Climate Action Plan and the vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and GHG emissions estimates are accurate. However, the existing accounting method only accounts for VMT that occurs within the City limits, meaning that pass-through trips are counted, while trips induced by the City from outside areas are not. The City is currently in the process of recalibrating its traffic model, which will be able to exclude pass through trips and account for induced trips by Fall 2018. As this approach would be consistent with industry standard GHG accounting methodology, the 2005 and 2016 inventories and subsequent forecasts may be updated accordingly. 2. Further analysis of the data as part of Climate Action Plan update may lead to refinements in the inventory, yielding slightly different numbers. The City contracted with the firm Placeworks, which has experience creating over 50 GHG inventories for local governments in California, to peer review staff’s work and complete the community inventory. It is their professional judgment, along with staff’s, that the provisional inventory is sufficient for the purpose of this Study Session. Packet Pg. 389 Item 13 GHG Emissions Inventory Summary As noted in Table 1, which summarizes the findings of Attachment A, community GHG emissions decreased by approximately 10 percent from 2005 to 2016. This is largely the result of significant decreases in the energy sector, but also includes decreases in nearly every sector with the exception of direct emissions from wastewater processing, which are a small part of the total inventory. Notable findings include: 1. Vehicle miles travelled in the city are estimated to have increased by approximately three percent. However, due to lower carbon content of vehicle fuels and increasing fuel efficiency, transportation sector emissions decreased by six percent. 2. Residential energy dropped steeply as the result of decreased electricity and natural gas consumption, as well as decreasing carbon intensity of electricity in Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) service territory. 3. Solid waste emissions decreased by approximately 11 percent due to decreasing landfilled waste and increased diversion of green waste from landfills to composting facilities. Table 1. Provisional GHG Inventory Summary Results (MTCO2e) Sector 2005 2016 Percent Change Transportation 130,210 122,920 -6% Commercial/Industrial Energy 57,800 53,410 -8% Residential Energy 55,190 43,580 -21% Solid Waste 15,540 13,880 -11% Waste Water 170 190 12% Off-Road 10,810 8,230 -24% TOTAL 269,720 242,210 -10% GHG Reduction Target Updates AB 32 Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (Nuñez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006) established a target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 with maintained and continued reductions post 2020. Given the challenge of estimating 1990 GHG emissions, standard best practice is to use 15 percent reduction of a base line year (2005) as a proxy.The City’s current adopted targets are consistent with AB 32. Using the updated 2005 baseline inventory provided in Table 1, the AB32 consistent target for annual emissions by 2020 is 229,260 MTCO 2e (Table 2 provides the annual MTCO2e figure required to achieve each target discussed in this section). SB 32 Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) (Pavley, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2016) affirms the importance of addressing climate change by codifying into statute the GHG emissions reduction target of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The 2030 target reflects the same science that informs the agreement reached in Paris by the 2015 Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at keeping the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius (̊C). Using the updated 2005 baseline inventory provided in Packet Pg. 390 Item 13 Table 1, the SB32 consistent target annual emissions by 2030 is 137,560 MTCO 2e. The City does not currently have a SB 32 consistent target. Post-2030 Targets In 2016, 174 nations and the European Union ratified a global agreement on climate change known as the “Paris Agreement”committing to ambitious efforts to keep global average temperature rise to less than 2 ̊C above pre-industrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5 ̊C. 2 ̊C is the warming threshold at which scientists agree there will likely be major irreversible catastrophic climate disruptions. The Paris Agreement target, which is consistent with California’s long-term climate targets, are operationalized as an 80 percent decrease in emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. Using the updated 2005 baseline inventory provided in Table 1, the Paris Agreement consistent target for annual emissions by 2050 is 45,850 MTCO2e. Table 2. GHG Target Summary Target Annual GHG Emissions Target (MTCO2e) 2005 Baseline Emissions 269,720 AB32 –1990 levels (15 percent below baseline) by 2020 229,260 SB 32 –40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 137,560 Paris Agreement –80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 45,850 The City Council may consider the “80 percent below 1990 by 2050” emissions target to ensure the City does it’s “fair share ” in keeping global warming below 2 ̊C. Alternately, City Council may consider more aggressive targets (in terms of reduction, timeframe, or both) as there are important differences in the level of impacts that are anticipated to occur between keeping temperature rise to 1.5 ̊C compared to 2 ̊C, and there is also value to ensuring the City’s leadership has time to influence other cities in the central coast region and throughout the country. Over 60 cities throughout the world have adopted post-2030 GHG reduction targets and climate action plans that set a trajectory to achieve those targets. Examples of other North American cities that have adopted post-2030 targets include: 1. City of Davis, CA: Carbon neutral by 2050 2. City of Fort Collins, CO: 80 percent below 2005 by 2030, carbon neutral by 2050 3. City of Iowa City, IA: 80 percent below 2005 by 2050 4. City of Santa Monica, CA: Carbon neutral by 2050 5. City of Berkeley, CA: 80 percent below 2000 by 2050 6. City of Los Angeles, CA: Carbon neutral by 2050 7. City of San Francisco, CA: Carbon neutral by 2050 Packet Pg. 391 Item 13 8. City of Austin, TX: Climate neutrality for municipal operations by 2020, carbon neutral by 2050 9. City of Portland, OR: 80 percent below baseline by 2050 10. City of Vancouver (Canada): 80 percent below baseline by 2050 11. City of Minneapolis, MN: 80 percent below baseline by 2050 Assessment of A Net Zero Carbon City As illustrated by the community GHG inventory, despite the hard work of the City, residents, businesses, and organizations, overall emissions have decreased approximately ten percent since the baseline year of 2005. This means the community will need to reduce another five percent to achieve the adopted 2020 target. In this context, a 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 levels (SB 32), and more aggressive voluntary targets required to keep global warming 2 ̊C, represent significant undertaking of both policy and investments. State legislation (AB 32 and SB 32) focused on reducing GHG emissions provides authority to the California Air Resources Board to develop the strategy for achieving the state’s targets via the Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan). The Scoping Plan provides an approach to achieve the 2030 targets, while stressing the importance of those targets putting the state on a trajectory to the goal of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050. Faced with the incredibly challenging, but essential, task of achieving these deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the State of California has commissio ned numerous studies outlining potential paths. Most recently, the California Energy Commission (CEC) released the report, Deep Decarbonization in a High Renewables Future (2018) to describe the most cost-effective approach to reaching the state’s 2030 and 2050 targets. Consistent with numerous other reports studying approaches to achieving deep GHG reduction targets, the CEC report provides four pillars for community decarbonization: 1) energy efficiency and energy conservation, 2) low- carbon fuels, 3) electrification of technology that currently runs on fossil fuels, and 4) a reduction in non-combustion GHGs (e.g., methane generated from decomposing solid waste). Based on these pillars, and supported by additional staff research, staff presents the following principles required to achieve a deep GHG reduction target in the City of San Luis Obispo: 1.Resource Efficiency and Conservation - A commitment to conservation in a net zero community means using as little external energy as possible (e.g., a commitment to walking, biking, and transit, turning lights off when not in use, replacing lawns with drought tolerant landscaping, etc.). A commitment to efficiency means that when an activity requires consumption of energy, water, or other resources, as little is used as possible (e.g., highly efficient buildings, drip irrigation, efficient lighting, fuel efficient vehicles, etc.). 2.Carbon Free Electricity - A commitment to low or zero carbon fuels primarily means a commitment and switch to carbon free renewable electricity (e.g., solar and wind power). Packet Pg. 392 Item 13 3.Electrification –Due to advances in technology, electricity can power highly efficient space heating, space cooling, water heating, and cooking appliances, as well as a significant portion of the transportation sector. This switch to electricity would replace emissions from carbon- based fuels (e.g., natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc.). 4.Reduced Solid Waste –As waste decomposes in a landfill, it creates methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas2. At Cold Canyon landfill, where nearly all of the City’s waste is deposited, most of the methane is capture and burned for electr icity. However, some of the methane escapes directly to the atmosphere. A move to near-zero waste would reduce this emissions sector and would also indirectly resolve lifecycle emissions issues associated with packaging, plastics, and other harmful wastes. 