City of Ann Arbor Greenhouse Gas Emissions …css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS03-02.pdfDulcey Simpkins, Ph.D. Department of Environmental Coordination Services Nancy Stone

City of Ann Arbor Greenhouse Gas

Emissions Reduction Plan

Seth A. Epstein, Joseph A. Malcoun II, Jenny L. Oorbeck and Manoru Yamada

Report No. CSS03-02

May 2003

i

CITY OF ANN ARBOR GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGY

by:

Seth A. Epstein Joseph A. Malcoun II

Jenny L. Oorbeck Mamoru Yamada

A Project submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Natural Resources and Environment

The University of Michigan

May 2003

Faculty Advisors: Jonathan W. Bulkley, Professor and First Reader Rosina Bierbaum, Professor and Second Reader

Document Description CITY OF ANN ARBOR GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION PLAN Seth A. Epstein, Joseph A. Malcoun II, Jenny L. Oorbeck and Manoru Yamada Center for Sustainable Systems, Report No. CSS03-02, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, May, 2003. 226 pp., tables, figures, 21 appendices This document is available online: http://css.snre.umich.edu Center for Sustainable Systems The University of Michigan 430 East University, Dana Building Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115 Phone: 734-764-1412 Fax: 734-647-5841 e-mail: css.info@umich http://css.snre.umich.edu Copyright 2003 by the Regents of the University of Michigan

ii

i

The City of Ann Arbor Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy Team would like to recognize the invaluable guidance provided by the following people, without the support from whom this Project would not have been possible: Rosina Bierbaum, Ph.D. Dean, School of Natural Resources and Environment Jonathan Bulkley, Ph.D. Professor, School of Natural Resources and Environment

Co-Director, Center for Sustainable Systems David Konkle Energy Coordinator, Department of Environmental

Coordination Services, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan Matthew Naud Environmental Coordinator, Department of Environmental

Coordination Services, City of Ann Arbor, Michigan

ii

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Team would also like to recognize the following people for their generous assistance throughout this Project:

University of Michigan Helaine Hunscher Center for Sustainable Systems Greg Keoleian, Ph.D. Center for Sustainable Systems Marc Melaina School of Natural Resources and Environment Michael Moore, Ph.D. School of Natural Resources and Environment City of Ann Arbor Dulcey Simpkins, Ph.D. Department of Environmental Coordination Services Nancy Stone Solid Waste Department

The Team would like to extend its gratitude to the staff at the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives at the Berkeley, CA office. The Team would also like to recognize the following organizations for their support throughout this endeavor:

The Center for Sustainable Systems

The City of Ann Arbor Department of Environmental Coordination Services The Prentice Foundation

Lastly, the Team would very much like to thank all of our family members and friends who, over the last year, have patiently endured our absence and fatigue.

iv

v

ABSTRACT On October 20, 1997 the City of Ann Arbor joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiative’s (ICLEI) Cities for Climate Protection campaign (CCP). Under the obligation of the CCP campaign the City is required to create an inventory of energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, set a reduction target, develop a strategy to reduce their GHG emissions, implement the necessary measures, and monitor their results. The objectives of this Project are to: raise local awareness and understanding of the social, environmental, and economic benefits of reducing GHGs on a local and global scale; identify and quantify GHGs emitted by the City of Ann Arbor from 1990 to present, and project future emissions values to 2050 based on historic and future trends; identify and quantify the City of Ann Arbor’s emissions reduction accomplishments since 1990; identify a politically and economically feasible GHG emissions reduction target for the City of Ann Arbor to achieve by 2020; identify strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated by Ann Arbor’s transportation, residential, commercial, industrial, municipal solid waste sectors, the municipal government, and the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus that meet the reduction target specified by this Project. This Project sets a reduction target of 7% below 1990 GHG emissions by 2020 and develops 29 measures, collectively to reduce emissions to 3% below 1990 levels by 2020. The target reduction can be met by the City if full implementation of the 29 measures is achieved along a more aggressive timeline. Two alternative implementation paths, 2018 and 2015, achieve emissions reductions of 5% and 7% below 1990 GHG emissions levels respectively. The 29 measures are divided into four categories: Community Outreach and Education, Energy Conservation, Transportation, and Solid Waste Management. Each measure is evaluated for its potential to reduce GHG emissions, as well as its initial cost, annual cost, annual cost savings, and payback to the municipality.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................................III ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................. V LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................................................... IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................XV

PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................XV SYSTEM BOUNDARIES...............................................................................................................................XVI ENERGY CONSUMPTION............................................................................................................................XIX

Electricity ............................................................................................................................................xix Natural Gas ..........................................................................................................................................xx Petroleum ...........................................................................................................................................xxii

ANN ARBOR’S GHG MITIGATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 1991-2002..........................................................XXIV TWO SCENARIO METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................XXVIII

Current Scenario..............................................................................................................................xxviii Progressive Scenario........................................................................................................................... xxx

Results......................................................................................................................................................... xxxii CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... XLIII GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS MEASURES .............................................................................................XLVII

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................. 1 THE EVOLUTION OF THE CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN......................................................... 2

The Rise of Climate Change as a Global Issue ........................................................................................ 2 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ................................................................................... 3 The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ............................................................. 4 The Conference of the Parties and the Kyoto Protocol ............................................................................ 5 The International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives & the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign .............................................................................................................................................. 8

THE ROLE OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN CLIMATE CHANGE............................................................................ 11 Conditions and Trends ......................................................................................................................... 11

THE BENEFITS OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ....................................................................... 13 Social Benefits...................................................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Benefits......................................................................................................................... 13 Economic Benefits................................................................................................................................ 14 Public Health....................................................................................................................................... 16

RESEARCH METHODS AND LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................ 19 SYSTEM BOUNDARIES................................................................................................................................ 19 GREENHOUSE GASES AS A CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVER ................................................................................ 23 REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND CORPORATE GHG REDUCTION PLAN METHODOLOGY............................... 24

Regional Plans..................................................................................................................................... 24 State Plans ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Local Plans.......................................................................................................................................... 25 Corporate Strategies ............................................................................................................................ 25

INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................... 27 EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ............................................................... 29

Electricity ............................................................................................................................................ 29 Natural Gas ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Petroleum ............................................................................................................................................ 30 Municipal Solid Waste Management ..................................................................................................... 31

TWO SCENARIO METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 32 Current Scenario.................................................................................................................................. 32 Progressive Scenario............................................................................................................................ 33

ANN ARBOR’S GHG MITIGATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 1991-2002 ............................................. 35 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 35 BUILDING RETROFITS ................................................................................................................................ 36

vii

The Energy Efficiency Financing Fund ................................................................................................. 36 The City Energy Fund........................................................................................................................... 36 Interior Lighting................................................................................................................................... 38

Method for Comparing Different Interior Lighting and Bulb Technologies.........................................................38 Incandescent Lighting.......................................................................................................................................38

Description of Technology...........................................................................................................................38 Sample Calculation......................................................................................................................................39

Halogen Lighting .............................................................................................................................................39 Description of Technology...........................................................................................................................39 Sample Calculation......................................................................................................................................40

Low-Mercury Fluorescent Lighting...................................................................................................................41 Description of Technology...........................................................................................................................41 Sample Calculation......................................................................................................................................42

Dimmable Electronic Ballasts ...........................................................................................................................45 Description of Technology...........................................................................................................................45 Sample Calculation......................................................................................................................................46

Motion-activated Lighting and Timer Controlled Systems..................................................................................46 Description of Technology...........................................................................................................................46

EXTERIOR LIGHTING.................................................................................................................................. 48 Street Lighting...................................................................................................................................... 48 Traffic and Pedestrian-crosswalk Lights ............................................................................................... 50

Light Emitting Diode Traffic Lights (LEDs)......................................................................................................50 Description of the Technology .....................................................................................................................50 Sample Calculation......................................................................................................................................51

GREET TRANSPORTATION MODELS .......................................................................................................... 53 CHANGES IN FUEL SOURCE FOR FLEET VEHICLES ....................................................................................... 55

Bi-fuel Vehicles .................................................................................................................................... 55 Description of Technology................................................................................................................................55 Sample Calculation...........................................................................................................................................57 Quantifiable Reductions....................................................................................................................................59

Dedicated CNG Vehicles ...................................................................................................................... 60 Description of Technology................................................................................................................................60 Sample Calculation...........................................................................................................................................60

Quantifiable Reductions...............................................................................................................................61 Hybrid-Electric Vehicles....................................................................................................................... 61

Description of Technology................................................................................................................................62 Sample Calculation...........................................................................................................................................62 Quantifiable Reductions....................................................................................................................................63

Battery-Electric Vehicles ...................................................................................................................... 63 Description of Technology................................................................................................................................63 Sample Calculation...........................................................................................................................................67 Quantifiable Reductions....................................................................................................................................67

Biodiesel .............................................................................................................................................. 68 Description of the Technology ..........................................................................................................................68 Quantifiable Reductions....................................................................................................................................70

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ......................................................................................................................... 73 Get! Downtown .................................................................................................................................... 73

LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY PROJECT........................................................................................................... 76 RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING................................................................................................................... 78 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................................... 81

INITIAL INVENTORY – CURRENT SCENARIO..................................................................................... 85 POPULATION AND GROWTH TRENDS........................................................................................................... 85 ENERGY CONSUMPTION ............................................................................................................................. 87

Electricity............................................................................................................................................. 87 Natural Gas.......................................................................................................................................... 88 Petroleum............................................................................................................................................. 90

CURRENT AND PROJECTED FUTURE GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR................................................................ 92 Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 92 Recent Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends in Ann Arbor ....................................................................... 92

viii

Transportation Sector........................................................................................................................... 95 Projections....................................................................................................................................................... 96

Residential Sector................................................................................................................................. 97 Projections....................................................................................................................................................... 98

Commercial Sector............................................................................................................................... 98 Projections....................................................................................................................................................... 99

Industrial Sector................................................................................................................................. 100 Projections..................................................................................................................................................... 100

Municipal Government....................................................................................................................... 101 Projections..................................................................................................................................................... 102

University of Michigan ....................................................................................................................... 102 Projections..................................................................................................................................................... 103

Municipal Solid Waste Management ................................................................................................... 104 Projections..................................................................................................................................................... 105

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 107 PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO ................................................................................................................... 109

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 109 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS MEASURES ........................................................................................................ 115

Community Outreach and Education Measures................................................................................... 115 Energy Conservation Measures .......................................................................................................... 126 Transportation Measures.................................................................................................................... 160 Solid Waste Management Measure ..................................................................................................... 186 Matrix of Recommended Measures ..................................................................................................... 189

DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 197 CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................................... 207 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................................... 211 ACRONYMS............................................................................................................................................. 223 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................... 227

APPENDIX A: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN"................................................................................ 227

APPENDIX B: CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME FAMILY TREE ........................................................................ 231 APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF GREENHOUSE GASES................................................................ 233 APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING BASELINE................................................................. 241 APPENDIX E: KEY FINDINGS OF REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND CORPORATE PLANS............................. 257 APPENDIX G: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE METHODOLOGY...................................................................... 293 APPENDIX H: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING FUTURE GROWTH RATE OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

..................................................................................................................................... 305 APPENDIX I: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING FUTURE GROWTH RATE OF NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION

..................................................................................................................................... 317 APPENDIX J: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING GHG FROM TRANSPORTATION SECTOR ......................... 329 APPENDIX K: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...................................... 333 APPENDIX L: ANN ARBOR’S MITIGATION EFFORTS, 1991-2002............................................................. 335 APPENDIX M: ANN ARBOR’S ENERGY EFFICIENCY FINANCING PROGRAM.............................................. 339 APPENDIX N: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS COEFFICIENTS................................................................... 349 APPENDIX O: GREET MODEL INPUTS, ASSUMPTIONS AND OUTPUTS ...................................................... 355 APPENDIX P: INVENTORY OF ANN ARBOR’S FUEL-CONSUMING VEHICLES AND DEVICES........................ 373 APPENDIX Q: ANN ARBOR LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY DATA................................................................. 397 APPENDIX R: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING GHG SAVINGS FROM RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING .... 403 APPENDIX S: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING GREENHOUSE GASES ASSOCIATED WITH ANN ARBOR’S

LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY FACILITY ............................................................................. 411 APPENDIX T: GHGS REDUCED UNDER PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO ............................................................. 413 APPENDIX U: TABLE OF MITIGATION EFFORTS FROM OTHER CITIES EVALUATED................................... 415

ix

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE ES-1: HISTORICAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN ANN ARBOR..........................................................XX FIGURE ES-2: NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION IN 2000 BY SECTOR ...................................................................XXI FIGURE ES-3: HISTORICAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION IN ANN ARBOR ......................................................XXI FIGURE ES-4: HISTORICAL PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION BETWEEN 1990 AND 2000 IN ANN ARBOR.................XXIII FIGURE ES-5: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1991-2002 WITH & WITHOUT CITY MITIGATION EFFORTS........ XXIV FIGURE ES-6: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GHG REDUCTIONS, 1991-2002 .............................. XXV FIGURE ES-7: TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 1997-2002 ................................................ XXVI FIGURE ES-8: MUNICIPAL GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, 1998-2002 ......................................................... XXVI FIGURE ES-9: PROJECTION OF GHG EMISSIONS IN THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) .............. XXIX FIGURE ES-10: GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) ............................................................... XXX FIGURE ES-11: CURRENT VS. PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO ................................................................................ XXXIV FIGURE ES-12: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND

EDUCATION ..................................................................................................................................... XXXV FIGURE ES-13: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: ENERGY CONSERVATION .............. XXXVI FIGURE ES-14: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: TRANSPORTATION ....................... XXXVII FIGURE ES-15: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ..... XXXVIII FIGURE ES-16: GHG EMISSIONS FROM MSW MANAGEMENT INCLUDING PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO.............. XXXIX FIGURE ES-17: CURRENT SCENARIO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2020 .................................... XL FIGURE ES-18: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2020 .............................. XL FIGURE ES-19: GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR INCLUDING PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO, 1990-2020 ........................XLII FIGURE ES-20: THREE IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS FOR THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR.....................................XLIV FIGURE ES-21: IMPLEMENTATION PATH EMISSIONS ......................................................................................XLV FIGURE 1: ORGANIZATION OF THE IPCC ........................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 2: THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT ............................................................................................................. 12 FIGURE 3: PROJECT SYSTEM BOUNDARIES - MAJOR ENERGY PATHWAYS......................................................... 22 FIGURE 4: GREENHOUSE GASES EVALUATION METHODOLOGY USED TO NARROW FOCUS OF THE REDUCTION

STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................................ 23 FIGURE 5: STAGES COVERED IN GREET FUEL CYCLE ANALYSIS..................................................................... 53 FIGURE 6: BIODIESEL PRODUCTION PROCESS .................................................................................................. 69 FIGURE 7: COMPONENTS OF A LANDFILL GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM ................................................................ 77 FIGURE 8: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 1991-2002 WITH & WITHOUT CITY MITIGATION EFFORTS ................. 81 FIGURE 9: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT GHG REDUCTIONS, 1991-2002....................................... 82 FIGURE 10: TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS 1997-2002........................................................ 83 FIGURE 11: MUNICIPAL GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS, 1998-2002................................................................. 83 FIGURE 12: ANN ARBOR POPULATION ............................................................................................................ 86 FIGURE 13: HISTORICAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN ANN ARBOR.............................................................. 88 FIGURE 14: NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION IN 2000 BY SECTOR........................................................................ 89 FIGURE 15: HISTORICAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION IN ANN ARBOR ........................................................... 89 FIGURE 16: HISTORICAL PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION BETWEEN 1990 AND 2000 IN ANN ARBOR ....................... 91 FIGURE 17: GHG EMISSIONS IN THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) .............................................. 93 FIGURE 18: PROJECTION OF GHG EMISSIONS IN THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) ...................... 93 FIGURE 19: ANN ARBOR’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (2000) ................................................... 94 FIGURE 20: GHG EMISSIONS IN 2000 BY SECTOR (THE UNITED STATES).......................................................... 95 FIGURE 21: PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS IN TRANSPORTATION SECTOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) .......................... 97 FIGURE 22: PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS IN RESIDENTIAL SECTOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) ................................. 98 FIGURE 23: PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS IN COMMERCIAL SECTOR (CURRENT SCENARIO)................................. 99 FIGURE 24: PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS IN INDUSTRIAL SECTOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) ................................. 101 FIGURE 25: PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT (CURRENT SCENARIO) ........................ 102 FIGURE 26: PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN (CURRENT SCENARIO) ............... 104 FIGURE 27: PROJECTED GHG EMISSIONS FOR MSW (CURRENT SCENARIO)..................................................... 106 FIGURE 28: GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR (CURRENT SCENARIO) ..................................................................... 108 FIGURE 29: CURRENT VS. PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO.......................................................................................... 197

x

FIGURE 30: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION.......................................................................................................................................................... 199

FIGURE 31: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: ENERGY CONSERVATION........................ 200 FIGURE 32: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: TRANSPORTATION.................................. 201 FIGURE 33: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT................. 202 FIGURE 34: GHG EMISSIONS FROM MSW MANAGEMENT INCLUDING PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO ....................... 203 FIGURE 35: CURRENT SCENARIO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2020 ...................................... 204 FIGURE 36: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY SECTOR IN 2020.................................. 204 FIGURE 37: GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR INCLUDING PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO, 1990-2020.............................. 205 FIGURE 38: ANN ARBOR GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY VS. AEO2002 REFERENCE CASE ................................ 206 FIGURE 39: THREE IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS FOR THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR ........................................... 208 FIGURE 40: IMPLEMENTATION PATH EMISSIONS............................................................................................ 209 FIGURE C-1: OZONE IS BOTH GOOD AND BAD............................................................................................... 238 FIGURE E-1: BP GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS ............................................................................................ 280 FIGURE E-2: REGIONAL GHG EMISSIONS TRADING, 2001............................................................................. 281

xi

LIST OF TABLES TABLE ES-1: COMPARISON OF FUEL MIXTURE ...............................................................................................XIX TABLE ES-2: VMT COMPARISON BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AND THE U.S..........................................................XXII TABLE ES-3: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM CITY PROGRAMS, 1991-2002 (MTCO2E)......................... XXV TABLE ES-4: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND

TRANSPORTATION SECTORS (CURRENT SCENARIO)............................................................................ XXVIII TABLE ES-5: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR MUNICIPAL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, AND MUNICIPAL SOLID

WASTE SECTORS (CURRENT SCENARIO) ............................................................................................ XXVIII TABLE ES-6: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY PROGRAM.................................... XXXIII TABLE ES-7: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCED FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND TRANSPORTATION

SECTORS (PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO) .................................................................................................. XXXIX TABLE ES-8: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCED FOR MUNICIPAL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, AND MUNICIPAL SOLID

WASTE SECTORS (PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO) ...................................................................................... XXXIX TABLE ES-9: 2020 PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO PERCENT CHANGE COMPARED WITH CURRENT SCENARIO GHG

EMISSIONS LEVELS IN THE SAME YEAR.................................................................................................XLI TABLE ES-10: IMPLEMENTATION PATHS AND ASSOCIATED GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS.............................XLV TABLE 1: CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES ........................................................................................................... 5 TABLE 2: ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN MICHIGAN (1999) .................................................................................. 19 TABLE 3: STATE PLANS REVIEWED ................................................................................................................. 25 TABLE 4: PLAN WRITERS INTERVIEWED.......................................................................................................... 28 TABLE 5: ANN ARBOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT RETROFIT PARAMETERS .................................................... 37 TABLE 6: INCANDESCENT BULB COMPARISON................................................................................................. 39 TABLE 7: COMPARISON OF INCANDESCENT AND HALOGEN BULBS ................................................................... 40 TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF INCANDESCENT AND HALOGEN BULBS ................................................................... 40 TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF BULB TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................................ 44 TABLE 10: COMPARISON OF ENERGY AND CO2E EMISSIONS BETWEEN DIMMABLE ELECTRONIC AND NON-

DIMMABLE MAGNETIC BALLAST LUMINAIRES ....................................................................................... 46 TABLE 11: ANN ARBOR STREET LIGHTS INVENTORY - 2002 ............................................................................ 48 TABLE 12: COMPARISON OF THREE STREET LIGHT LAMP TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................ 49 TABLE 13: ANN ARBOR LED TRAFFIC LIGHT INVENTORY............................................................................... 51 TABLE 14: ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................................... 52 TABLE 15: NEAR-TERM TECHNOLOGIES, LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS 2: WELL-TO-WHEEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND

EMISSIONS (PER MILE) .......................................................................................................................... 56 TABLE 16: NEAR-TERM TECHNOLOGIES, LIGHT-DUTY TRUCKS 2: WELL-TO-WHEEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND

EMISSIONS (PER MILE) .......................................................................................................................... 56 TABLE 17: NEAR-TERM TECHNOLOGIES, PASSENGER VEHICLE: WELL-TO-WHEEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND

EMISSIONS (PER MILE) .......................................................................................................................... 57 TABLE 18: NEAR-TERM TECHNOLOGIES, PASSENGER VEHICLE: WELL-TO-WHEEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND

EMISSIONS (PER MILE) .......................................................................................................................... 57 TABLE 19: NEAR-TERM TECHNOLOGIES: WELL TO WHEELS ENERGY AND EMISSIONS...................................... 58 TABLE 20: NEAR-TERM TECHNOLOGIES: WELL TO WHEELS ENERGY AND EMISSIONS...................................... 58 TABLE 21: GRID-INDEPENDENT SI HEV: FRFG.............................................................................................. 62 TABLE 22: ELECTRIC VEHICLE NEAR-TERM TECHNOLOGIES: WELL TO WHEELS ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND

EMISSIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 66 TABLE 23: NUMBER OF BEV RECHARGE STATIONS......................................................................................... 66 TABLE 24: GHG AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM CONVENTIONAL, LOW-SULFUR & BIO-DIESELS (G/MILE)

............................................................................................................................................................ 70 TABLE 25: QUANTIFICATION OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM FUEL SWITCHING PROGRAMS – BIODIESEL ...... 71 TABLE 26: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM THREE VEHICLE-TYPES.......................................................... 73 TABLE 27: LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 76 TABLE 28: ANN ARBOR’S LIST OF ACCEPTABLE ITEMS FOR RECYCLING........................................................... 78 TABLE 29: TONS RECYCLED AND COMPOSTED, ANN ARBOR: 1991-2000......................................................... 79 TABLE 30: ANN ARBOR’S DIVERSION LEVELS, 1991-2001............................................................................... 79 TABLE 31: ANN ARBOR’S GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING........................ 80

xii

TABLE 32: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM CITY PROGRAMS, 1991-2002 (MTCO2E) ............................... 82 TABLE 33: ANN ARBOR POPULATION SIZE AND GROWTH RATES ..................................................................... 86 TABLE 34: COMPARISON OF FUEL MIXTURE.................................................................................................... 87 TABLE 35: VMT COMPARISON BETWEEN ANN ARBOR AND THE U.S. .............................................................. 90 TABLE 36: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR BY ENERGY USE SECTORS .................... 94 TABLE 37: U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY ENERGY USE SECTORS........................................................ 95 TABLE 38: TRANSPORTATION SECTOR, PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .................................. 96 TABLE 39: ANN ARBOR’S ENERGY CARRIER CONSUMPTION AND GHG EMISSIONS IN RESIDENTIAL SECTOR .... 97 TABLE 40: ANN ARBOR’S ENERGY CARRIER CONSUMPTION AND GHG EMISSIONS IN COMMERCIAL SECTOR ... 99 TABLE 41: ANN ARBOR’S ENERGY CARRIER CONSUMPTION AND GHG EMISSIONS IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR

.......................................................................................................................................................... 100 TABLE 42: ANN ARBOR’S ENERGY CARRIER CONSUMPTION AND GHG EMISSIONS IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

.......................................................................................................................................................... 101 TABLE 43: ENERGY CARRIER HISTORY AND GHG EMISSIONS FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ................. 103 TABLE 44: TOTAL ANN ARBOR WASTE LANDFILLED, 1990 AND 2000 ........................................................... 105 TABLE 45: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM ANN ARBOR’S MSW............................................................ 105 TABLE 46: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND TRANSPORTATION

SECTORS (CURRENT SCENARIO)............................................................................................................ 107 TABLE 47: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FOR MUNICIPAL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, AND MUNICIPAL SOLID

WASTE SECTORS (CURRENT SCENARIO) ................................................................................................ 107 TABLE 48: ANALYSIS OF COST PER METRIC TON OF CO2E REDUCED ............................................................. 196 TABLE 49: PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS BY PROGRAM ........................................... 198 TABLE 50: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCED FOR RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND TRANSPORTATION

SECTORS (PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO)...................................................................................................... 203 TABLE 51: GHG EMISSIONS REDUCED FOR MUNICIPAL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, AND MUNICIPAL SOLID

WASTE SECTORS (PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO).......................................................................................... 203 TABLE 52: 2020 PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO PERCENT CHANGE COMPARED WITH CURRENT SCENARIO GHG

EMISSIONS LEVELS IN THE SAME YEAR ............................................................................................... 205 TABLE 53: IMPLEMENTATION PATHS AND ASSOCIATED GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS .................................. 209 TABLE C-1: GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS AND LIFETIME OF GREENHOUSE GASES .................................... 234 TABLE C-2: EXAMPLES OF GREENHOUSE GASES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES ....................... 237 TABLE C-3: HOW GROUND-LEVEL OZONE AFFECTS AIR QUALITY ................................................................ 238 TABLE D-1: ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION DATA FROM DTE........................................ 241 TABLE D-2: ACTUAL COMMERCIAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION DATA FROM DTE....................................... 243 TABLE D-3: ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION .................................................................... 245 TABLE D-4: ACTUAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT SECTOR .............................. 247 TABLE D-5: ACTUAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION IN U OF M ....................................................................... 249 TABLE D-6: ACTUAL ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION BETWEEN 1990 AND 2000 BY SECTOR .............................. 251 TABLE D-7: ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION DATA....................................................... 252 TABLE D-8: ACTUAL COMMERCIAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION DATA...................................................... 253 TABLE D-9: ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION DATA ........................................................ 254 TABLE D-10: ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION DATA ...................................................... 255 TABLE D-11: ACTUAL INDUSTRIAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION DATA ...................................................... 255 TABLE D-12: ACTUAL NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION BETWEEN 1990 AND 2000 ............................................ 256 TABLE E-1: NEG/ECP REGIONAL REDUCTION TARGETS .............................................................................. 257 TABLE E-2: RHODE ISLAND REDUCTION TARGETS ........................................................................................ 259 TABLE E-3: RHODE ISLAND GHG REDUCTION CATEGORIES.......................................................................... 260 TABLE E-4: DELAWARE IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS ................................................................................. 261 TABLE E-5: PERCENT REDUCTION IN CO2 EMISSIONS BY SECTOR BASED ON PROJECTED 2010 EMISSIONS ...... 262 TABLE E-6: PROPOSED CO2 EQUIVALENT REDUCTIONS BY MARKET SECTOR................................................. 264 TABLE E-7: COMPARISON OF THREE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND ANN ARBOR .............................................. 266 TABLE E-8: BURLINGTON’S EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGIES .................................................................. 267 TABLE E-9: FORT COLLINS’ EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGIES .................................................................. 273 TABLE E-10: MADISON’S EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES........................................................................ 276 TABLE E-11: MILESTONES ........................................................................................................................... 284 TABLE G-1: TOTAL ANN ARBOR WASTE GENERATION, 1990-2001 (TONS) ................................................... 293

xiii

TABLE G-2: TOTAL WASTE LANDFILLED PER ANN ARBOR RESIDENT ............................................................ 294 TABLE G-3: PROJECTED TOTAL LANDFILLED WASTE, 2002-2050.................................................................. 294 TABLE G-4: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 1990-2000: MATERIALS

DISCARDED ........................................................................................................................................ 296 TABLE G-5: PREVALENCE OF PAPER AND PAPERBOARD PRODUCTS IN WASTE STREAM .................................. 297 TABLE G-6: PAPER AND PAPERBOARD BREAKDOWN ..................................................................................... 297 TABLE G-7: TOTAL WASTE DISCARDED: MATERIAL BREAKDOWN ................................................................ 298 TABLE G-8: TOTAL LANDFILLED WASTE: ANN ARBOR MATERIAL BREAKDOWN ........................................... 299 TABLE G-9: PROJECTED LANDFILLED WASTE: ANN ARBOR MATERIAL BREAKDOWN .................................... 300 TABLE G-10: PER TON ESTIMATES OF GHG EMISSIONS FOR LANDFILLING .................................................... 302 TABLE G-11: ANN ARBOR MSW GHG EMISSIONS COEFFICIENTS BY MATERIAL TYPE .................................. 303 TABLE G-12: ANN ARBOR MSW MANAGEMENT GHG EMISSIONS ................................................................ 303 TABLE H-1: KEY SOURCES FOR ESTIMATING GROWTH RATE (RESIDENTIAL SECTOR)..................................... 307 TABLE H-2: KEY SOURCES FOR ESTIMATING GROWTH RATE (COMMERCIAL SECTOR).................................... 309 TABLE H-3: KEY SOURCES FOR ESTIMATING GROWTH RATE (INDUSTRIAL SECTOR)....................................... 311 TABLE H-4: ANN ARBOR’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION: RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL ...... 313 TABLE H-5: ANN ARBOR’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION: MUNICIPAL, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ................. 314 TABLE I-1: KEY SOURCES FOR ESTIMATING GROWTH RATE (COMMERCIAL SECTOR) ..................................... 319 TABLE I-2: KEY SOURCES FOR ESTIMATING GROWTH RATE (RESIDENTIAL SECTOR) ...................................... 321 TABLE I-3: KEY SOURCES FOR ESTIMATING GROWTH RATE (INDUSTRIAL SECTOR)........................................ 323 TABLE I-4: ANN ARBOR’S NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ............................ 325 TABLE J-1: FLEET ANALYSIS IN ANN ARBOR ................................................................................................ 331 TABLE J-2: TRANSPORTATION SECTOR DATA SUMMARY ............................................................................... 332 TABLE N-1: FUEL MIXTURE OF DETROIT EDISON (2001) ............................................................................... 349 TABLE N-2: TOTAL FUEL CYCLE ENERGY FOR THREE FUEL TYPES USED BY DTE.......................................... 350 TABLE N-3: CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FOR THREE FUEL TYPES USED BY DTE ......................................... 351 TABLE O-1: PATHWAY SELECTION ............................................................................................................... 355 TABLE O-2: FUEL PRODUCTION ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................. 356 TABLE O-3: VEHICLE OPERATION ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 357 TABLE O-4: FUEL TRANSPORTATION ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................... 358 TABLE O-5: PATHWAY SELECTION ............................................................................................................... 359 TABLE O-6: FUEL PRODUCTION ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................. 359 TABLE O-7: FUEL TRANSPORTATION ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................................... 360 TABLE O-8: VEHICLE OPERATING ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 361 TABLE O-9: PATHWAY SELECTION ............................................................................................................... 362 TABLE O-10: VEHICLE SIMULATION OPTIONS ............................................................................................... 363 TABLE O-11: FUEL PRODUCTION ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................ 363 TABLE O-12: FUEL TRANSPORTATION ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 364 TABLE O-13: VEHICLE OPERATION ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................ 365 TABLE O-14: LIGHT DUTY TRUCKS 1: WELL-TO-WHEEL ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS ................. 366 TABLE O-15: PATHWAY SELECTION ............................................................................................................. 368 TABLE O-16: FUEL PRODUCTION ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................ 369 TABLE O-17: FUEL TRANSPORTATION ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................... 370 TABLE O-18: VEHICLE OPERATION ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................ 371 TABLE O-19: TRANSIT BUS: WELL TO WHEELS ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND EMISSIONS ............................... 372 TABLE R-1: TONS RECYCLED AND COMPOSTED, ANN ARBOR: 1991-2000 ..................................................... 403 TABLE R-2: BREAKDOWN OF RECYCLED MATERIALS .................................................................................... 403 TABLE R-3: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GHG EMISSIONS COEFFICIENTS FOR RECYCLING AND

COMPOSTING ...................................................................................................................................... 405 TABLE R-4: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM ANN ARBOR’S COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING EFFORTS, 1991-1993

.......................................................................................................................................................... 406 TABLE R-5: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM ANN ARBOR’S COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING EFFORTS, 1994-1996

.......................................................................................................................................................... 407 TABLE R-6: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM ANN ARBOR’S COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING EFFORTS, 1997-1999

.......................................................................................................................................................... 408

xiv

TABLE R-7: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM ANN ARBOR’S COMPOSTING AND RECYCLING EFFORTS, 2000-2001.......................................................................................................................................................... 409

TABLE T-1: GHGS REDUCED UNDER PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO (TARGET YEAR 2020) (MTCO2E)..................... 413 TABLE T-2: GHG REDUCED UNDER PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO (TARGET YEAR 2018) (MTCO2E) ...................... 413 TABLE T-3: GHG REDUCED UNDER PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO (TARGET YEAR 2015) (MTCO2E) ...................... 414

xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES On October 20, 1997, the City Council of Ann Arbor voted to adopt the necessary statutes committing the City to the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign - an international program with the aim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by encouraging local action.1 The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) developed the CCP campaign. In the winter of 2001, David Konkle, Ann Arbor’s Energy Coordinator, sought the help of a Master’s Project team to devise a strategy for the City to achieve its commitment to the CCP campaign. The Team developed this Master’s Project to further the City’s efforts to reduce local GHG emissions and set the groundwork for cultivating a viable Local Action Plan. The primary objectives of the Master’s Project are as follows:

1 Raise local awareness and understanding of the social, environmental, and economic

benefits of reducing GHGs on a local and global scale 2 Identify and quantify GHGs emitted by the City of Ann Arbor from 1990 to present,

and project future emissions values to 2050 based on historic and future trends 3 Identify and quantify the City of Ann Arbor’s emissions reductions accomplishments

since 1990 4 Identify a politically and economically feasible GHG emissions reduction target for

the City of Ann Arbor to achieve by 2020 5 Identify strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated by Ann Arbor’s

transportation, residential, commercial, industrial, municipal solid waste sectors, the municipal government, and the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus that meet the reduction target specified by this Project

This Master’s Project includes a detailed comparison of GHG emission reduction measures and identifies the cost to implement and operate (if quantifiable), the annual saving and years to repayment, and the CO2 equivalent reduction potential for each measure. Overall, this Project does not provide the City of Ann Arbor with a direct action plan to reduce GHG emissions, but rather it provides a framework for implementing a GHG reduction plan as City policy.

1 Appendix A: Resolution Regarding the City of Ann Arbor Participation in the “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign.”

xvi

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES Located approximately 40 miles west of Detroit, the City of Ann Arbor has 17,252 acres of city-zoned land and 114,024 residents, including University of Michigan students and staff.2 As the major city within Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor residents participate in a wide variety of activities that generate GHG emissions. GHG emissions are directly related to energy consumption. Ann Arbor’s energy consumption is assumed to be provided by three major energy carriers: electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. These energy carriers require embodied energy as feedstock, plus processing energy. Total fuel cycle energy analysis encompasses the whole life cycle of energy production including mining and material extraction, the energy used to convert the feedstock into a fuel, the transportation energy associated with the movement of the fuel to the site of consumption, and the final consumption of the fuel. Although most of the activities prior to final consumption refer to upstream processes that are dealt with far from the City of Ann Arbor, the amount of energy consumed upstream can be significant. Therefore, the Team decided, for the purposes of this Project, to concentrate on on-site energy utilization consumed within the City of Ann Arbor plus upstream processes associated with each energy carrier. These figures are included in the greenhouse gas inventory as total fuel cycle energy consumption. Moreover, the Team divided the City of Ann Arbor into six energy use sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, municipal government, and the University of Michigan. Additionally, municipal solid waste management is inventoried as an auxiliary source of GHGs. We determined that this categorization would be valuable in developing and evaluating GHG emission reduction measures and policies. The system boundaries for the Project are the city limits of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The system boundaries define what aspects of the system, for both the energy carriers and the energy use sectors (including municipal solid waste management), are either included or excluded from analysis. The energy use sectors are defined as follows: Residential Sector: This sector consists of all private residences, whether occupied or vacant, owned or rented, including single family homes, multifamily housing units, and mobile homes.3 Ann Arbor’s residential sector includes 47,218 units of private residences, with an average of 2.22 persons per household.4 The GHG emissions associated with Ann Arbor’s residential electricity and natural gas consumption were inventoried for this Project. Commercial Sector: This sector is comprised of business establishments not engaged in transportation, manufacturing, or other types of industrial activities such as agriculture, mining, or construction. Commercial establishments include hotels, motels, restaurants,

2 Census 2000 <http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html>. 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000, ANNEX Z. 4 Census 2000. <http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html>.

xvii

wholesale businesses, retail stores, laundries, and other service-oriented enterprises.5 Again, electricity and natural gas consumption are inventoried to determine this sector’s GHG emissions. Industrial Sector: This sector encompasses manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and forestry, with manufacturing comprising the largest part of the sector. There were 132 industrial sites registered in the City of Ann Arbor in 1999. 6 The Team inventoried electricity and natural gas consumption to determine GHG emissions from this sector. Transportation Sector: This sector includes all private vehicles, community vehicles, the City of Ann Arbor fleet, the University of Michigan fleet, Ann Arbor Public Schools fleet buses, and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses. Aircraft and railways that pass over or through the City limits are excluded from this Project. Ann Arbor’s petroleum consumption, derived from total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), was inventoried to determine this sector’s GHG emissions. Municipal Government: This sector consists of ten major municipal departments in the City of Ann Arbor.7 Electricity and natural gas consumption were inventoried to evaluate this sector’s GHG emissions. Fleets vehicles owned and/or operated by the City of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Public Schools buses, and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses were not included in this sector, but were incorporated into the transportation sector. University of Michigan: In 2000, The University of Michigan (U of M) Ann Arbor campus had 38,248 students including undergraduate, graduate, and doctorate students. including faculty and staff, the total population totaled 62,750 in 2000.8 The campus includes 214 major buildings and 221 apartment buildings within a land area of 26,912,087 square feet. The University of Michigan’s electricity is purchased from both private electricity providers9 and by its own electricity generating facility – the Central Power Plant (CPP). Natural gas is purchased directly from private natural gas suppliers for heating purposes. The GHG emissions associated with electricity production are attributed to the electricity produced at the CPP and not for the mixture of fuels used to produce the electricity.10 As mentioned previously, emissions from the U of M fleet are accounted for in the transportation sector.