5.Carbon Sequestration – The City’s Open Space and Urban Forest provide a valuable resource. The City’s Greenbelt serves as a constraint on sprawl and can be actively managed to sequester carbon. Additionally, the City’s Urban Forest serves as another valuable carbon sink that also enhances private property values and provides important shading and cooling benefits. Finally, the City’s existing support to limit fossil fuel extraction locally and to divest from fossil fuel investments underscores the importance of keeping fossil fuel stores in the ground. In addition to the technical requirements to achieve a “net zero City” listed above, staff also identified important qualitative principles for how these actions are implemented. First, a successful approach prioritizes commitments to innovation, leadership, learning, and sharing. Second, a successful approach makes a commitment to seeing opportunity in the community’s challenges, so that climate action isn’t something that is done instead of other key work, but rather is integrated into organizational, financial and the decision making culture. Third, a successful approach makes a commitment to considering equity and economy in every decision. Taken together, these principles ensure that climate action can be a powerful change agent for economic development, equity, and enhancing quality of life in the city. Timing Considerations Identifying the Council’s direction for long term GHG reduction targets allows staff to properly articulate those targets and provide the appropriate scope of work in the request for proposals (RFP) for the Climate Action Plan update, which will come before this Council for approval at the October 16, 2018 meeting. 2 Methane is roughly 28 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas than CO2. Packet Pg. 393 Item 13 FOCUS QUESTION FOR STUDY SESSION Focus Questions for Study Session 1.Does Council want to establish a GHG target consistent with SB32 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030)? 2. If so, does Council want to: a) formally establish the target via resolution this year, or b) direct staff to adopt the target upon completion of the Climate Action Plan update (Summer 2019)? 3.Does Council want to establish a GHG target beyond SB32? 4. If so, does Council want the target to be consistent with California’s Executive Orders and the Paris Agreement (80 percent below 1990 by 2050)? 5.Or, does Council want to move beyond the low-end requirements identified in the Paris agreement moving the target date earlier, increasing the reduction requirement, or both? 6.If an addition target is desired, does Council want to:a) formally establish the target via resolution this year, or b) direct staff to adopt the target upon completion of the Climate Action Plan update (Summer 2019)? CONCURRENCES Staff from the Community Development Department concurs with this report. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The study session does not constitute a Project under CEQA. The updated Climate Action Plan and associated implementing actions will require CEQA review. FISCAL IMPACT The discussion requested as part of this study session does not have any fiscal impact. The Climate Action Plan update RFP scope and project description will be amended based on the discussion held during this study session, but this will not affect the anticipated project budget of $100,000, which was included with the Climate Action Major City Goal 2017-19 and the Administration Department’s operating budget. Attachments: a - DELETE OLD - City of San Luis Obispo Provisional 2018 Community GHG Technical Report Packet Pg. 394 Item 13 2018 Provisional Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update DRAFT DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page i Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Community GHG Inventory Overview ................................................................................... 3 2005 Community GHG Inventory ........................................................................................... 3 2005 Updated Community GHG Inventory ............................................................................ 3 2016 Community GHG Inventory ........................................................................................... 5 Progress Toward 2020 Target ............................................................................................... 6 Progress to State GHG Reduction Targets ............................................................................ 7 2. Community Energy ................................................................................................................. 8 Community Energy Sector Overview ..................................................................................... 8 Updated Inventory Data and Methods ................................................................................... 8 Total Energy GHG Emissions .............................................................................................. 13 3. Transportation ....................................................................................................................... 14 Transportation Sector Overview .......................................................................................... 14 Updated Inventory Data and Methods ................................................................................. 14 Total Transportation GHG Emissions .................................................................................. 15 Transportation Sector Caveats and Considerations ............................................................ 15 4. Solid Waste ............................................................................................................................ 16 Solid Waste Sector Overview .............................................................................................. 16 Updated Inventory Data and Methods ................................................................................. 16 Total Solid Waste GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 21 5. Wastewater ............................................................................................................................ 22 Wastewater Sector Overview ............................................................................................... 22 Inventory Data and Methods ................................................................................................ 22 Wastewater Treatment Types .............................................................................................. 23 Total Wastewater GHG Emissions ...................................................................................... 25 6. Off-Road ................................................................................................................................. 25 Off-Road Sector Overview ................................................................................................... 25 Inventory Data and Methods ................................................................................................ 25 Total Off-Road GHG Emissions ........................................................................................... 27 List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 28 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 29 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page ii List of Tables Table ES-1. Provisional GHG Inventory Summary Results (MTCO2e) ........................................ 1 Table 1.1. San Luis Obispo Community GHG Emissions (2005) ................................................. 3 Table 1.2. 2005 update baseline GHG emissions. ....................................................................... 4 Table 1.3. 2016 GHG emissions. .................................................................................................. 5 Table 1.4. GHG emissions, 2005-2016 (MTCO2e). ...................................................................... 6 Table 1.5. Progress to AB32 and SB 32 target (MTCO2e). ........................................................... 7 Table 2.1. Community electricity activity data, 2005-2016 (kWh). ................................................ 8 Table 2.2. Electricity conversion factor (MTCO2e/kWh). ............................................................... 9 Table 2.3. Community electricity GHG estimates, 2006-2015 (MTCO2e). .................................. 10 Table 2.4. Community natural gas activity data, 2005-2016 (Therms). ...................................... 11 Table 2.5. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) natural gas CO2 equivalent. ........... 12 Table 2.6. Community Natural Gas GHG estimates, 2005-2016 (MTCO2e). .............................. 12 Table 2.7. Energy GHG emissions, 2005-2016 (MTCO2e). ........................................................ 13 Table 3.1. 2005 and 2016 VMT estimates. ................................................................................. 14 Table 4.1. City solid waste activity data, 2008-2016 (Disposal Ton). ......................................... 16 Table 4.2. Total percent of waste degradable based on waste type. .......................................... 18 Table 4.3. Conversion to metric tons of methane. ...................................................................... 19 Table 4.4. Recorded methane capture rates from Cold Canyon Landfill. ................................... 19 Table 4.5. Percent of emissions reaching the atmosphere. ........................................................ 20 Table 4.6. Disposed solid waste conversion factor with Fifth Assessment Report global warming potential (MTCO2e/Disposal Ton). .............................................................................................. 20 Table 4.7. Total solid waste disposed emissions (MTCO2e). ...................................................... 21 Table 5.1. Digester gas produced. .............................................................................................. 23 Table 5.2. Digester gas produced. .............................................................................................. 23 Table 5.3.Service population estimates. ..................................................................................... 24 Table 5.4. Estimation and emissions factors for treatment with nitrification or denitrification. .... 24 Table 5.5. GHG Emissions from treatment with nitrification or denitrification. ............................ 24 Table 5.6. Total GHG estimates from wastewater treatment. ..................................................... 25 Table 6.1. Off Road equipment. .................................................................................................. 26 Table 6.2. County off-road GHG emissions. ............................................................................... 26 Table 6.3. City off-road GHG emissions. .................................................................................... 27 Table 6.4. Total GHG estimates from off-road use. .................................................................... 27 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page iii List of Figures Figure 1.1. 2005 Updated baseline GHG emissions by sector (MTCO2e). ................................... 4 Figure 1.2. 2016 GHG emissions by sector (MTCO2e). ................................................................ 5 Figure 1.3. GHG emissions, 2005 to 2016 (MTCO2e). ................................................................. 6 Figure 1.4. Progress to AB32 and SB 32 target. ........................................................................... 7 Figure 2.1. Electricity emissions factor (MTCO2e/kWh). ............................................................. 10 Figure 2.2. Total community electricity activity data and GHG estimates, 2006-2016. ............... 11 Figure 2.3. Energy GHG emissions, 2005-2016. ........................................................................ 13 Figure 4.1. Total City solid waste (Disposal Ton). ...................................................................... 17 Figure 4.2. Total disposed solid waste and GHG emissions (MTCO2e). .................................... 22 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page iv DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 1 Executive Summary A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory is a comprehensive measure of GHG emissions that have occurred as the result of activity in a jurisdiction or a geographic area in a calendar year. This report provides an overview of the community-wide GHG emissions, measured in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), that have been emitted from activities occurring in the city from 2005 to 2016. The five emission sectors that are included in this report are community energy, transportation, solid waste, wastewater, and off-road. Community GHG emissions decreased by approximately 10 percent from 2005 to 2016 (Table ES-1). This is largely the result of significant decreases in the energy sector, but also includes decreases in nearly every sector except for direct emissions from wastewater processing, which are a small part of the total inventory. Notable findings include: 1. Vehicle miles travelled in the city are estimated to have increased by approximately three percent. However, due to lower carbon content of vehicle fuels and increasing fuel efficiency, transportation sector emissions decreased by six percent. 2. Residential energy dropped steeply as the result of decreased electricity and natural gas consumption, as well as decreasing carbon intensity of electricity in Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) service territory. 3. Solid waste emissions decreased by approximately 11 percent due to decreasing landfilled waste and increased diversion of green waste from landfills to composting facilities. Table ES-1. GHG Inventory Summary Results (MTCO2e) Sector 2005 2016 Percent Change Transportation 130,210 122,920 -6% Commercial/Industrial Energy 57,800 53,410 -8% Residential Energy 55,190 43,580 -21% Solid Waste 15,540 13,880 -11% Waste Water 170 190 12% Off-Road 10,810 8,230 -24% TOTAL 269,720 242,210 -10% The key driver for updating the community GHG inventory is to assess progress toward the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. Consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the City’s current adopted target is to achieve a 15 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2020. The 2016 emissions estimate of 242,210 MTCO2e represents a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions, notable progress toward the 2020 target. Since adoption of the City’s CAP in 2012, the state adopted a 2030 target through Senate Bill (SB) 32. If the City prefers a 2030 goal that matches the state target of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below the 2020 target levels, the target for San Luis Obispo would be 137,560 MTCO2e. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 2 This page left intentionally blank DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 3 1.Community GHG Inventory Overview In 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) adopted the City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) to achieve GHG emission reductions consistent with state law and City General Plan policy. The foundation of the CAP is the 2005 baseline GHG inventory (completed in 2009), which estimates the GHG emissions that occurred as the result of activity in the city. The City recently prepared a 2016 comprehensive community-wide and local government GHG emissions inventory update compliant with all relevant protocols and guidance documents including the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), the Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG Emissions, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Guidelines for National GHG Inventories. Both community-wide and local government GHG inventories will be presented and adopted as part of the CAP update in 2019. This report provides an overview of the community -wide sector GHG emissions that have been emitted from activities occurring in the city from 2005 to 2016. The five emission sectors that are included in this report are energy, transportation, solid waste, wastewater, and off-road. This report presents a summary of the updated 2005 GHG emissions and details the 2016 community GHG inventory completed in 2018. 2005 Community GHG Inventory In 2009, the community’s total 2005 baseline GHG emissions were estimated to be 264,237 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). The inventory included energy (residential and nonresidential), transportation, and waste sectors. Of the three sectors, transportation contributed the largest amount of GHG emissions with estimated emissions of 132,142 MTCO2e or 50 percent of the total City emissions. The second largest sector was commercial and industrial energy use with estimated emissions of 57,950 or 22 percent of the total City emissions. The commercial and industrial energy and waste sectors made up the remaining 28 percent of the total city emissions. Table 1.1 presents the original estimated 2005 GHG emissions by sector and their percent of total emissions. Table 1.1. San Luis Obispo Community GHG Emissions (2005) Community Sector MTCO2e Percent of Total Transportation 132,142 50% Nonresidential Energy 57,950 22% Residential Energy 55,377 21% Waste 18,768 7% Total 246,237 100% Source: City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (2009) 2005 Updated Community GHG Inventory To assess climate action progress, the City updated the 2005 baseline inventory for consistency with current protocols and best practices. This section provides updated GHG emissions data estimates for the baseline year of 2005 to allow for an equitable comparison to the 2016 GHG inventory. The City updated the 2005 GHG inventory to reflect an updated scientific understanding DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 4 of how different greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and to respond to changes to data privacy rules and collection methods that affect how data is provided. Table 1.2 and Figure 1.1 provide the updated 2005 baseline GHG emissions inventory with updated total GHG emissions of 269,720 MTCO2e. Two sectors have been included in the updated 2005 inventory: wastewater and off-road equipment, in order to comply with the guidance in the GHG inventory protocols. Similar to the original 2005 inventory, the largest sector contributing to the City’s total GHG emissions was transporta tion with an estimated emissions total of 130,210 MTCO2e or 48 percent of the City’s total. The commercial and industrial energy sector was the second largest sector contributing a total of 57,800 MTCO 2e GHG emissions or 21 percent of the City’s total. The remaining sectors of residential energy, solid waste, off -road, and wastewater made up the remaining 30 percent of the City’s total emissions in 2005. Table 1.2. 2005 update baseline GHG emissions. Sector Subsector Subsector MTCO2e Sector MTCO2e Sector Percent of Total Transportation On-Road Transportation 130,210 130,210 48% Nonresidential Energy Commercial/Industrial electricity 35,380 57,800 21% Commercial/Industrial natural gas 22,420 Residential Energy Residential electricity 20,800 55,190 20% Residential natural gas 34,390 Solid Waste Community-wide municipal solid waste disposal tons 15,540 15,540 6% Off-Road Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,540 10,810 4% Construction Equipment 9,270 Wastewater Wastewater treatment facility direct emissions 170 170 <1% Total 269,720 100% Figure 1.1. 2005 Updated baseline GHG emissions by sector (MTCO2e). 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2005 Residential Energy Nonresidential Energy Transportation Solid Waste Waste Water Off-RoadDRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 5 2016 Community GHG Inventory In 2018, the City prepared a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions for the 2016 calendar year. Table 1.3 and Figure 1.2 provide the 2016 GHG emissions inventory results. In 2016, San Luis Obispo’s total GHG emissions were estimated to be 242,210 MTCO2e. As in 2005, transportation was the largest contributor to the City’s total GHG emissions with an estimated 122,920 MTCO2e or 51 percent of the City’s total emissions. Commercial and Industrial energy was the second largest sector with GHG emissions of 53,410 MTCO2e or 22 percent of the City’s total emissions. The sectors of residential energy, solid waste, off-road, and wastewater account for the remaining 27 percent of the City’s total 2016 GHG emissions. Table 1.3. 2016 GHG emissions. Sector Subsector Subsector MTCO2e Sector MTCO2e Sector Percent of Total Transportation On-Road Transportation 122,920 122,920 51% Nonresidential Energy Commercial/Industrial electricity 31,310 53,410 22% Commercial/Industrial natural gas 22,100 Residential Energy Residential electricity 14,650 43,580 18% Residential natural gas 28,930 Solid Waste Community-wide municipal solid waste disposal tons 13,880 13,880 6% Off-Road Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,270 8,230 3% Construction Equipment 6,960 Wastewater Wastewater treatment facility direct emissions 190 190 <1% Total 242,210 100% Figure 1.2. 2016 GHG emissions by sector (MTCO2e). 