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000, ANNEX Z. 6 See Appendix D 7 Detailed information for ten municipal departments is described in Appendix D. 8 Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus. 9 The U of M Central Campus and Hospital receive their electric power from Engage Energy, a subsidiary of Duke Energy Trading and Marketing Company. The U of M North Campus receives its electric power from WPS (Wisconsin Public Service). 10 The Project used this method to avoid double counting emissions associated with electrical production at the CPP. Table 33 compares the fuel mixtures at the CPP and DTE. Table 42 shows the accounting of GHG for electrical production at the CPP. Natural gas consumption listed in Table 42 is not associated with the production of electricity at the CPP. It is inventoried as use for other purposes on campus.

xviii

Municipal Solid Waste Management: This sector includes the methods (landfilling and/or resource recovery) used in Ann Arbor to transport and manage all waste generated by Ann Arbor citizens. Petroleum consumption from the collection and subsequent transportation of materials to end-of-life management, and methane generation from the decay of landfilled organic materials were inventoried. The upstream emissions generated from mining and processing materials to generate products were also included.11

11 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas coefficients for solid waste management incorporate upstream emissions.

xix

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Electricity Each of energy use sectors in the City of Ann Arbor (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Municipal government) receives electricity from DTE except for the University of Michigan.12 The U of M acquires electricity from the CPP and private suppliers (Engage Energy Company and Wisconsin Power Service).13 The CPP is a facility located on the central campus providing electricity, heating, cooling, and hot water to approximately 130 university facilities on campus using primarily uses natural gas, a less carbon intense fuel, to operate the boilers and gas turbines. GHGs from the CPP tend to be low compared to coal and oil fired power plant. On the other hand, DTE supplies electricity to most of the consumers within Ann Arbor city limits. Due to cheap and abundant resources in the heart of the Midwest, DTE’s fuel mixture relies heavily on coal to generate electricity. Table ES-1 shows the fuel mixture for DTE, CPP compared to the U.S average. As shown in the Table ES-1, the difference in fuel mixtures explains why DTE’s electricity emissions profile is far more carbon intensive than most electricity emissions profiles across the country.

Table ES-1: Comparison of Fuel Mixture

Coal Natural Gas Oil Nuclear Hydropower Renewable U.S. Average14 51.8 % 15.7 % 2.9 % 19.9 % 7.2 % 2.2 %

DTE15 76.7 % 3.2 % 0.6 % 18.1 % 0.1 % 1.3 % CPP16 0 % 98.7 % 1.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Figure ES-1 indicates historical electricity consumption in the City of Ann Arbor. Total electricity consumption was 1,214,897,204 kWh in 1990, and 1,500,778,261 kWh in 2000. The average annual growth rate was 2.1% during this period. Per capital usage was 11,086 kWh in 1990 and 13,162 kWh in 2000. Compared to the U.S. average of 12,810 kWh per

12 The electricity suppliers have been diversified since 2001 due to the Customer Choice and Electric Reliability Act (2000 PA 141) in order to promote competition between generating companies supplying electricity in Michigan. There are 25 alternative electric suppliers in Michigan including Engage Energy Company and WPS Energy Services Inc. <http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/restruct/esp/> However, the energy inventory for this Project focuses on electricity consumption before 2000. The Project assumes that the City of Ann Arbor is supplied primary by electricity from Detroit Edison. 13 The U of M Central Campus and Hospital receive their electric power from Engage Energy, a subsidiary of Duke Energy Trading and Marketing Company. The U of M North Campus receives its electric power from WPS (Wisconsin Public Service). 14 AER2000 Table 8.2 15 DTE website <http://www.dteenergy.com/community/environmental/fuelMix.html>. 16 Data for CPP refer to the average from 1996 to 1999 UM Utilities website <http://www.plantops.umich.edu/utilities/Utilities/CentralPowerPlant/>.

xx

person in 2000,17 electricity consumption in Ann Arbor was slightly higher than the national trend.

Figure ES-1: Historical Electricity Consumption in Ann Arbor

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60bi

llion

kW

h

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Natural Gas Natural gas use has spread throughout most major urban areas and many rural areas in the U.S. because of increased natural gas pipeline construction during the 1950’s. Since then, natural gas has joined petroleum as one of the dominant energy carriers in the U.S. After having idle periods in the 70’s and early 80’s due to shortages and major price increases, natural gas consumption has increased nationwide. In 2000 the U.S. residential sector natural gas consumption accounted for about 24% of all end-use natural gas consumption in the market. Commercial, industrial, and electricity generation sectors accounted for 16%, 39%, and 21%, respectively, of natural gas consumption.18 On the other hand, as can be seen in Figure ES-2, natural gas consumption in the City of Ann Arbor is dominated by the residential and the commercial sectors. This trend may be due to the fact that Ann Arbor’s industrial sector is relatively small compared to the size of the residential and commercial sectors. The residential and commercial sectors consume natural gas for space heating, water heating, cooking and other natural gas-fueled appliances. Consumption levels in these sectors are influenced by climate patterns associated with space heating.

17 AER 2001, Table 8.1. 18 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Recent Trends and Prospects for the future, <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/oiaf0102.pdf>.

xxi

Figure ES-2: Natural Gas Consumption in 2000 by Sector

As revealed by Figure ES-3, natural gas consumption in the City of Ann Arbor increased from 7,610,335 thousand cubic feet (mcf) to 8,046,649 mcf between 1990 and 2000. These figures indicate a 5.7% increase for the ten-year time period between 1990 and 2000, or 0.6% per year. In comparison, the national average annual growth rate is approximately 2.4%.19 The increase in natural gas consumption in Ann Arbor seems to be relatively steady. On a per person basis, the national average for natural gas consumption in 2000 was 80,875 cubic feet per person per year20, while per capita natural gas consumption in Ann Arbor was 70,570 cubic feet per person per year.

Figure ES-3: Historical Natural Gas Consumption in Ann Arbor21

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

Mill

ion

mcf

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year

19 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Recent Trends and Prospects for the future, <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/oiaf0102.pdf>. 20 Energy Information Administration, 2001) 21 The specific numbers described in this table are shown in Appendix I.

Residential 54%

Commercial33%

Industrial 1%

Municipal 1% U of M

11%

xxii

Petroleum Automobiles are the most widely used mode of transportation in regions of the United States where population densities and/or financial support do not make public transportation systems, such as railways and buses, easily accessible and/or convenient. Although there are a significant number of people in Ann Arbor, including many students, who do not drive motor vehicles on a daily basis, many Ann Arbor residents need to drive to their office, work, or school. Numerous local activities are highly dependent on the use of motor vehicles including freight trains and passenger buses. In 1997, approximately 81,000 vehicles traveled throughout the City of Ann Arbor at 10,761 miles/vehicle/year. These motor vehicles traveled approximately 873 million miles within Ann Arbor city limits in 1997.22 Table ES-2 illustrates the historical changes in VMT in Ann Arbor. VMT is an important indicator that shows the amount of petroleum consumption corresponding to total mileage traveled by all vehicles. Ann Arbor’s VMT amounted to 6,968 miles per person in 1990, and 7,979 miles in 2000; an average increase of 1.4% per year. Compared to the U.S. average VMT, Ann Arbor’s is slightly lower. However, Ann Arbor’s average growth rate is very close to the national average growth rate.

Table ES-2: VMT Comparison between Ann Arbor and the U.S.

Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita Year Ann Arbor U.S. Average23 1990 6,968 8,596 2000 7,979 9,995 Growth Rate per Year 1.4 % 1.5 %

Assuming an average fuel economy during vehicle operation, petroleum consumption can be calculated based on VMT values between the baseline year 1990 and 2000.24 Petroleum consumption has increased from 47,725,748 gallons in 1990 to 55,094,895 gallons in 2000; an average annual increase of 1.6%. This increase is understandable in light of the annual increase in VMT and population. Petroleum consumption numbers represent a combination of gasoline and diesel fuel use.

22 Detailed data are described in Appendix J. 23 U.S. Average U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 22, September 2002, Table 11.2 <http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/>. 24 The specific numbers described in this table are shown in Appendix J.

xxiii

Figure ES-4: Historical Petroleum Consumption between 1990 and 2000 in Ann Arbor

40.00

42.00

44.00

46.00

48.00

50.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

Mill

ion

Gal

lons

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Year

xxiv

ANN ARBOR’S GHG MITIGATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 1991-2002 Combined, all of the City energy savings programs initiated between the years 1991 and 2002 have noticeably reduced GHG emissions. If these measures had not been implemented, the City would have emitted 2,419,670 metric tons of CO2 equivalents rather than the actual 2,348,631 metric tons of CO2 equivalents emitted in 2002; a difference of 71,039 metric tons of CO2 equivalents.25 Overall, between 1991 and 2002, the City avoided releasing a total of 922,619 metric tons of CO2 equivalents.

Figure ES-5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1991-2002 with & without City Mitigation Efforts26

City programs have reduced GHG emissions in the following 3 sectors: transportation, municipal, and municipal solid waste management. The majority of total reductions can be attributed to the City’s Landfill Gas Recovery and recycling/composting efforts. As made apparent in Figure ES-6, the Landfill Gas Recovery project reached its peak, one year after initiation, in 1997. Since then, the methane recovery rate has declined steadily every year. The reductions attributed to this project will continue to decline from present date until all methane in the Ann Arbor landfill is exhausted. Therefore, in order to maintain or further reduce GHG emissions from MSW management, the City must increase resource recovery efforts. It is important to note that landfill gas was extracted at an expedited rate. Without this project, methane from the landfill would have been emitted naturally over a much longer timeline. The above graph (Figure ES-5) does not accurately reflect this fact.

25 2002 recycling and composting data was not available, so the emissions reductions from these programs were not included in the total reductions from that year. 26 Since 2002 recycling and composting data was not available during the production of this Project, the Team assumed that recycling and composting tonnages would be the same in 2002 as in 2001 for the purposes of producing a more accurate graph.

1,900,000

2,000,000

2,100,000

2,200,000

2,300,000

2,400,000

2,500,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

MT

CO

2e

Actual GHGEmissions

GHGEmissions Without CityMitigation Efforts

xxv

Table ES-3: GHG Emissions Reductions from City Programs, 1991-2002 (MTCO2e)27

Year Municipal Transportation MSW Total 1991 0.00 0.00 21,960.47 21,960.47 1992 0.00 0.00 23,432.47 23,432.47 1993 0.00 0.00 27,161.36 27,161.36 1994 0.00 0.00 29,836.15 29,836.15 1995 0.00 0.00 30,227.84 30,227.84 1996 0.00 0.00 63,612.47 63,612.47 1997 0.00 2.30 148,698.24 148,700.54 1998 220.91 3.66 145,628.13 145,852.70 1999 393.62 3,242.19 120,751.05 124,386.86 2000 422.89 6,481.50 111,022.05 117,926.44 2001 790.20 9,840.58 107,851.39 118,482.16 2002 837.15 13,098.43 57,103.53 71,039.11 TOTAL 2,664.76 32,668.66 887,285.15 922,618.57

Figure ES-6: Municipal Solid Waste Management GHG Reductions, 1991-2002

The most influential City transportation program that has reduced GHG emissions to date has been the AATA Get! Downtown public transportation program. Overall, annual GHG reductions have grown every year since transportation programs were first implemented in 1997 (as shown in Figure ES-7).28 Without the Get! Downtown program, these reductions would have been minimal. The City must consider increasing efforts to reduce transportation GHG emissions, since presently, this sector’s emissions alone, account for nearly 25% of Ann Arbor’s total GHG emissions. 27 Metric tons of CO2 equivalents. 28 The transportation reductions for 1997 and 1998, 2.3 and 3.7 metric tons of CO2 equivalents respectively, do not show up on the graph because they are so small.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

GH

G R

educ

tion

(MT

CO

2e)

xxvi

Figure ES-7: Transportation GHG Emissions Reductions 1997-2002

Figure ES-8: Municipal GHG Emissions Reductions, 1998-2002

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

GH

G R

educ

tion

(MT

CO

2e)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

GH

G R

educ

tion

(MT

CO

2e)

xxvii

Programs implemented to improve the municipality’s energy efficiency have increasingly reduced GHG emissions since 1998 (see Figure ES-8). Although significant reductions have not been achieved, these efforts reduced the City’s GHG emissions in 2002 by 1.8%. The increase in reductions between 2000 and 2001 was due primarily to switching over a large proportion of traffic lights to LED light technologies. Although clearly the City has reduced GHG emissions throughout the last decade, Ann Arbor is far from curbing their annual growth trend. Further programs and policies must be implemented to reduce these emissions, and the City should focus on targeting sectors with high GHG emissions levels and growth (residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and U of M). The success of the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions to date has provided the municipality with evidence that these programs have recognizable impacts. The logical next step for the City is the adoption of an emissions reduction target and action plan.

xxviii

TWO SCENARIO METHODOLOGY The Team developed two scenarios, the Current Scenario and Progressive Scenario, in order to analyze current emission levels and examine the effectiveness of possible mitigation measures and strategies for future GHG reductions. This “scenario-based approach” allowed the Team to examine actual GHG emissions in the City in order to establish long-term goals and objectives for GHG emissions reductions. It also allowed the Team to investigate the potential benefits and impacts of the Team’s recommended mitigation measures for the City of Ann Arbor.

Current Scenario The largest GHG emitter between the years 1990 and 2002 was Ann Arbor’s residential sector followed by transportation, commercial, U of M, industrial, municipal, and MSW management. Even so, during this time period, the sector to experience the largest growth in GHG emissions was the University of Michigan, at 36.9%. This is likely due to the continual expansion of the University campus. Other sectors to experience large growth rates during this time period included the commercial (28.1%) and transportation (24.4%) sectors.

Table ES-4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation Sectors (Current Scenario)

Residential

Commercial Industrial Transportation Year MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth1990 486,957 N/A 339,857 N/A 316,968 N/A 415,652 N/A

2000 528,863 0.83% 420,383 2.15% 352,756 1.08% 501,766 1.90%

2010 556,988 0.52% 494,181 1.63% 385,664 0.90% 580,176 1.46%

2020 585,357 0.50% 571,087 1.46% 424,128 0.96% 655,930 1.23%

2030 608,244 0.38% 644,227 1.21% 463,506 0.89% 677,349 0.32%

2040 626,573 0.30% 712,627 1.01% 503,542 0.83% 702,536 0.37%

2050 640,841 0.23% 775,424 0.85% 543,712 0.77% 734,857 0.45% The Team projects that GHG emissions will grow at variable rates for each sector between the present date and 2050 (see Tables ES-4 and ES-5). Currently, the largest GHG emitter in Ann Arbor is the residential sector followed by transportation, U of M, commercial, industrial, municipal, and MSW management respectively.

Table ES-5: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Municipal, University of Michigan, and Municipal Solid Waste Sectors (Current Scenario)

Municipal U of M MSW Total

Year MTCO2e. Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth1990 47,866 N/A 319,713 N/A 24,845 N/A 1,951,858 N/A

2000 45,367 -0.53% 427,193 2.94% 18,487 -2.91% 2,294,814 1.63%

2010 53,970 1.75% 494,789 1.48% 18,850 0.19% 2,584,618 1.20%

2020 63,133 1.58% 559,550 1.24% 19,555 0.37% 2,878,741 1.08%

2030 71,693 1.28% 615,706 0.96% 20,246 0.35% 3,100,971 0.75%

2040 79,532 1.04% 663,382 0.75% 20,918 0.33% 3,309,110 0.65%

2050 86,565 0.85% 703,278 0.59% 21,554 0.30% 3,506,232 0.58%

xxix

Figure ES-9: Projection of GHG Emissions in the City of Ann Arbor (Current Scenario)

By 2050 this order, again, is predicted to shift to some degree. In 2050 the Team projects that the commercial sector will be the largest GHG emitter followed by transportation, U of M, residential, industrial, municipal, and MSW management. Overall, between 2003 and 2050, the municipal sector’s GHG emissions are predicted to experience the largest growth (81.5%) among all sectors, even though they only account for a small proportion of the City’s total GHG emissions. Similarly, the Team estimates that the commercial sector’s GHG emissions will also experience a similar growth rate between these years (75.2%).

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year

MT

CO

2e

xxx

Figure ES-10: GHG Emissions by Sector (Current Scenario)

Based on these findings, the Team believes that the City’s mitigation measures should focus primarily on reducing GHG emissions from the largest sector emitters. These would include foremost the following sectors: commercial, transportation, residential, industrial, and U of M. By targeting these sectors specifically, larger future reductions can be achieved.

Progressive Scenario The Progressive Scenario is a framework that can be used by the City for the development of a GHG Reduction Action Plan. While the Current Scenario details the course the City took between 1990 and today, and predicts where the City will be in 2020 and beyond, the Progressive Scenario illustrates a series of options the City can implement to reduce GHG emissions. The Progressive Scenario will redirect the path of the City towards a future where total GHG emissions are lower in 2020 than they were in 1990. Prior to developing a set of mitigation measures, the Team set the goal of achieving a GHG reduction of 7% below 1990 emissions levels in 2020. Total GHG emissions in 1990 were 1,951,858 metric tons CO2 equivalents. Projected 2020 total GHG emissions will be 2,878,741 metric tons of CO2 equivalents. The following equation was used to establish the quantity of GHG emissions reductions needed to meet the specified target (986,602 tons of CO2 equivalents). The Team then established a Start Year when the City will begin implementing reduction measures and a Target Year when all mitigation measures should be fully implemented.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000 M

TC

O2e

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Transportation Municipal U of M MSW

xxxi

Recognizing that the City will need time to develop and initiate implementation strategies, the Team set the Start Year for 2005 and the Target Year for 2020. Through research of other strategies the Team developed 29 viable mitigation measures for the Progressive Scenario. These measures were developed based on the following criteria:

1. Measures cannot pre-exist; and, 2. Measures must make geographic and political sense for the City of Ann Arbor; and 3. Measures must be relatively cost effective with a reasonable payback; or, 4. Measures must make use of progressive technology; or, 5. Measures must have significant greenhouse gas reduction potential

It is important to note that the list of possible programs from which the Team selected the 29 measures to include in this Project was not an exhaustive list. Aside from the 29 proposed measures, there are many other GHG reduction programs that the City could implement. Clearly, more aggressive GHG mitigation programs do exist that work beyond those proposed by the Team, e.g., in the areas of building retrofits and further clean transportation fuel substitution options. But the Team chose these 29 measures in order to provide the City of Ann Arbor with a framework to develop implementable programs. In creating the list of 29 measures, the Team passed over many opportunities for significant GHG reductions and omitted many programs if they did not conform to the five criterions listed above. Measures are divided into five broad categories: Community Outreach and Education, Energy Conservation, Transportation, Solid Waste Management, and Other.

Community Outreach and Education: These measures encourage the development of programs, which educate the community about climate change drivers, and the impact of personal behavior on GHG emissions. It is important to note that while the direct quantifiable benefits of Community Outreach and Education programs may be small and depend upon voluntary

participation, the long-term, unquantifiable benefits can be substantial. Significant research and analysis beyond the scope of this Project is necessary to understand these hidden benefits.

Energy Conservation: These measures encourage sectors to replace older, less efficient technology, with newer, less energy intensive models. Other methods to decrease building energy consumption, as well as programs to effectively switch from carbon-based fuels to non-carbon based renewable

sources of energy, are also examined. Programs detailed in this category often employ incentive and volunteer-based methods to promote these changes.

Transportation: These measures reduce transportation sector GHG emissions in three different ways. First, programs create incentives for individuals to find alternatives to low-occupancy transportation options, which are mainly passenger cars, and light duty trucks (both averaging less than two occupants). By encouraging people to use high-occupancy

transportation options (trains, buses, and carpools) the impact of GHG emissions is divided

xxxii

among each occupant by encouraging high-occupancy transportation options (trains, buses, carpools, etc.), the greater the occupancy, the lower the GHG emissions per occupant. The second type of program encourages people to use less carbon intensive fuel sources, or alternatives to conventional fuels that have no direct GHG emissions. Examples of these types of programs include the transition toward natural gas (NG) powered vehicles or encouragement of bicycle use. The third type of program encourages participants to simply consume less fuel. For example, driving a car fewer miles per year or purchasing an hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) will decrease GHG emissions by reducing the amount of gasoline expended. All three strategies result in either a reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled, or a reduction in the quantity of fuel consumed.

Solid Waste Management: These measures attempt to address methods to reduce the total amount of landfilled materials each year by increasing Ann Arbor’s waste recovery efforts. Waste recovery efforts include: source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Expanding waste recovery efforts reduces the associated upstream life cycle GHGs emitted through the

acquisition of virgin raw materials and manufacturing. Other: These measures are unquantifiable programs that the City has no authority over, but should publicly support. These measures are typically state and federal programs that will reduce GHG emissions on a larger, geographic, scale. At the local level, the City should support the efforts of state and federal decision-makers working to implement these measures. For example, the City could draft a letter of support to Congressional lawmakers articulating their support for increasing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for all passenger cars and light trucks

Results If implemented in full over the course of 16 years, all of the Team’s recommended emissions reduction measures presented in the Progressive Scenario would amount to a total reduction of 986,485 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2020. This would lower Ann Arbor’s GHG emissions to 1,892,256metric tons of CO2 equivalents, or 3.1% below 1990 levels. This is considerably less than the original reduction target of 7% below 1990 emissions. Based on the measures recommended this is the most feasible GHG emissions reduction if the City implements all programs in full by 2020 as shown in Figure ES-11.

xxxiii

Table ES-6: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions by Program

GHGs Reduced (MTCO2e) GHG Emissions Programs 2010 2015 2020 Community Outreach and Education Heating and Cooling Education Program 16 29 43 Tree Distribution and Planting Partnership 85 238 415 Green Youth Corps Program 113 316 550 Climate Change Education Program 306 561 816 Green Building Design Seminars 1,366 2,504 3,643 Total 1,886 3,649 5,466 Energy Conservation

University of Michigan Residential Housing Utility andRent Separation

418 766 1,114

Compact Fluorescent Bulb Program 478 877 1,275

0% Interest and Rebate Program For Residential SectorAppliances

489 896 1,304

Energy Efficient Window Replacement 1,013 1,858 2,702 Water Conservation 1,582 2,900 4,219 Energy Efficient Building Codes 3,438 6,304 9,169 Solar Powered Street Lights 7,711 14,137 20,563 Energy Efficiency Officer 10,620 19,470 28,321 WWTP Anaerobic Digester Gas Power 15,091 27,667 40,243 Energy Efficiency Rental Units 16,593 30,421 44,249 Renewable Portfolio Standard 289,205 530,209 771,212 Total 346,639 635,505 924,371 Transportation City Employee Telecommuting 12 22 32 City Employee Flex-Time 12 22 32 Alternative Transportation to Work Day Program 63 115 167 Smart Growth Initiative Program 180 183 177 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Parking Incentive Program 368 675 982 UM Student Go! Passes 1,033 1,895 2,756 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Rebate Program 1,474 2,702 3,930 Traffic Flow Study 1,555 2,851 4,147 Anti-Idling Ordinance 1,598 2,930 4,261 Bike Encouragement Program 4,095 4,449 4,834

Fuel Switching and Hybrid Electric Vehicle PurchaseProgram

4,165 7,636 11,107

Total 14,555 23,479 32,424 Solid Waste Management Waste Reduction Mandate 9,083 16,652 24,221 Total 9,083 16,652 24,221 Aggregate Total 372,164 679,286 986,485

xxxiv

Figure ES-11: Current vs. Progressive Scenario

Figures ES-12, ES-13, ES-14, and ES-15 display the GHG reductions attributed to each of the Team’s programs or policy recommendations. Of the program types recommended, the Energy Conservation programs reduce the largest proportion of GHG emissions (see Table ES-6); the reductions from these programs alone account for nearly 925,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2020. Meanwhile, the Team’s recommended Transportation measures reduce GHG emissions by 32,424 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in the year 2020, followed by Solid Waste Management at 24,222 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, and Community Education and Outreach programs at 5,466 metric tons of CO2 equivalents. Within the Community Outreach and Education programs, the Green Design Seminars are expected to have the greatest impact on reducing the City’s GHG emissions followed by the Climate Change Education Program, the Green Youth Corps, the Tree Distribution and Planting Partnerships, and the Heating and Cooling Education Program as shown in Figure ES-12.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Year

MT

CO

2e

Current Scenario

Progressive Scenario

7% reduction from 1990 =1,815,228 MTCO2e

xxxv

Figure ES-12: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Community Outreach and Education