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2016 Residential Energy Nonresidential Energy Transportation Solid Waste Waste Water Off-RoadDRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 6 Progress Toward 2020 Target Table 1.4 and Figure 1.3 provide a comparison overview of emissions from baseline year 2005 to 2016 to show the City’s progress toward its target to reduce GHG emissions 15 percent below 2005 emission levels. Over the eleven-year period, emissions were estimated to have dropped by approximately 10 percent. The most significant changes occurred in the residential energy, solid waste, and off-road sectors. •Residential energy emissions dropped by approximately 21 percent and reflects a significant change in the carbon intensity of grid consumed electricity, a substantial increase in rooftop renewable energy systems, and investment in energy efficiency. •Solid waste emissions decreased by approximately 11 percent due to a decrease in the amount of solid waste produced by San Luis Obispo residents and businesses. •Off-road emissions (including construction equipment) dropped by approximately 24 percent, primarily due to the decrease in new construction projects within the city. Section 2 provides a detailed report for each GHG emissions sector and the changes in emissions from each sector from 2005 to 2016. Table 1.4. GHG emissions, 2005-2016 (MTCO2e). Sector 2005 2016 Percent Change Transportation 130,210 122,920 -6% Nonresidential Energy 57,800 53,410 -8% Residential Energy 55,190 43,580 -21% Solid Waste 15,540 13,880 -11% Wastewater 170 190 12% Off-Road 10,810 8,230 -24% Total 269,720 242,210 -10% Figure 1.3. GHG emissions, 2005 to 2016 (MTCO2e). 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 2005 2016 Residential Energy Nonresidential Energy Transportation Solid Waste Waste Water Off-RoadDRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 7 Progress to State GHG Reduction Targets The key driver for updating the community GHG inventory is to assess progress toward the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. Consistent with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the City’s target is to achieve a 15 percent reduction below baseline emissions by 2020. Since the baseline inventory was updated through this inventory process, resulting in a slightly increased baseline, a new target must be calculated. As noted in Table 1.5 and Figure 1.4, a 15 percent reduction in baseline emissions is 229,260 MTCO2e from the updated baseline year emissions of 269,720 MTCO2e. The 2016 emissions estimate of 242,210 MTCO2e represents a 10 percent reduction in GHG emissions, notable progress toward the 2020 target. Since adoption of the City’s CAP in 2012, the state adopted a 2030 target through Senate Bill (SB) 32. If the City prefers a 2030 goal that matches the state target of reducing GHG emissions 40 percent below the 2020 target levels, the target for San Luis Obispo would be 137,560 MTCO2e. Table 1.5. Progress to AB32 and SB 32 target (MTCO2e). Year Emissions 2005 (Updated) 269,720 2016 242,210 2020 Target (Updated) 229,260 2030 Target (40% below 1990) 135,560 2050 Target (Carbon Neutral) 0 Figure 1.4. Progress to AB32 and SB 32 target. 269,720 242,210 229,260 137,560 00 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2005 2016 2020 Target (Updated) 2030 Target (40% below 1990) 2050 Target (Carbon Neutral)MTCO2eDRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 8 2. Community Energy Community Energy Sector Overview This section presents the GHG emissions for the energy sector, specifically emissions generated from residential and non-residential energy use that has occurred within City limits. This section presents the updated 2005 GHG emissions along with updated emissions for 2016. Updated Inventory Data and Methods The update to the 2005 inventory for the energy sector incorporate s changes in scientific understanding of how different greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming and changes to data privacy rules that affect how energy data is retained and provided. This section provides updated electricity and natural gas activity data and emissions estimates for the baseline year of 2005, as well as electricity and natural gas activity data and GHG emissions estimates for years 2005 through 2016. Electricity Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Company provides electric service to the community and offers community electricity data to local agencies through the PG&E Green Community Portal. The electricity data (presented in kilowatt-hours, or kWh) in Table 2.1 is separated between residential and non-residential uses, which is the finest resolution possible to prevent data from being removed for privacy purposes. Nonresidential electricity use includes commercial, governmental, agricultural, and industrial usage. From 2005 to 2016, residential electricity usage decreased by 18 percent and non-residential electricity consumption increased approximately 3 percent. Between 2005 and 2016, electricity use decreased by 5 percent. Table 2.1. Community electricity activity data, 2005-2016 (kWh). Year Residential Nonresidential Total 2005 93,045,220 158,267,695 251,312,915 2006 94,844,802 165,562,683 260,407,485 2007 92,479,221 170,259,426 262,738,647 2008 91,007,229 176,783,866 267,791,095 2009 89,252,248 183,654,370 272,906,618 2010 87,910,124 218,185,988 306,096,112 2011 86,239,267 172,742,643 258,981,910 2012 85,773,964 172,045,211 257,819,175 2013 84,492,752 171,842,797 256,335,549 2014 78,932,662 171,846,749 250,779,411 2015 78,069,529 170,606,678 248,676,207 2016 76,376,280 163,204,691 239,580,971 Total 1,038,423,298 2,095,002,797 3,133,426,095 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 9 The 18 percent decrease in residential electricity usage may be due to low residential growth, a significant increase in residential renewable energy installations, increases in energy efficiency investments, and overall trends toward conservation. Additional assessment investigating reductions from existing actions will be completed in support of the CAP update. To calculate GHG emissions, an emissions factor is applied to the activity data. Table 2.2 shows the electricity emissions factors for the three major greenhouse gasses occurring as the result of electricity use in the city. PG&E staff provided CO2 emissions factors via the Green Community Portal data request in 2018. In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are released in the electricity generation process. CH4 and N2O emissions factors are provided by PG&E’s third-party-verified GHG inventory. Variability of the emissions factors occur primarily due to two factors: 1) fluctuations in hydro power production as the result of precipitation variability, and 2) increasing renewable energy sources in PG&E’s power portfolio. CO2 is the most commonly referenced GHG, however, numerous gasses have green house characteristics. Methane and nitrous oxide are commonly accounted for in GHG inventories. These gasses have a greater global warming potential; CH4 traps approximately 28 times as much heat as CO2 over a 100-year period and N2O traps approximately 265 times as much heat. To account for these differences, a factor is applied to the gasses emissions to calculate aCO2 equivalence. Table 2.2 provides the emissions factors for 2005 through 2016. Due to changes in PG&E’s energy portfolio (and particularly an increase in renewable energy supplies), the 2016 emissions factor is approximately 14 percent lower than the 2005 factor. Figure 2.1 illustrates the changes in MTCO2e/kWh factors from 2005 to 2016. Table 2.2. Electricity conversion factor (MTCO2e/kWh). Year kWh/MTCO2e 2005 0.000224 2006 0.000208 2007 0.000290 2008 0.000292 2009 0.000262 2010 0.000203 2011 0.000179 2012 0.000203 2013 0.000195 2014 0.000198 2015 0.000185 2016 0.000192 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 10 Figure 2.1. Electricity emissions factor (MTCO2e/kWh). Table 2.3 provides the GHG emissions from electricity use in the city by residential and nonresidential subsectors from 2005 to 2016. During this time, electricity related residential GHG emissions decreased by approximately 30 percent, while nonresidential electricity emissions decreased by approximately 12 percent. Overall emissions decreased approximately 18 percent over the same period. Table 2.3. Community electricity GHG estimates, 2006-2015 (MTCO2e). Year Residential Nonresidential Total 2005 20,800 35,380 56,180 2006 19,760 34,490 54,250 2007 26,810 49,360 76,170 2008 26,580 51,640 78,220 2009 23,380 48,100 71,480 2010 17,840 44,280 62,120 2011 15,470 30,980 46,450 2012 17,410 34,910 52,320 2013 16,450 33,450 49,900 2014 15,650 34,060 49,710 2015 14,410 31,500 45,910 2016 14,650 31,310 45,960 0.000000 0.000050 0.000100 0.000150 0.000200 0.000250 0.000300 0.000350 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016MTCO2e/kWhDRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 11 Figure 2.2 illustrates GHG and kWh activity data trends between 2005 and 2016 on the same chart. It is important to note that while overall electricity use has been steadily decreasing, GHG emissions have been more variable due to changes in PG&E’s power portfolio and the related carbon intensity of the electricity it supplies. Figure 2.2. Total community electricity activity data and GHG estimates, 2006-2016. Natural Gas Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas utility services in the city. Table 2.4 provides the natural gas activity data in therms from 2005-2016 separated by residential and nonresidential uses. Non-residential use combines commercial and industrial use. Table 2.4. Community natural gas activity data, 2005-2016 (Therms). Year Residential Nonresidential Total 2005 6,460,870 4,211,790 10,672,660 2006 6,643,410 4,501,180 11,144,590 2007 6,702,810 4,532,760 11,235,570 2008 -- -- -- 2009 -- -- -- 2010 -- -- -- 2011 -- -- -- 2012 -- -- -- 2013 -- -- -- 2014 5,275,340 3,987,264 9,262,604 2015 5,068,160 3,952,562 9,020,722 2016 5,435,586 4,151,275 9,586,861 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 0 50,000,000 100,000,000 150,000,000 200,000,000 250,000,000 300,000,000 350,000,000 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 MTCO2ekWhkWh MTCO2e DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 12 As a company policy, SoCalGas only retains community natural gas data back to 2014, which means the data in the original 2005 baseline inventory must be used in conjunction with the data provided via an Energy Data Request Portal request submitted by City staff in 2017. Since SoCalGas cannot confirm the 2005 inventory data, the comparison in natural gas consumption in the baseline year and years 2014-2017 should be observed with caution. The natural gas data provided in Table 2.4 shows an 18 percent decrease in residential therms and a 29 percent increase in non-residential usage between 2005 and 2016. Combined, the natural gas sector has a net decrease of 3 percent. Just as with electricity, GHG emissions are estimated from activity data by applying a n emission coefficient. Table 2.5 shows the emission coefficient for converting therms of natural gas to MTCO2e. Unlike electricity, the inventory assumes no changes in the carbon intensity of combusting natural gas in any given year, as the composition of natural gas does not vary from year to year. Table 2.5. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) natural gas carbon dioxide equivalent. Greenhouse Gas MTCO2e/Therm CO21 0.005310 CH41 0.000011 N2O1 0.000003 CO2e2 0.005320 Table 2.6 provides GHG emissions estimates in MTCO2e for natural gas consumption in the city from 2005-2016. As noted in the natural gas activity data, there was a decrease in MTCO2e for residential and an increase for non-residential sectors with a total decrease natural gas-related emissions of 3 percent. Table 2.6. Community Natural Gas GHG estimates, 2005-2016 (MTCO2e). Year Residential Nonresidential Total 2005 34,390 22,420 56,810 2006 35,360 23,960 59,320 2007 35,680 24,130 59,810 2008 -- -- -- 2009 -- -- -- 2010 -- -- -- 2011 -- -- -- 2012 -- -- -- 2013 -- -- -- 2014 28,080 21,220 49,300 2015 26,980 21,040 48,020 2016 28,930 22,100 51,030 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 13 Total Energy GHG Emissions Table 2.7 and Figure 2.3 show the total energy-related GHG emissions separated by energy type and subsector. The residential energy subsector saw a 22 percent decrease in emissions between 2005 and 2016. The nonresidential subsector emissions increased by 2 percent. Overall, energy GHG emissions dropped by 11 percent over the 11-year period. Note that Figure 2.3 provides total energy sector emissions with a dark blue line; the dashed line indicates a total emissions estimate necessitated by SoCalGas’s inability to provide historical data. Table 2.7. Energy GHG emissions, 2005-2016 (MTCO2e). Year Residential Nonresidential Total Electricity Natural Gas Electricity Natural Gas Res. Nonres. Total 2005 20,800 34,390 35,380 22,420 55,190 57,800 112,990 2006 19,760 35,360 34,490 23,960 59,320 58,450 117,770 2007 26,810 35,680 49,360 24,130 59,810 73,490 133,300 2008 26,580 -- 51,640 -- -- -- 2009 23,380 -- 48,100 -- -- -- 2010 17,840 -- 44,280 -- -- -- 2011 15,470 -- 30,980 -- -- -- 2012 17,410 -- 34,910 -- -- -- 2013 16,450 -- 33,450 -- -- -- 2014 15,650 28,080 34,060 21,220 43,730 55,280 99,010 2015 14,410 26,980 31,500 21,040 41,390 52,540 93,930 2016 14,650 28,930 31,310 22,100 43,580 53,410 96,990 Figure 2.3. Energy GHG emissions, 2005-2016. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016MTCO2e Electricity and Natural Gas Electricity OnlyDRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 14 3. Transportation Transportation Sector Overview This section presents the GHG emissions for the transportation sector, specifically emissions from all on-road trips (including cars, trucks, buses, etc.) that have occurred within City limits. This section presents the updated 2005 GHG emissions along with updated emissions for 2016. Updated Inventory Data and Methods This section provides updated activity data and emissions estimates for baseline year 2005 and activity data and emissions estimates for 2016. Since the 2005 baseline inventory was completed in 2009, the state has updated emissions factors and legislation on fuel economy standards. The 2005 and 2016 follow the same geographic system boundary method which considers transportation activity occurring solely within city boundaries, regardless of where a trip’s destination begins or ends. The 2005 GHG inventory was updated to use the 2014 Emissions Factor (EMFAC) model. EMFAC represents the state’s current understanding of motor vehicle travel activities and their associated emission levels. EMFAC 2014 is the latest U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved motor vehicle emission model that assesses emissions from on -road vehicles including cars, trucks, and buses in California. The City used EMFAC 2014 to estimate emissions factors for this updated report. The 2005 and 2016 inventories rely on the City’s traffic counts program for roadways within city limits and from CalTrans traffic volume data. Table 3.1 presents vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for 2005 and 2016, which was estimated by applying average daily trip (ADT) to traffic volume and converted to an annual amount. Table 3.1. 2005 and 2016 VMT estimates. Measure 2005 2016 Daily 768,240 791,147 Annual 266,579,280 274,528,170 Source: City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department, Transportation Division (City-wide Traffic County Program) and CalTrans Traffic Volumes Table 3.2 provides the VMT and associated GHG emissions for each vehicle class in San Luis Obispo County for 2005 and 2016. GHG emissions were estimated using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMFAC 2014 tool. Using VMT as inputs, EMFAC 2014 generated VMT and CO2 emission results for both 2005 and 2016 for each type of vehicle common in San Luis Obispo County. The City used this information to generate a CO2/VMT emissions factor specific to San Luis Obispo County, reflecting the unique balance of different vehicle types, vehicle ages, and vehicle fuels used county-wide. EMFAC 2014 does not model CH4 and N2O emissions, so a standard practice is to multiply CO2 emissions factors by 100/95 (approximately 1.05) to convert CO2 emissions to CO2e. As the emissions factor generated by EMFAC is in tons of CO2/VMT, the City also converted the units of DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 15 this factor to metric tons. The City then applied this converted emissions factor to the total City VMT given in Table 3.1. This resulted in the total annual greenhouse gas emissions. Total Transportation GHG Emissions Table 3.2 shows that as VMT increased from 2005 to 2016 by 3 percent, the total GHG emissions from on-road transportation decreased by approximately 6 percent. The decrease in GHG emissions is attributed to state and federal fuel efficiency standards, low carbon fu el standards, and an increasingly efficient overall fleet of vehicles (including an increased uptake of electric, hybrid, and high efficiency vehicles) within the city that is resulting in the emissions decline, despite an increase in miles driven. Appendix A includes more detailed information about VMT and emissions factors for individual vehicle types. Table 3.2. Total annual VMT emissions. 2005 2016 Total VMT Total Emissions Total VMT Total Emissions All vehicles 266,579,280 130,210 274,528,170 122,920 Transportation Sector Caveats and Considerations As noted above, the VMT data used for this inventory is estimated from traffic counts on local roadways conducted by the City and Caltrans. This approach follows the “geographic boundary” method, meaning that it measures only the VMT occurring in City limits. According to guidance documents and protocols, the geographic boundary method is an appropriate method for determining VMT. This method was also used in the 2005 GHG inventory in San Luis Obispo’s adopted CAP, and so using the same method for the 2016 GHG inventory maintains consistency between the two inventories. The geographic boundary method has been the best method for the City to use to-date based on data availability. Although the geographic boundary method is an acceptable method, it can have some limitations, particularly for a community like San Luis Obispo. The limitations are described below and include how the method includes or excludes types of VMT and roadways. Pass-through VMT - The method captures traffic in the City limits, including what are called “pass- through trips”. These are trips that start and end outside of San Luis Obispo but pass through the City, typically on major roads and freeways such as US 101 and State Highway 1. Because these trips do not begin or end with in San Luis Obispo, the City has very little ability to reduce VMT associated with these trips. However, under the geographic boundary method, these VMT are still attributed to the City. Commute VMT - San Luis Obispo is a major regional job center, and so is responsible for significant commute traffic. More than 75 percent of people who work in San Luis Obispo commute in from outside the community, and 30 percent commute from another county. However, the geographic boundary method only counts the portion of these commute trips that occur within the City limits, which is likely a small amount of the total VMT from these trips. Because of this, it is likely that the geographic boundary method does not show the full impact of the City’s role as a job center. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 16 Exclusion of some roadways - The traffic counts that inform the VMT data do not include all roadways within the city. While a significant portion of VMT is being captured through this method, there is some VMT (most likely on minor roadways) that is not included in these counts. The current best practice for calculating VMT is to use an “origin-destination” approach. Under this method, VMT from trips that begin and/or end in the community are included in San Luis Obispo’s VMT count (trips that begin and end in the City limits are fully counted, trips that begin elsewhere but end in San Luis Obispo or vice-versa have 50% of their VMT counted), but trips that begin and end elsewhere are not included, even if they pass through the City. The City will require an updated transportation model before following the origin-destination approach. The City is currently preparing such a model, and will use this to obtain updated VM figures that will be incorporated into the planned CAP update in 2019. 4. Solid Waste Solid Waste Sector Overview This section presents the GHG emissions for the solid waste sector, specifically emissions from the disposal of solid waste produced within City limits into a landfill. This section presents the updated 2005 GHG emissions along with updated emissions for 2016. Updated Inventory Data and Methods This section provides updated solid waste activity data for the baseline year of 2005, as well as activity emissions estimates for years 2005 through 2016 to estimate the City’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The City of San Luis Obispo deposits all waste generated within city limits into the Cold Canyon Landfill. Cold Canyon Landfill provided solid waste disposal data. Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 provide the City’s solid waste disposal tonnage for 2005 to 2016. Data for 2005 to 2007 was not able to be collected; therefore 2008 data was used as a pro xy. Table 4.1. City solid waste activity data, 2008-2016 (Disposal Ton). Year Total Waste (Disposal Ton) 2008 53,011 2009 47,483 2010 44,836 2011 39,497 2012 40,469 2013 42,094 2014 40,200 2015 44,530 2016 46,857 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 17 Figure 4.1. Total City solid waste (Disposal Ton). Green Waste Greenwaste data was provided by the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department for years 2006 through 2016. Greenwaste is a part of the diverted waste stream to the Cold Canyon Landfill, which means that it is not buried at the plant and hauled to locations outside of city limits. Because the diverted waste is hauled outside of city limits, the emissions associated with greenwaste are considered to be within a different scope and boundary than what this GHG inventory is considering. For consistency with the scope and boundary of this GHG inventory, emissions from out-of-boundary waste disposal are not included in the 2005 and 2016 inventories. Municipal Solid Waste GHG Emissions Conversion Factor This inventory follows the “methane commitment method” to account for the future emissions produced from annually deposited solid waste. This method requires the following steps: 1. Estimate the percent of degradable organic materials in landfilled waste. 