Even though the GHG reductions from these programs in total are not large when compared to the other program types, successful education programs can have broader, more substantial, long-term impacts on human behavior. The Team found it particularly difficult to predict the reductions attributed to these education programs and, therefore, attempted to make safe assumptions in order to not overestimate their benefits. This, in turn, may have caused the Team to underestimate the potential GHG reductions from these programs. Within the Energy Conservation programs (and all programs in general), the Renewable Portfolio Standards clearly has the greatest GHG emissions reduction impact by switching to renewable, non-carbon based energy sources. Programs responsible for moderate reductions in GHG emissions include: Energy Efficiency in Rental Units, the WWTP Anaerobic Digester Gas Power, the Energy Efficiency Officer, and the Solar Powered Street Lights programs. All other Energy Conservation programs achieve lesser reductions by 2020.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000M

TC

O2e

2010 2015 2020

Year

Community Outreach and Education

Heating and Cooling EducationProgramTree Distribution and PlantingPartnership Green Youth Corps Program

Climate Change Education ProgramGreen Design Seminars

xxxvi

Figure ES-13: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Energy Conservation

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

MT

CO

2e

2010 2015 2020

Year

Energy Conservation University of MichiganResidential Housing Utility andRent SeparationCompact Fluorescent BulbProgram

0% Interest and RebateProgram for Residential SectorAppliancesEnergy Efficient WindowReplacement

Water Conservation

Energy Efficient Building Codes

Solar Powered Streetlights

Energy Efficiency Officer

WWTP Anaerobic DigesterGas Power

Energy Efficiency Rental Units

Renewable Portfolio Standard

xxxvii

Figure ES-14: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Transportation

The aggregation of transportation measures reduces GHGs at a moderate level in 2020, with the Fuel Switching and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Programs having the greatest impact in this sector.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

MT

CO

2e

2010 2015 2020

Transportation City Employee Flex-Time

City Employee Telecommuting

Alternative Transportation toWork Day Program Smart Growth Initiative Program

Hybrid Electric Vehicle ParkingIncentive Program

UM Student Go! Passes

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Rebate Program Traffic Flow Study

Anti-Idling Ordinance

Bike Encouragement Program

Fuel Switching and HybridElectric Vehicle PurchaseProgram

xxxviii

Figure ES-15: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Solid Waste Management

Lastly, based on a 75% waste reduction strategy, solid waste related GHG emissions would be limited drastically.29 In fact, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WARM Model, this program, in effect, would sequester CO2 (the emissions reductions from waste reduction surpass the emissions generated from landfilling the material) as demonstrated in Figure ES-16. This occurs primarily in the WARM Model because the software assumes that recycled materials are made into 100% recycled products (no virgin materials are included) in order to account for the savings in upstream emissions. The software also does not account for emissions generated from transporting recyclable materials from Material Recovery Facilities to manufacturing facilities. In addition, the CO2 emissions originally estimated for landfilling solid waste are low because the sequestration potential of the material in the landfill is included in the software’s coefficients. Either way, the Team strongly believes that the WARM software both underestimates GHG emissions from solid waste management and overestimates the emissions reductions from recycling. The Team used WARM, because it is the standard software used for these types of applications. Overall, the Team’s measures targeted all sectors as shown in Tables ES-7 and ES-8. The tables display the total reduction for each sector’s GHG emissions in the years 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, and the percent below (or above) 1990 emissions levels by that sector in that year.

29 The 75% waste diversion goal was based on similarly aggressive targets recently set in California. Since Ann Arbor currently diverts more than 40% of its waste without having initiated food waste programs, a strong commercial recycling program, or upgrading recycling collection services to offer larger recycling bins to residents, the Team feels that this is an achievable goal.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

MT

CO

2e

2010 2015 2020

Year

Solid Waste

Waste Reduction Mandate

xxxix

Figure ES-16: GHG Emissions from MSW Management Including Progressive Scenario

Table ES-7: GHG Emissions Reduced for Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation Sectors (Progressive Scenario)

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Year

MTCO2e

% Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 19902005 17,121 8.1% 13,119 30.7% 10,428 13.1% 5,583 28.4% 2010 99,869 -6.1% 80,421 8.9% 61,939 2.1% 14,555 36.1% 2015 178,503 -19.2% 150,494 -9.0% 112,932 -7.9% 23,479 43.8% 2020 253,496 -31.9% 223,012 -23.9% 163,841 -17.9% 32,424 50.0%

Table ES-8: GHG Emissions Reduced for Municipal, University of Michigan, and Municipal Solid Waste Sectors (Progressive Scenario)

Municipal U of M MSW Total Year

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 19902005 2,705 -2.3% 14,699 39.2% 1,514 -31.3% 65,169 21.5% 2010 16,489 -21.7% 89,808 26.7% 9,083 -60.7% 372,164 13.4% 2015 30,670 -41.6% 166,555 13.1% 16,652 -89.7% 679,285 5.4% 2020 45,184 -62.5% 244,305 -1.4% 24,222 -118.8% 986,485 -3.1%

Figures ES-17 and ES-18 illustrate each sector’s GHG emissions under the Current and Progressive Scenario in the year 2020. The size of each pie graph indicates the quantity of total GHG emissions in that year under the respective scenario. Clearly the most significant change is the growing percentage contribution to total emissions from the transportation sector. While total GHG emissions in this sector are lower in 2020 under the Progressive Scenario when compared with projected Current Scenario GHG emissions for the same year,

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

MT

CO

2e

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Year

MSW

xl

the Team predicts that a third of total GHG emissions will be generated by this sector when all proposed measures reach full implementation.

Figure ES-17: Current Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 2020

Figure ES-18: Progressive Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 2020

331,861 MTCO2e

17%

348,075 MTCO2e18%

260,287 MTCO2e14%623,506 MTCO2e

33%

17,949 MTCO2e1%

315,245 MTCO2e 17%

-4,667 MTCO2e0%

Total Progressive Scenario Emissions:1,892,256 MTCO2e

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Transportation

Municipal

U of M

MSW

Total Current Scenario GHG Emissions:2,878,740 MTCO2e

585,357 MTCO2e

20%

571,087 MTCO2e20%655,930 MTCO2e

23%

63,133 MTCO2e2%

559,550 MTCO2e19%

19,555 MTCO2e1%

424,128 MTCO2e15%

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Transportation

Municipal

U of M

MSW

xli

Table ES-9: 2020 Progressive Scenario Percent Change Compared with Current Scenario GHG Emissions Levels in the Same Year

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Municipal U of M MSW Total (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) ((MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e)

43% 39% 39% 5% 72% 44% 124% 34% As indicated by Table ES-9, three of the seven sectors appear to have significant changes in emissions levels. As addressed earlier, municipal solid waste becomes a net GHG emissions sink under the Progressive Scenario. As a result, MSW sector emissions decrease by 124% below 2020 Current Scenario GHG emissions. Municipal sector emissions decrease by 72% below 2020 Current Scenario projections; relying heavily on GHG reductions from the Renewable Portfolio Standard. While the transportation sector’s GHG emissions decrease under the Progressive Scenario, measures that target this sector barely outpace growth in the quantity of vehicles on the road and VMT. The transportation sector does not benefit from the significant GHG reductions achieved through the Renewable Portfolio Standard mitigation measure. This measure accounts for the majority of all GHG emissions reductions in the residential, commercial, industrial, municipal and U of M sectors. Although the largest reductions in GHG emissions (in terms of metric tons of CO2 equivalents) are achieved in the residential, U of M, and commercial sectors, it is important to note that solid waste management and the municipal government achieve the greatest percent reduction relative to each sector’s 1990 emissions. The total GHG emissions for each sector, including the Progressive Scenario, are displayed in Figure 37. Although the largest reductions are achieved in the residential, U of M, and commercial sectors, relative to each sector’s 1990 emissions, solid waste management and municipal achieved the greatest % reduction. The total GHG emissions for each sector, including the Progressive Scenario, are displayed in Figure ES-19. Although clearly, under the Progressive Scenario, GHG emissions were reduced in all sectors, the Team recognizes that some sector’s emissions could be targeted more aggressively. For example, although the Team generated methods and programs to reduce the University of Michigan’s natural gas and electricity consumption, the Team could not adequately address all areas for improvement. Since U of M functions independently within the City, the Team believes the University would benefit from conducting its own study to generate a viable, yet aggressive, GHG emissions reduction target and action plan. In addition, as made apparent in Figure ES-19, the Team’s recommended measures limited the transportation sector’s growth, but failed to actually make significant reductions to this sector’s emissions. The City should consider further efforts to effectively reduce this sector’s GHG emissions. Considering that the majority of Ann Arbor is built, there exists tremendous opportunity to reduce GHG emissions by retrofitting existing structures so they consume less energy. Overall, the transportation, commercial, and residential, and U of M sectors would benefit from increased programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions.

xlii

Figure ES-19: GHG Emissions by Sector Including Progressive Scenario, 1990-2020

Further efforts to reduce GHG emissions will be necessary if the City intends to continue a downward sloping emissions curve beyond the year 2020. Beginning in 2021, emissions reductions will remain constant while the actual emissions will continue to grow, albeit slightly. This trend can be assumed to continue unless further mitigation efforts are developed by either federal, state, or local governments.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

MT

CO

2e

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Year

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Transportation

Municipal

U of M

xliii

CONCLUSION Re-inventing the wheel has long been a phrase to describe the unnecessarily redundant methods with which we often construct new models and strategies. Climate change science is evolving and our understanding of the long-term effects is still distant. The importance of approaching such an issue with a certain degree of synergy cannot be over-stated and in order to achieve this goal it is crucial that the communities seeking to reduce their greenhouse gases rely on one another for input and feedback. Although all communities differ to some degree in character and geography it is highly valuable to ascertain specific assumptions and draw particular parallels from communities that garner at least some of the same character and geography as Ann Arbor. Having access to actual Local Action Plans developed by other cities for the CCP (and other programs) allows for a firm understanding of what techniques, programs, and projects are currently under implementation, offering plan writers a set of plausible measures to begin strategy development. Furthermore, it is extremely helpful to speak with plan writers and gain their perspective. By understanding the various problems and roadblocks that they have encountered, many unnecessary problems and difficulties can be avoided. Drawing together all member cities under the premise of shared resources is certainly one of the major accomplishments of ICLEI under the CCP campaign. In order to achieve the long term goals set out in modern climate change policy, that is reducing emissions and maintaining that level far into the future, it is vital that governments and policy-makers understand that energy efficiency is not the answer, only a temporary solution. Evaluating Ann Arbor’s baseline data and existing measures clearly articulates this simple truth. Implementing energy efficiency may reduce the consumption of specific appliances or other infrastructure, but such measures are incapable of realizing the greater need to reduce overall energy use. Achieving the goal of reducing our need for energy is truly a vital and dynamic challenge that lies ahead. History clearly states that changing ones culture and behavior is far beyond the scope of everyday policy-making. How can we achieve this grandiose objective that seems distant and unobtainable? It can be attained through education. At first glance, community outreach programs appear to have negligible impact on a greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. However, the long-term consequences of changing people’s perception are best described by changes in their patterns. It is not so lofty to believe that in the very near future climate change science and policy will be commonplace in primary education curricula, after all as, John Gibbons once stated: “climate change is the surrogate of all other environmental issues.” However, we do not need to rely on generations still too young to understand the science that is threatening them; we can achieve equilibrium on a more expeditious timeline. Presently, we are highly dependent, both socially and economically, on fossil fuels – the primary source of greenhouse gases. Less carbon-intensive energy sources and carriers exist, offering society an option to reduce impact now rather than assuming the next generation will be less complacent. Although many forms of renewable energy are considered prohibitively expensive in today’s markets, this trend is devolving, and continues to do so with the emergence of new technology and the restructuring of energy markets. Clearly there exists a great void, one that will require an expansive bridge in order to enable our society and

xliv

markets to relinquish dependency on fossil fuel based energy systems. The transformation does not have to be abrupt, and can be made without negatively impacting our economy. Programs such as renewable energy portfolio standards and landfill gas recovery systems provide good examples of using the existing language of economics and market sensitivity to articulate just how feasible it is to power our lives with renewable energy systems. The final Milestone in the CCP campaign requires each member city to “…monitor and verify the results of implementation.”30 In order to effectively achieve this final goal, thus meeting all requirements of the CCP campaign, the City needs to initiate vigilant data management and tracking techniques. By thoroughly collecting and cataloguing data on energy and GHG emissions the City will be empowered to adjust and implement programs as the need arises. Since the measures recommended do not address the original reduction target specified by this Project, two alternative implementation paths were developed that allow the City achieve greater reductions by employing a more accelerated timeline.

Figure ES-20: Three Implementation Pathways for the City of Ann Arbor

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Year

MT

CO

2e

Current Scenario


Progressive 2018

Progressive 2015

By implementing all of the measures recommended, the City will effectively reduce the amount of GHGs emitted in Ann Arbor and meet the goals required of them by the CCP campaign. The figure above indicates three timelines by which the City can choose to initiate the recommended measures, therefore offering three separate reduction targets. The 30 ICLEI, “CCP Participants” <http://www3.iclei.org/co2/ccpmems.htm>.


xlv

first target sets a moderate reduction target of 7% emissions reduction below the 1990 baseline in 2020. It is this implementation path that was used to calculate the actual reductions of each recommended mitigation measure. This timeline is highly feasible, but not necessarily considered aggressive compared with other community action plans. Ann Arbor’s emissions level in 2020 will be 1,892,256 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, which is approximately 59,602 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the 1990 emissions level and 986,485 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the Current Scenario.

Figure ES-21: Implementation Path Emissions

Table ES-10: Implementation Paths and Associated GHG Emissions Reductions

Year

Current Scenario Emissions (MTCO2e)

Implementation Path Emissions

(MTCO2e)

Reduction Below 1990

(%)

Reduction Below 1990 (MTCO2e)

Reduction Below Current Scenario

(MTCO2e)

1990 1,951,858 - - - -

2015 2,736,788 1,794,387 8.1 157,471 942,401

2018 2,827,911 1,859,527 4.7 92,331 968,384

2020 2,878,741 1,892,256 3.1 59,602 986,485 By implementing the recommended measures on a slightly more aggressive timeline the City can achieve an emissions reduction of nearly 5% below 1990 levels by 2018. This implementation path will result in a reduction of 92,331 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the 1990 levels and 968,384 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the Current Scenario. The third implementation path would be considered moderately progressive in comparison with the 7% reduction that would have been required of the U.S. under the Kyoto Protocol. It will result in an 8% reduction below 1990 emissions level by 2015, reducing 157,471 metric tons of CO2 equivalents below the 1990 level and 942,401 metric tons of CO2 equivalents below the Current Scenario. Initiating this implementation path would be

1,740,000

1,760,000

1,780,000

1,800,000

1,820,000

1,840,000

1,860,000

1,880,000

1,900,000

2015 2018 2020


MTCO2e

xlvi

considered more progressive relative to other communities and enable Ann Arbor to distinguish themselves as a leader in reducing local impacts on climate change. Integrative decision-making is vital in successfully implementing a strategy that cuts across as many sectors and fields as a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. In order to achieve any of the targets described above, the City will need the participation and cooperation of several, if not all City departments, engaging stakeholders and interested parties who may not have been previously affiliated with one another. Seeking the recommendation and council of other communities, those already in the process of implementing their action plans, may prove highly valuable. In the end, by implementing a strong, progressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy, the City can set itself apart in the arena of local environmental initiatives, bidding other communities to follow suit and leading by example.

xl

vii

GH

G E

MIS

SIO

NS

RE

DU

CTI

ON

S M

EASU

RE

S M

atri

x of

Rec

omm

ende

d M

easu

res

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion

CO2 Reduction (MTCO2e)

Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Com

mun

ity O

utre

ach

and

Edu

catio

n

Gre

en Y

outh

Cor

ps P

rogr

am

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a su

mm

er

empl

oym

ent p

rogr

am to

hire

C

ity te

ens t

o w

ork

on C

ity

beau

tific

atio

n an

d tre

e pl

antin

g pr

ojec

ts.

550

$3,2

00.0

0 $8

6,65

0.00

$0

.00

N/A

Tree

Dis

tribu

tion

and

Plan

ting

Partn

ersh

ip

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith

loca

l gro

wer

s to

distr

ibut

e na

tive

trees

to th

e co

mm

unity

41

5 $2

,480

.00

$0.0

0 $0

.00

N/A

Hea

ting/

Coo

ling

Educ

atio

n Pr

ogra

m

X

Dev

elop

an

outre

ach

prog

ram

to

edu

cate

resi

dent

s on

effic

ient

hea

ting

and

cool

ing

prac

tices

43

$0.0

0 $7

,200

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Clim

ate

Chan

ge E

duca

tion

Prog

ram

X

En

cour

age

a cl

imat

e ch

ange

cu

rric

ulum

in p

ublic

scho

ols

816

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Gre

en D

esig

n Se

min

ar

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a c

ours

e fo

r bu

ilder

s, co

ntra

ctor

s, an

d de

velo

pers

on

ener

gy

effic

ient

bui

ldin

g de

sign

and

en

cour

age

deve

lope

rs to

seek

Le

ader

ship

in E

nerg

y an

d En

viro

nmen

tal D

esig

n (L

EED

) cer

tific

atio

n fo

r new

co

nstru

ctio

n

3643

$0

.00

$7,2

00.0

0 $1

1,63

8.59

N

/A

xl

viii

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Ene

rgy

Con

serv

atio

n

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a c

ity-w

ide

prog

ram

to

enc

oura

ge/fa

cilit

ate

the

inst

alla

tion

of w

ater

-co

nser

ving

fixt

ures

, and

ap

plia

nces

4,21

9 $0

.00

$7,2

00.0

0 $1

21,8

38.7

8 0

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

in R

enta

l U

nits

X

X

Dev

elop

an

ince

ntiv

e-ba

sed

prog

ram

to e

ncou

rage

la

ndlo

rds t

o in

stall

ener

gy

effic

ient

hea

ting

and

air

cond

ition

ing

syst

ems,

hot

wat

er h

eate

rs a

nd a

pplia

nces

in

thei

r uni

ts

44,2

49

$0.0

0 $0

.00

$0.0

0 0

0% In

tere

st an

d Re

bate

Pr

ogra

m F

or R

esid

entia

l Se

ctor

App

lianc

es

X

X

X

Cre

ate

a ta

x or

reba

te-b

ased

in

cent

ive

prog

ram

to

reim

burs

e th

e co

st

diffe

rent

ial f

or th

e re

plac

emen

t of n

on-e

nerg

y ef

ficie

nt a

pplia

nces

with

En

ergy

Star

mod

els a

nd

deve

lop

a ze

ro in

tere

st lo

an

prog

ram

to e

nabl

e re

side

nts

to b

orro

w fu

ndin

g to

fina

nce

high

cos

t ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y pr

ojec

ts.

1,30

4 $4

72,1

00.0

0 $0

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Ener

gy E

ffici

ent B

uild

ing

Cod

es

X

X

X

X

X

Impr

ove

build

ing

code

's en

ergy

effi

cien

cy st

anda

rds

for n

ew c

onst

ruct

ion

9,16

9 $1

8,00

0.00

N

/A

$20,

567.

50

0.88

xl

ix

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mic

higa

n Re

side

ntia

l Hou

sing

Util

ity

and

Rent

Sep

arat

ion

X

Enco

urag

e th

e U

of M

to

chan

ge th

eir p

ract

ice

of

incl

udin

g ut

ility

cos

ts w

ith

mon

thly

rent

to in

crea

se

ener

gy-c

onsc

ious

hab

its

1,11

4 $0

.00

$0.0

0 $0

.00

N/A

Com

pact

Flu

ores

cent

(CFL

) Bu

lb P

rogr

am

X

Partn

er w

ith C

FL

man

ufac

ture

s to

crea

te a

pr

ogra

m w

here

cou

pons

for

the

purc

hase

of C

FLs a

re

distr

ibut

ed to

Ann

Arb

or

resi

dent

s

1,27

5 $0

.00

$12,

500.

00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

Offi

cer

X

X

X

X

X

Hire

a C

ity e

mpl

oyee

to w

ork

with

the

mun

icip

ality

, re

side

nts,

busin

ess a

nd

indu

stry

to e

nhan

ce e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

28,3

21

$0.0

0 $7

2,00

0.00

$6

2,83

1.53

N

/A

Ener

gy E

ffici

ent W

indo

w

Repl

acem

ent

X

X

X

X

X

Enco

urag

e th

e re

plac

emen

t of

old

win

dow

s w

ith m

ore

ener

gy e

ffici

ent m

odel

s in

all

sect

ors

2,70

2 N

/A

$7,2

00.0

0 $1

1,28

3.00

N

/A

Was

te W

ater

Tre

atm

ent

Plan

t Ana

erob

ic D

iges

ter

Gas

Pow

er

X

X

X

X

X

Ana

erob

ic

dige

stio

n/ga

sific

atio

n of

w

aste

wat

er tr

eatm

ent p

lant

re

sidu

e to

pro

vide

met

hane

fo

r a fu

el c

ell

40,2

43

$1,3

00,0

00.0

0 N

/A

$353

,151

.09

3.68

Sola

r Pow

ered

Stre

et L

ight

s

X

Re

trofit

or r

epla

ce

stre

etla

mps

with

sola

r po

wer

ed m

odel

s 20

563

$4,0

24,9

17.0

0 $0

.00

$222

,850

.00

18.1

l

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Rene

wab

le P

ortfo

lio

Stan

dard

X

X

X

X

X

Requ

ire a

ll el

ectri

city

sold

w

ithin

the

City

of A

nn A

rbor

of

com

e fr

om 5

0% re

new

able

so

urce

s

771,2

12

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ant

i-idl

ing

Ord

inan

ce

X

X

X

X

X

Ado

pt a

city

wid

e or

dina

nce

bann

ing

all v

ehic

le id

ling

long

er th

an a

spec

ified

leng

th

of ti

me

4,26

1 N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

Traf

fic F

low

Stu

dy

X

X

X

X

X

Con

duct

a c

ity-w

ide

traffi

c flo

w st

udy

to m

axim

ize

effic

ienc

ies

4,14

7 $7

,200

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

N/A

Hyb

rid E

lect

ric V

ehic

le

Reba

te P

rogr

am

X

X

X

X

O

ffer t

ax c

redi

ts or

pur

chas

e in

cent

ives

/reba

te p

rogr

ams

for h

ybrid

ele

ctric

veh

icle

s 3,

930

$3,4

26,0

00.0

0 N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Hyb

rid E

lect

ric V

ehic

le

Park

ing

Ince

ntiv

e Pr

ogra

m

X

Prov

ide

free

par

king

in th

e ci

ty fo

r hyb

rid e

lect

ric

vehi

cles

98

2 $7

,707

.33

N/A

N

/A

N/A

Alte

rnat

ive

Tran

spor

tatio

n to

Wor

k D

ay P

rogr

am

X

Prom

ote

Ann

Arb

or

resi

dent

s' us

e of

alte

rnat

ive

trans

porta

tion

one

day

a w

eek

from

May

- Se

ptem

ber.

167

$0.0

0 $7

,200

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Fuel

Sw

itchi

ng a

nd H

ybrid

El

ectri

c V

ehic

le P

urch

ase

Prog

ram

X

X

Ado

pt a

pol

icy

by th

e C

ity o

f A

nn A

rbor

and

the

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mic

higa

n th

at

all n

ewly

pur

chas

ed se

dans

be

hyb

rid e

lect

ric v

ehic

les;

all d

iese

l fue

l pur

chas

ed

shou

ld b

e sw

itche

d to

a b

lend

of

20%

bio

dies

el.

11,1

07

$262

,000

.00

$240

,000

.00

$31,

458.

00

N/A

li

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

City

Em

ploy

ee

Tele

com

mut

ing

X

En

able

City

em

ploy

ees t

o te

leco

mm

ute

a sp

ecifi

c nu

mbe

r of d

ays p

er w

eek

32

N/A

$7

,200

.00

N/A

N

/A

UM

Stu

dent

Go!

Pas

ses

X

Expa

nd fr

ee b

us p

ass

prog

ram

to a

ll U

of M

st

uden

ts (b

oth

grad

uate

and

un

derg

radu

ate)

2,75

6 N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

Bike

Enc

oura

gem

ent

Prog

ram

X

X

A c

olla

bora

tive

effo

rt be

twee

n th

e C

ity a

nd th

e U

of

M to

ann

ually

giv

e aw

ay

free

bik

es th

at a

re re

cove

red;

ex

pand

bik

e la

nes;

incr

ease

bi

ke ra

ck c

apac

ity o

n bu

ses

(U o

f M a

nd C

ity);

and

augm

ent p

olic

e bi

ke p

atro

ls

4,83

4 $5

9,17

5.00

$0

.00

$31,

349.

53

1.89

Smar

t Gro

wth

Initi

ativ

e Pr

ogra

m

X

Dev

elop

Sm

art G

row

th

Initi

ativ

e to

mai

ntai

n or

re

duce

VM

T/pe

r Ann

Arb

or

resi

dent

ove

r tim

e

177

$0.0

0 $0

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

City

Em

ploy

ee F

lex-

Tim

e

X

O

ffer f

lex-

time

wor

k sc

hedu

le fo

r city

em

ploy

ees

32

$0.0

0 $7

,200

.00

N/A

N

/A

Solid

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

Was

te R

educ

tion

Man

date

s

X

X

X

X

X

Redu

ce w

aste

acr

oss a

ll se

ctor

s by

70%

by

the

year

20

20

24,2

22

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Oth

er

lii

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Exis

ting

Stat

e an

d Fe

dera

l Pr

ogra

ms

X

X

X

X

X

Parti

cipa

te in

one

or m

ore

of

the

follo

win

g pr

ogra

ms:

a.