2. Identify the conversion factor to translate tons of carbon dioxide to metric tons of methane. 3. Estimate the amount of methane per ton of landfilled waste that will enter the atmosphere. 4. Convert the estimate of methane to carbon dioxide equivalence. 1. Estimate the percent of degradable organic materials in landfilled waste. The CARB Municipal Solid Waste Characterization Landfill Tool v. 1.3 provides landfill was te characterization estimates for the amount of waste by type sent to California landfills. The waste types identified in the waste characterization studies are listed in Table 4.2. For each of these waste types, the tool includes California average estimates of the fraction of waste-in-place 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Tonnage Landfilled Waste DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 18 (WIPFRAC), total degradable organic carbon (TDOC), and the decomposable anaerobic fraction (DANF) of the waste type. There are two relevant waste characterization studies for this inventory: one from 2003 to 2006 and the other from 2007 to the present. Table 4.2 provides information about waste characterization estimates used in this inventory, as well as the degradable organic content (DOC) percent per ton of solid waste, which is calculated by multiplying WIPFRAC, TDOC, and DANF for each waste type. Table 4.2. Total percent of waste degradable based on waste type. 2003-2006 2007-Present Waste Type WIPFRAC TDOC DANF DOC WIPFRAC TDOC DANF DOC Newspaper 2.20% 47.09% 15.05% 0.16% 1.65% 47.09% 15.05% 0.12% Office Paper 1.95% 38.54% 87.03% 0.65% 1.84% 38.54% 87.03% 0.62% Corrugated Boxes 5.75% 44.84% 44.25% 1.14% 4.80% 44.84% 44.25% 0.95% Coated Paper 11.09% 33.03% 24.31% 0.89% 8.98% 33.03% 24.31% 0.72% Food 14.55% 14.83% 86.52% 1.87% 15.50% 14.83% 86.52% 1.99% Grass 2.81% 13.30% 47.36% 0.18% 1.90% 13.30% 47.36% 0.12% Leaves 1.41% 29.13% 7.30% 0.03% 3.24% 29.13% 7.30% 0.07% Branches 2.59% 44.24% 23.14% 0.26% 1.95% 44.24% 23.14% 0.20% Lumber 9.65% 43.00% 23.26% 0.96% 14.51% 43.00% 23.26% 1.45% Textiles 4.44% 24.00% 50.00% 0.53% 5.47% 24.00% 50.00% 0.66% Diapers 4.36% 24.00% 50.00% 0.52% 4.33% 24.00% 50.00% 0.52% Construction/ Demolition 12.06% 4.00% 50.00% 0.24% 5.48% 4.00% 50.00% 0.11% Medical Waste 0.04% 15.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.00% 15.00% 50.00% 0.00% Sludge/Manure 0.09% 5.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.05% 5.00% 50.00% 0.00% Source: CARB Municipal Solid Waste Characterization Landfill Tool v. 1.3 2. Identify the conversion factor to translate tons of carbon dioxide to metric tons of methane. The next step in calculating the emissions factor is estimating the metric tons of methane to be generated from the organic content in the landfilled waste. Solid waste activity data is reported in tons, while the standard unit for GHG reporting is metric tons. Table 4.3 presents the conversion factors to metric tons. As the decomposing organic content in landfilled solid waste transitions from carbon to methane, the atomic mass changes as well. Since the CO2e in this inventory is presented as mass (metric tons), this change in mass is accounted for with the stoichiometric ratio between CH4 and carbon. Finally, of the total landfill gas generated from decomposing waste, approximately half is methane so a methane gas fraction is applied to remove other gasses from the total. The remainder is biogenic CO2 from vegetation from natural areas, crops, and urban vegetation and de minimus amounts of N2O. The GPC advises against accounting for either of thes e gases in a community inventory. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 19 Table 4.3. Conversion to metric tons of methane. lbs/ton1 MT/lbs 1 Stoichiometric ratio between CH4 and carbon2 Fraction of CH4 Gas in Landfill Gas 3 Metric Tons of Methane 2000 0.000454 1.333333 0.5 0.604796 1 Standard conversion factor. 2 16/12, provided by the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories. 3 IPCC Good Practices Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2000) default range. 3. Estimate the amount of methane per ton of landfilled waste that will enter the atmosphere. The next factor in the solid waste emissions coefficient is the amount of landfill gas that is collected by landfill gas capture systems. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) provides landfill capture rates for Cold Canyon Landfill, as provided in Table 4.4 for the years 2008 – 2013. The landfill capture rate for 2006 is sourced from the County of San Luis Obispo EnergyWise Plan Appendix A. Given the lack of data availability for several years, including 2005, 2007, 2014, 2015, and 2016 and the significant variability across years, this inventory relied on the EPA’s standard landfill methane capture rate of 75 percent. Table 4.4. Recorded methane capture rates from Cold Canyon Landfill. Year Cold Canyon 2005 Not Available 2006 60% 2007 Not Available 2008 70% 2009 99% 2010 85% 2011 85% 2012 85% 2013 75% The next phase of the equation considers the amount of methane that is oxidized in the soil. As reported in Table 4.5, only 25 percent of landfill gas enters the atmosphere. Of that 25 percent, 10 percent is oxidized on site in the soil of the land fill co ver. Of the 75 percent of the methane that is captured, approximately 99 percent enters the atmosphere as CO 2 due to the methane being combusted as part of the flaring process. Approximately 23 percent of the total methane emitted enters the atmosphere. Table 4.5 shows the factors used in this calculation. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 20 Table 4.5. Percent of emissions reaching the atmosphere. Fraction of methane recovered (frec) 1 Oxidation factor (OX) 2 Methane correction factor (MCF) 3 Percent of Emissions Reaching Atmosphere 75% 10% 99% 23.3% 1 Landfill gas capture rate, as provided by the Environmental Protection Agency 2 IPCC Good Practices Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2000) well-managed landfills factor. 3 IPCC Good Practices Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2000) managed landfill factor. 4. Convert the estimate of methane to carbon dioxide equivalence. The solid waste CO2e conversion factor was calculated by multiplying the total degradable content of each weight type (DOC), metric ton conversion factor, methane generation, and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report methane global warming potential (Table 4.6). The factors for each waste type are then weighted by the waste composition data to obtain a single emission s factor for a ton of mixed waste. In 2005 to 2006, each ton of solid waste deposited in a landfill is estimated to produce approximately 0.293 MTCO2e per ton as it degrades over time. For 2007 to 2016, the conversion factor is 0.296 MTCO2e per ton of solid waste. Table 4.6. Disposed solid waste conversion factor with Fifth Assessment Report global warming potential (MTCO2e/Disposal Ton). Waste Type 2003-2006 DOC1 2007- Present DOC1 Metric Ton (MT) CH4 emissions CH4 GWP2 2003-2006 MTCO2e/ Ton 2007- Present MTCO2e/ Ton Newspaper 0.16% 0.12% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.006151 0.004606 Office Paper 0.65% 0.62% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.025770 0.024312 Corrugated Boxes 1.14% 0.95% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.044892 0.037482 Coated Paper 0.89% 0.72% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.035062 0.028387 Food 1.87% 1.99% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.073522 0.078335 Grass 0.18% 0.12% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.006969 0.004722 Leaves 0.03% 0.07% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.001176 0.002709 Branches 0.26% 0.20% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.010418 0.007865 Lumber 0.96% 1.45% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.037980 0.057146 Textiles 0.53% 0.66% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.020980 0.025837 Diapers 0.52% 0.52% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.020582 0.020455 Construction/ Demolition 0.24% 0.11% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.009494 0.004312 Medical Waste 0.00% 0.00% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.000113 0.000000 Sludge/Manure 0.00% 0.00% 0.604796033 0.2325 28 0.000089 0.000050 Total -- -- -- -- -- 0.293 0.296 Note: Values are rounded causing final values to be inconsistent with calculations. 1 Source: CARB Municipal Solid Waste Characterization Landfill Tool v. 1.3. 2 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 21 Total Solid Waste GHG Emissions To estimate the solid waste GHG emissions, the carbon dioxide equivalency conversion factor was multiplied by the disposal ton activity data. Once these were applied, the annual solid waste disposal ton emissions were calculated. As shown in Table 4.7 and Figure 4.2, from 2005 to 2016, solid waste disposed experienced a decrease in emissions by 11 percent. Table 4.7. Total solid waste disposed emissions (MTCO2e). Year Total Waste (Disposal Ton) MTCO2e Conversion Factor Solid Waste Disposed MTCO2e 2005 53,011 0.293 15,540 2006 53,011 0.293 15,540 2007 53,011 0.296 15,700 2008 53,011 0.296 15,700 2009 47,483 0.296 14,070 2010 44,836 0.296 13,280 2011 39,497 0.296 11,700 2012 40,469 0.296 11,990 2013 42,094 0.296 12,470 2014 40,200 0.296 11,910 2015 44,530 0.296 13,190 2016 46,857 0.296 13,880 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 22 Figure 4.2. Total disposed solid waste and GHG emissions (MTCO2e). 5. Wastewater Wastewater Sector Overview This section presents the GHG emissions for the wastewater sector, specifically emissions from the direct treatment processes and fugitive sources that have occurred within City limits. It must be noted, energy emissions generated from wastewater treatment are included within the nonresidential community energy sector. In this section, methods are discussed to calculate a baseline emissions inventory for 2005 along with an updated inventory year of 2016. This section concludes with the sector’s total GHG emissions. Inventory Data and Methods The 2005 inventory prepared in 2009 did not account for process emissions generated from treatment of wastewater within the city. This section provides activity data and emissions estimates for the baseline year of 2005, as well as 2016. The City of San Luis Obispo Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) is the City’s only wastewater treatment facility serving the City’s residents and Cal Poly campus. The two primary sources of emissions accounted for in this inventory include the process emissions from the incomplete combustion of digester gas and the treatment from nitrification. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 MTCO2eTonnageLandfilled Waste MTCO2e DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 23 Wastewater Treatment Types Digester Gas The first source of emissions is from stationary methane generation as the result of the operation of anaerobic digesters. Anaerobic digesters are pieces of equipment that use microbes to break down organic material in an oxygen-free environment and are utilized to treat the excess biosolids produced by the treatment process. Methane that is generated from the process is fed back in to the co-generation system, where it is used to power WRRF operations. The methane not reintroduced into the system is flared onsite, adjacent to the co -generator. Table 5.1 provides an estimate of the yearly methane generation rates of the WRRF’s two digesters. Table 5.1. Digester gas produced. Wastewater Treatment Facility 2005 2016 WRRF generated digester gas (ft3/day) 56,000 67,412 To calculate GHG emissions from the incomplete combustion of digester gas, a conversion factor is applied to the total digester gas activity data. Table 5.2 presents the LGOP’s method of calculating methane emissions from anaerobic digester gas based on the available gas generation activity data. Table 5.2 also presents the total calculated metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCO2e) emissions generated from the incomplete combustion of digester gas. Table 5.2. Digester gas produced. 2005 2016 Methane Digester Gas Generation Measured standard cubic feet of digester gas produced per day (ft3) (City measure) 56,000 67,412 CH4 fraction in biogas (F CH4) (City measure) 0.55 0.55 Methane density ρ(CH4) (standard measure) 662.00 662.00 CH4 destruction efficiency DE (standard measure) 0.99 0.99 Conversion Factors of Methane Digester Gas Generation Potential (MTCO2e) Cubic feet to cubic meters (standard measure) 0.0283 0.0283 Days per year (standard measure) 365.25 365.25 Grams to metric tons (standard measure) 0.000001 0.000001 GWP of methane (standard measure) 28 28 Annual CH4 emissions (MTCO2e) 60 70 Source: Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 24 Nitrification According to the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006), nitrification occurs through an aerobic process converting ammonia and other nitrogen compounds into nitrate (N3O). Though the WRRF does not utilize denitrification in its treatment process, according to LGOP, the calculation of nitrification is the same as calculating emissions from denitrification systems. Due to site specific treatment data unavailability, nitrous oxide generation from nitrification or denitrification is estimated using service population data. The service population was estimated by accounting for all City residents and half the number of jobs within the city. Cal Poly’s population was excluded from the service population estimate since Cal Poly is not within the City’s jurisdiction. Table 5.3 provides the service population for 2005 and 2016. Table 5.3.Service population estimates. Wastewater Treatment Facility 2005 Population Served 2016 Population Served Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) 60,476 62,767 Table 5.4 presents the LGOP’s method of calculating nitrous oxide emissions from nitrification or denitrification based on the service population. The nitrous oxide generation is then converted to MTCO2e by using the following emissions factors also provided in Table 5.4. Table 5.4. Estimation and emissions factors for treatment with nitrification or denitrification. 2005 2016 Treatment Lagoons Methane Generation Industrial and commercial co-discharge factor (Find-com) 1 1 Nitrification/denitrification emissions factor (EF nit/denit) 7 7 Conversion Factors for Treatment with Nitrification/Denitrification N2O Generation (MTCO2e) Grams to metric tons 0.000001 0.000001 GWP of nitrous oxide 265 265 Annual N2O emissions per person (MTCO2e) 0.001855 0.001855 Source: Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) The coefficient for nitrous oxide generation from nitrification or denitrification is then applied to the total service population presented in Table 5.3. Table 5.5 shows the total GHG emissions generated from nitrification. Table 5.5. GHG Emissions from treatment with nitrification or denitrification. Nitrification Treatment Emissions (MTCO2e) 2005 2016 Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) 110 120 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 25 Total Wastewater GHG Emissions Table 5.6 reports the final calculated wastewater GHG emissions data of the combined treatment types of methane generation from the incomplete combustion of digester gas and nitrous oxide generation from nitrification processes. The increase in emissions for both treatments is likely due to the increase in activity data for each treatment type. As the population increased overtime, the city saw an increase in the total wastewater requiring treatment from 2005 and 2016. Table 5.6. Total GHG estimates from wastewater treatment. Subsector Activity Data Unit Emissions Factors (MTCO2e/person) GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 2005 2016 2005 2016 20051 20161 % Change Stationary CH4 from Incomplete Combustion of Digester Gas 56,000 67,412 ft3 Gas 0.001054 0.001045 60 70 17% Process N2O Emissions from WWTP with Nitrification/ Denitrification 60,476 62,767 Populatio n 0.001855 0.001855 110 120 9% Total -- -- -- -- 170 190 12% 1 Rounded to nearest tenth 6. Off-Road Off-Road Sector Overview This section presents the GHG emissions for off-road activity, specifically emissions from construction and lawn and garden equipment use within City limits. In this section, methods are discussed to calculate a baseline emissions inventory for 2005 along with an updated inventory year of 2016. This section concludes with the sector’s total GHG emissions. Inventory Data and Methods To estimate emissions from off-road equipment, this sector considers emissions generated from construction and lawn and garden equipment. Off-road emissions data for the county was gathered from the CARB OFFROAD2007 modeling tool. Table 1 provides an overview of the equipment modeled in the CARB tool. Since the CARB tool models emissions for the entire county, city specific emissions data was proportioned out using demographic housing information. Table 6.1 provides the aggregated emissions data collected and the total GHG emissions in proportion to the rest of the county. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 26 Table 6.1. Off Road equipment. Construction Lawn and Garden Tampers/Rammers, Plate Compactors, Asphalt Pavers, Rollers, Paving Equipment, Surfacing Equipment, Signal Boards, Trenchers, Bore/Drill Rigs, Concrete/Industrial Saws, Cement and Mortar Mixers, Cranes, Graders, Off-Highway Trucks, Crushing Equipment, Rough Terrain Forklifts, Rubber Tired Loaders, Rubber Tired Dozers, Tractors, Loaders, Backhoes, Crawlers, Skid Steer Loaders, Off-Highway Tractors, and Dumpers Lawn Mowers, Chainsaws, Trimmers, Leaf Blowers, Shredders, Commercial Turf Equipment, Tillers, Rear Engine Riding Mowers, Front Mowers, Shredders, Lawn & Garden Tractors, Wood Splitters, Chippers/Stump Grinders, Commercial, Turf Equipment, Other Lawn & Garden Equipment Source: CARB OFFROAD2007 modeling tool Data from the OFFROAD2007 modeling tool was compiled and summed according to emission type and is presented in Table 6.2. The emissions presented in Table 6.2 are then converted to carbon dioxide equivalent by applying the most recently available global warming potential values. Table 6.2. County off-road GHG emissions. 2005 2016 Construction Lawn and Garden Construction Lawn and Garden t CO2/day1 (row 1) 169.033 16.805 199.982 18.189 t CH4/day1 (row 2) 0.001 0.013 0.018 0.027 t N2O/day1 (row 3) 0.031 0.032 0.001 0.012 t CO2e/day2 (row 4) 177.315 25.871 200.781 22.093 t CO2e/year (row 5) 64,716.466 9,442.729 73,285.229 8,064.056 MTCO2e/year3 (row 6) 58,710.393 8,566.387 66,483.924 7,315.663 1 CARB OFFROAD2007 modeling tool 2 Sum of rows 1-3, with row 2 multiplied by the CH4 GWP value of 28 and row 3 multiplied by the GWP value of 265 (IPCC Fifth Assessment Report) 3 Conversion from tons to metric tons To estimate the emissions occurring in the city an adjustment factor was applied to the final MTCO2e estimates in Table 6.3. The adjustment factor used for construction equipment was 15.79 percent for 2005 and 10.47 percent for 2016. The adjustment factor use for lawn and garden equipment was 18.02 percent for 2005 and 17.41 percent for 2016. These adjustment factors represent the proportion of new households in the city relative to the county as a whole. Table 6.3 provides the adjustment factor applied to the total yearly MTCO2e of the county. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 27 Table 6.3. City off-road GHG emissions. 2005 2016 MTCO2e % of City1 Total MTCO2e MTCO2e1 % of Unincorporated County1 Total MTCO2e3,5 Construction 58,710 15.79% 9,270 66,484 10.47% 6,960 Lawn and Garden 8,566 18.02% 1,540 7,316 17.41% 1,270 Total -- -- 10,810 -- -- 8,230 1 Proportion of unincorporated county households to number of total county households Total Off-Road GHG Emissions From 2005 to 2016, the City of San Luis Obispo experienced a 24 percent decrease in emissions from lawn and garden and construction equipment (Table 6.4). This significant decrease in emissions from 2005 and 2016 is likely due to the lack of building construction activity that took place during this time period. As new construction projects decreased, there were less greenhouse gases emitted from off-road equipment use. Table 6.4. Total GHG estimates from off-road use. 2005 2016 Construction and Mining Equipment 9,270 6,960 Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,540 1,270 Total 10,810 8,230 DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 28 List of Abbreviations AB: Assembly Bill ADT: Average daily trips APCD: Air Pollution Control District Caltrans: California Department of Transportation CAP: Climate Action Plan CARB: California Air Resources Board CH4: Methane CO2: Carbon dioxide CO2e: Carbon dioxide equivalent DANF: Decomposable anaerobic fraction DOC: Degradable organic content EPA: US Environmental Protection Agency GHG: Greenhouse gas IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change kW: Kilowatt kWh: Kilowatt-hour LGOP: Local Government Operations Protocol MSW: Municipal solid waste MTCO2e: Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent N2O: Nitrous oxide PG&E: Pacific Gas & Electric Company RPS: Renewables Portfolio Standard SB: Senate Bill TDOC: Total degradable organic carbon VMT: Vehicle miles traveled WIPFRAC: Fraction of waste in place WRRF: Water Resource Recovery Facility ZNE: Zero net energy DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 29 Appendix A As described in the main body of this report, the City used the California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC 2014 model to determine county-wide VMT and CO2 emissions for 2005 and 2016. Table A.1 shows the county-wide numbers from the EMFAC 2014 model. Table A.1: County of San Luis Obispo 2005 and 2016 EMFAC aggregated data. 2005 2016 Vehicle Class County VMT % VMT of County CO2 (Ton) VMT % VMT of County CO2 (Ton) All Other Buses 5,796 0.07% 8 7,987 0.10% 11 LDA 4,029,232 46.73% 1,431 4,293,311 51.58% 1,404 LDT1 377,679 4.38% 157 331,725 3.99% 128 LDT2 1,789,539 20.75% 880 1,664,158 19.99% 751 LHD1 543,694 6.31% 435 353,435 4.25% 274 LHD2 84,062 0.97% 70 80,207 0.96% 65 MCY 53,994 0.63% 9 53,227 0.64% 9 MDV 1,417,007 16.43% 865 1,219,021 14.64% 714 MH 31,041 0.36% 44 19,918 0.24% 28 Motorcoach 2,759 0.03% 5 2,870 0.03% 6 OBUS 6,438 0.07% 9 10,023 0.12% 14 PTO 4,602 0.05% 12 4,295 0.05% 11 SBUS 6,889 0.08% 8 7,079 0.09% 9 T6 117,434 1.36% 159 114,479 1.38% 155 T7 141,272 1.64% 290 150,263 1.81% 295 UBUS 11,346 0.13% 28 11,961 0.14% 29 Total 8,622,783 100.00% 4,410 8,323,959 100.00% 3,903 The City applied the percent of VMT by vehicle type for the County to the City’s VMT, resulting in estimated VMT for the City of San Luis Obispo by vehicle type. Table A.2 shows these numbers. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 30 Table A.2. Annual City VMT estimates. 2005 2016 Vehicle Class % VMT of County Total VMT % VMT of County Total VMT All Other Buses 0.07% 179,174 0.10% 263,423 LDA 46.73% 124,566,476 51.58% 141,595,456 LDT1 4.38% 11,676,212 3.99% 10,940,462 LDT2 20.75% 55,324,841 19.99% 54,884,738 LHD1 6.31% 16,808,663 4.25% 11,656,462 LHD2 0.97% 2,598,841 0.96% 2,645,260 MCY 0.63% 1,669,263 0.64% 1,755,458 MDV 16.43% 43,807,733 14.64% 40,203,905 MH 0.36% 959,665 0.24% 656,910 Motorcoach 0.03% 85,306 0.03% 94,647 OBUS 0.07% 199,027 0.12% 330,551 PTO 0.05% 142,284 0.05% 141,648 SBUS 0.08% 212,968 0.09% 233,465 T6 1.36% 3,630,558 1.38% 3,775,563 T7 1.64% 4,367,509 1.81% 4,955,749 UBUS 0.13% 350,761 0.14% 394,473 Total 100.00% 266,579,280 100.00% 274,528,170 The City used the results of the EMFAC model to determine the tons of CO2/VMT for each vehicle type, and combined these individual emissions factors to prepare a weighted average CO 2/VMT emissions factor that reflects the specific mix of vehicles in San Luis Obispo County. The City next converted the tons of CO2/VMT to metric tons of CO2e/VMT, using industry-standard figures, and applied this emissions factor to the total City VMT to calculate total emissions. Table A.3 shows San Luis Obispo’s VMT, emissions factors, and total emissions by individual vehicle type. DRAFT City of San Luis Obispo - 2018 Provisional GHG Inventory Update Page 31 Table A.3. Total annual VMT emissions. 2005 2016 Vehicle Class Total VMT MTCO2e/ VMT Total Emissions Total VMT MTCO2e/ VMT Total Emissions All Other Buses 179,174 0.001275 230 263,423 0.001312 350 LDA 124,566,476 0.000339 42,230 141,595,456 0.000312 44,220 LDT1 11,676,212 0.000396 4,620 10,940,462 0.000369 4,040 LDT2 55,324,841 0.000470 25,990 54,884,738 0.000431 23,650 LHD1 16,808,663 0.000765 12,860 11,656,462 0.000741 8,640 LHD2 2,598,841 0.000799 2,080 2,645,260 0.000774 2,050 MCY 1,669,263 0.000154 260 1,755,458 0.000167 290 MDV 43,807,733 0.000583 25,530 40,203,905 0.000559 22,480 MH 959,665 0.001349 1,300 656,910 0.001322 870 Motorcoach 85,306 0.001890 160 94,647 0.001888 180 OBUS 199,027 0.001382 280 330,551 0.001373 450 PTO 142,284 0.002420 340 141,648 0.002398 340 SBUS 212,968 0.001136 240 233,465 0.001162 270 T6 3,630,558 0.001291 4,690 3,775,563 0.001295 4,890 T7 4,367,509 0.001962 8,570 4,955,749 0.001876 9,300 UBUS 350,761 0.002365 830 394,473 0.002291 900 Total 266,579,280 -- 130,210 274,528,170 -- 122,920 DRAFT Climate Action Plan Status Update City Council Study Session -September 18, 2018 1 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Recommendation 1.Receive and file the 2018 provisional community greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory report and presentation; and 2.Provide direction to staff regarding updated GHG targets. 2 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Agenda Climate Action Plan Update Community GHG Emissions Inventory GHG Emissions Target Options Assessment of a Net Zero Carbon City Focus Questions for Study Session 3 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Beacon Award Winners! 4 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Climate Change is Here The evidence of human caused climate change is undeniable and as the body of evidence continues to grow, the scientific record becomes more definitive and makes clear the need to take aggressive climate action now. Climate change is making events like the recent droughts and consecutive historic wildfire seasons more frequent, catastrophic, and costly. Determined local climate action provides an opportunity to: Proportionally slow the impacts of climate change Create new economic development engines Ensure environmental integrity Address issues of equity and public health, Enhance local quality of life Demonstrate climate leadership with actions that can be potentially replicated in other locations. 5 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Climate Action Major City Goal Work program focused on: 1.Implementing GHG reduction measures 2.Establishing capacity for continuing climate action 3.Updating the City’s 2012 Climate Action Plan 6 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Climate Action MCG –Climate Action Plan Update Status CAP Update to Occur in Three Phases 1.GHG Inventory and target setting update for community and municipal operations 2.Updated, actionable, and cost- effective Climate Action Plan for community and municipal operations 3.A tool and approach to integrate climate change into the 2019-21 Financial Plan 7 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Community GHG Emissions Inventory An inventory accounts for the emissions occurring from activity in a geographic area. Baseline year (2005) selected as part of the 2012 Climate Action Plan, which provides community and government inventories. Attachment A provides provisional community emissions for 2005 and 2016 for transportation, energy, solid waste, waste water, and off-road emissions. Adopted climate action plan includes reduction target of 1990 levels (15 percent below 2005 baseline) by 2020. 8 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Sector 2005 2016 Percent Change Transportation 130,210 122,920 -6% Commercial/Industrial Energy 57,800 53,410 -8% Residential Energy 55,190 43,580 -21% Solid Waste 15,540 13,880 -11% Waste Water 170 190 12% Off-Road 10,810 8,230 -24% TOTAL 269,720 242,210 -10% Community GHG Inventory Update (MTCO2e)* 9 *MTCO2e = Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas GHG Reduction Targets Assembly Bill 32 –1990 levels (15 percent below baseline) by 2020 (current target) Senate Bill 32 –40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 Post 2030 Targets –At a minimum, focused on keeping warming at 1.5 ̊C -2 ̊C Paris Agreement –80 percent below 1990 by 2050 California Executive Order B-55-18 –Carbon neutral by 2045 10 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas GHG Reduction Targets 11 0 (2045 EO B-55-18 Target) 269,720 242,210 229,260 (2020 Target) 137,560 (2030 Target) 45,850 (2050 –80% below 1990 Target) 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 19% Electricity 21% Natural Gas Post 2030 Target Cities Over 60 cities throughout the world have adopted deep GHG reduction targets. Examples include: Carbon neutral by 2050: City of Davis, CA City of Fort Collins, CO (interim 80 percent below 2005 by 2030 target) City of Santa Monica, CA City of Los Angeles, CA City of San Francisco, CA City of Austin, TX (climate neutral municipal operations by 2020) 80 percent below baseline by 2050 Iowa City, IA City of Berkeley, CA City of Portland, OR City of Minneapolis, MN 12 19% Electricity “Net Zero” Carbon City Assessment 13 Resource efficiency and conservation Carbon free electricity Electrification Reduced solid waste Carbon sequestration Electrification Considerations Community interest exists in zero carbon homes. 2020 California Building Code will include Zero Net Energy requirements for new residential development, but will not contain carbon neutrality requirements. Should Council want to explore this topic further, staff recommends researching “reach code” requirements that go beyond the energy provisions of Title 24 (California Building Standards Code) and returning with analysis in early 2019. Recommended research topics include: Timeframe to adopt a reach code Potential GHG reductions relative to investment Potential legal issues Project costs and feasibility 13 19% Electricity “Net Zero” Carbon City Assessment 15 Resource efficiency and conservation Carbon free electricity Electrification Reduced solid waste Carbon sequestration Implementation Principles Leadership, learning, innovation, and sharing See opportunity in our challenges Consider equity and economy 13 Key Questions for Discussion 17 1.Does Council want to establish a GHG target consistent with SB32 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030)? 2.If so,does Council want to: a)Formally establish the target via resolution this year,or b)Direct staff to adopt the target upon completion of the Climate Action Plan update (Summer 2019)? 3.Does Council want to establish a GHG target beyond SB32? 4.If so,does Council want the target to be consistent with California’s Executive Orders and the Paris Agreement (80 percent below 1990 by 2050)or new Executive Order B-55-18 (Carbon neutral by 2045)? 5.Or,does Council want to move beyond the low-end requirements identified in the Paris agreement moving the target date earlier,increasing the reduction requirement,or both? 6.If an additional target is desired,does Council want to: a)formally establish the target via resolution this year,or b)direct staff to adopt the target upon completion of the Climate Action Plan update (Summer 2019)? Questions? Chris Read, Sustainability Manager (805) 781-7151 cread@slocity.org www.slocity.org/cce 18