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

Urb

an H

eat I

slan

d Re

duct

ion

Initi

ativ

e:

Enco

urag

es th

e us

e of

hig

hly

refle

ctiv

e m

ater

ials

for

roof

ing

b. E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y En

ergy

Star

Bu

ildin

gs: H

elp

smal

l bu

sine

sses

pur

chas

e en

ergy

ef

ficie

nt o

ffice

pro

duct

s c.

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

Wat

er A

llian

ces f

or

Volu

ntar

y Ef

ficie

ncy

(WAV

E): P

rovi

des

univ

ersi

ties d

evel

op c

ost-

effe

ctiv

e w

ater

con

serv

atio

n pr

ogra

ms

d. D

epar

tmen

t of E

nerg

y En

ergy

Smar

t Sch

ools

: Pr

ovid

es sc

hool

retr

ofit

and

cons

erva

tion

educ

atio

n as

sist

ance

e.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Ene

rgy

Mun

icip

al E

nerg

y M

anag

emen

t Pro

gram

(M

EMP)

: Ass

ist u

rban

are

as

to a

chie

ve e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

lii

i

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Supp

ort f

or L

ight

Rai

l Tr

ansit

Sys

tem

X

Ann

Arb

or's

May

or a

nd C

ity

Cou

ncil

shou

ld g

ener

ate

a st

atem

ent o

f sup

port

for a

lig

ht ra

il tra

nsit

syst

em

conn

ectin

g La

nsin

g an

d A

nn

Arb

or, a

nd M

etro

Airp

ort a

nd

Det

roit

Cor

pora

te A

vera

ge F

uel

Econ

omy

(CA

FE)

Rais

ing

CA

FE st

anda

rds w

ill

incr

ease

the

natio

nal f

uel

econ

omy

of th

e U

.S. f

leet

. A

hi

gher

fuel

eco

nom

y w

ill

redu

ce th

e am

ount

of

petro

leum

-bas

ed fu

els

cons

umed

.

1

INTRODUCTION PROJECT OBJECTIVES On October 20, 1997, the City Council of Ann Arbor voted to adopt the necessary statutes committing the City to the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign - an international program with the aim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by encouraging local action.31 The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) developed the CCP campaign. In the winter of 2001, David Konkle, Ann Arbor’s Energy Coordinator, sought the help of a Master’s Project team to devise a strategy for the City to achieve its commitment to the CCP campaign. The Team developed this Master’s Project to further the City’s efforts to reduce local GHG emissions and set the groundwork for cultivating a viable Local Action Plan. The primary objectives of the Master’s Project are as follows:

1. Raise local awareness and understanding of the social, environmental, and economic

benefits of reducing GHGs on a local and global scale 2. Identify and quantify GHGs emitted by the City of Ann Arbor from 1990 to present,

and project future emissions values to 2050 based on historic and future trends 3. Identify and quantify the City of Ann Arbor’s emissions reductions accomplishments

since 1990 4. Identify a politically and economically feasible GHG emissions reduction target for

the City of Ann Arbor to achieve by 2020 5. Identify strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated by Ann Arbor’s

transportation, residential, commercial, industrial, municipal solid waste sectors, the municipal government, and the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus that meet the reduction target specified by this Project

This Master’s Project includes a detailed comparison of GHG emission reduction measures and identifies the cost to implement and operate (if quantifiable), the annual saving and years to repayment, and the CO2 equivalent reduction potential for each measure. Overall, this Project does not provide the City of Ann Arbor with a direct action plan to reduce GHG emissions, but rather it provides a framework for implementing a GHG reduction plan as City policy.

31 Appendix A: Resolution Regarding the City of Ann Arbor Participation in the “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign.”

2

THE EVOLUTION OF THE CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN

The Rise of Climate Change as a Global Issue Climate change, as an issue of international interest and relevance, initially developed in the scientific community. In the early 1960s measurements from several remote atmospheric observatories, including Mauna Loa, Hawaii, enabled scientists to observe the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary GHG, in the atmosphere. The data from this site produced the “Keeling Curve”, which gave physical illustration to elevated CO2 concentrations in the upper atmosphere and is recognized and accepted by varying sides of the global warming debate.32 These findings encouraged scientists to investigate the relationship between increasing CO2 concentrations and climate change. Atmospheric scientists focused their investigation of global warming and discovered that other atmospheric gases, including methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2), also have a profound impact on global warming. Concurrently, scientists studied global temperature inventories. Their research efforts documented an increase in the average temperature of the Earth. Computer modeling enabled scientists to project potential outcomes from elevated CO2 concentrations. These models provide the theoretical basis for global warming projections. The scientific investigation of climate change contributed to its introduction to the global audience. However, three other factors helped bring the full scope of the climate change issue to the forefront of the world politics agenda. A small number of Western scientists with environmental interests began a campaign to bring climate change to the attention of international policy makers. They worked to publicize the science of climate variability by publishing research findings in mainstream periodicals such as Scientific America, holding workshops, and personally contacting policy makers. This transfer of information enabled the issue of global warming to bridge the gap between theoretical speculation and mainstream concern. Secondly, global environmental concern increased during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Issues segued from local pollution prevention to problems possessing more global implications and having more complicated solutions. Examples of such issues are the expanding hole in the ozone layer and loss of biodiversity. The issue of climate change successfully fell in line with these more publicly visible concerns. Ironically, current conventional wisdom acknowledges the once thought unrelated direct and indirect linkages between climate change and these previously more visible environmental concerns. The third major factor that led to the rise of climate change as an issue of international interest and debate was the 1988 heat wave and drought experienced in many parts of the world. The tangible result was the universalization of climate change as an issue among 32 Keeling, C.D., R.B. Bacastow, A.F. Carter, S.C. Piper, T.P. Whorf, M. Heimann, W.G. Mook, and H. Roeloffzen. 1989. Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas. Geophysical Monograph, p. 165.

3

world populations, especially among Americans and Canadians. The effects of the heat wave and drought conceptualized a world where climate change was a reality, and one in which humans had little control.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In 1988 a major shift occurred in the climate change debate. Previously, environmentally concerned scientists championed the issue and the few government representatives that participated in the debate did not necessarily reflect their respective national positions. In 1988, the issue emerged as an inter-governmental issue, and one that sparked great interest in policy makers. Recognizing the gravity of the climate change issue and the speed with which it was entering the public arena, governments from across the globe insisted on the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in an effort to regain control from the NGOs and scientific community. Under the direction of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) the Panel was delegated the obligation “…to assess the scientific, technical and economic information relevant to understanding the risk of human-induced climate change.”33 The IPCC is divided into three Working Groups and a Task Force, each with a specific focus on one of the major sectors of information that the Panel has been appointed to assess.

• Working Group I focuses its efforts on the scientific understanding of climate systems and climate change.

• Working Group II is concerned with the actual effects that climate change will

potentially incur on societies, economies, and natural environments.

• Working Group III assesses possibilities for limiting greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and other mitigation strategies.

• The Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories is responsible for the

Panel’s efforts to inventory global greenhouse gas emissions. Since its establishment the IPCC has released three separate Assessment Reports: First Assessment Report (1990), Second Assessment Report (1995); Third Assessment Report (2001) and other documents that provide scientific, technical and socioeconomic advice to other United Nations departments and programs.

33 IPCC Home, About IPCC <http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm>.

4

Figure 1: Organization of the IPCC

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change In December of 1990 the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution that established the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC/FCCC). With the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (June 1992) as the strict deadline, the INC/FCCC met five times from February 1991 to March 1992. Over 150 nations participated in the divisive discussions. Discussions covered everything from binding and non-binding commitments to targets and timetables, to the disproportionate responsibilities of developed versus developing nations. The INC/FCCC drafted a statement of consensus that included a broad range of members rather than initiating policies that might limit participation. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development convened in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Fifty thousand people from 170 countries participated. The conference concluded in two major (but non-binding) declarations: the Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration.34 Agenda 21 is a utilization framework for countries moving forward toward sustainable global development. One component of the Rio Declaration established the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC engaged 155 signatories, including the United States, and became enforceable on March 21, 1994.35 The final goal of the UNFCCC is the “stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the

34 International Environmental Reference Guide, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development <http://environment.harvard.edu/guides/intenvpol/indexes/treaties/RIO.html>. 35 UNFCC, Climate Change Information Kit <http://unfccc.int/resources/iuckit/fact20.html>.

5

climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.”36 The “precautionary principle” states that when evidence exists to support reasonable concern the most cautious plan of action should be implemented. Accordingly, the UNFCCC chose to abide by this principle in light of the capricious scientific consensus on climate change. All nations who participate in the UNFCCC are obligated to submit a “national communication” with an inventory of GHG emissions and sinks. Under the UNFCCC developed countries are considered in Annex I GHG emissions and developing countries are considered in Annex II. Annex I countries agreed, in non-binding terms, to reduce their GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Annex II countries are required to report their emissions but have no obligation to reduce. Annex I countries have the further responsibility of technically assisting developing countries in reducing their GHGs as they develop. On March 21, 1994 the UNFCCC became enforceable 90 days after receipt of the 50th ratification.

The Conference of the Parties and the Kyoto Protocol With the signing of the UNFCCC, the INC/FCCC dissolved and the supreme governing body of the UNFCCC became the Conference of the Parties (COP). Representatives from NGOs, Intergovernmental Organizations, participating countries, and observing countries are participants at each meeting of the COP. The COP’s primary objective is to revisit the obligations of the Convention and hold member States to their commitments. The principal duty of the COP is to assess all relevant information about policies and programs contained in the mitigation and adaptation strategies nations communicate to one another. Furthermore, the COP oversees that financial obligations are met where needs arise, and manages participant resources. Through the administration of these tasks and duties, the COP is essentially charged with keeping the UNFCCC on track.

Table 1: Conference of the Parties

COP Year Location COP-1 1995 Berlin COP-2 1996 Geneva COP-3 1997 Kyoto COP-4 1998 Buenos Aires COP-5 1999 Bonn COP-6 2001 The Hague COP-7 2001 Marrakech COP-8 2001 New Delhi

In 1995 COP-1 gathered in Berlin and discussed the ineffectiveness of the non-binding provisions of the agreement, which resulted in significant efforts to move towards legally

36 Ibid.

6

binding reduction targets – referred to as the “Berlin Mandate.”37 For example, the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate was tasked to devise a “protocol or another legal instrument” that could be adopted at COP-3.38 In 1996, at COP-2, the United States agreed to binding emissions targets, thus enabling the parties to move forward and set appropriate emissions requirements. In December 1997, COP-3 produced the well-known “Kyoto Protocol”.39 This agreement among 160 nations (including the U.S.), some 10,000 participants, set reduction targets for Annex I countries (industrialized countries and countries with economies in transition). Annex I countries need to reduce their emissions to an average of 5% below national 1990 levels.40 The agreement broadened the scope of the UNFCCC by targeting GHGs other than CO2 and taking into account emissions changes over the last decade resulting from deforestation and changes in land use patterns. In order to reduce the financial burden of these emissions reductions, the Protocol was equipped with three market mechanisms for reduction: a clean development mechanism (CDM), an emissions trading program, and joint implementation (JI) projects. The clean development mechanism allows Annex I countries to bank emissions credits by installing technology in a non-Annex I country. This approach encourages investment in the developing world by industrialized countries. According to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol the Annex I country investing in the CDM must prove that the project will result in real, measurable emissions reductions that would not have otherwise occurred.41 For example, if the Sweden Widget Company needs to reduce their emissions by “X” tons, it may be more cost-efficient for them to install pejorative pollution prevention technology in the Katmandu Brick Factory in Nepal – a non-annex 1 country, rather than making further retrofits on their own facilities. The GHG emissions trading program will work much like an international financial market; however, instead of trading ownership in a company or a traditional financial commodity such as gold, corporations and governments will be able to trade the right to emit greenhouse gases. Annex I countries may choose to reduce beyond their target. Reductions beyond the reduction target will result in “banked” credits for the Annex I country. Annex I countries with emissions credits have the option to trade these credits on an international market. Trading mechanisms may also be internally instituted to help federally regulated industries achieve their individual targets. Joint implementation involves an Annex I country investing in an emissions reduction project in another country that will result in a decrease in GHG output. According to Article 6.1 of the Kyoto Protocol: 37 Ibid. 38 Convention on Biological Diversity, “Decisions from the meetings of the Conference of the Parties” <http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp?lg=0&m=cop-01>. 39 UNFCC, “Climate Change Information Kit” <http://unfccc.int/resources/iuckit/fact20.html>. 40 Center for Science and Environment, “Climate Change Briefing Paper: The Kyoto Protocol” <http://www.cseindia.org/html/eyou/climate/briefing_kyoto1.htm>. 41 The Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC; March 6, 2003 <http://unfccc.int/resource/guideconvkp-p.pdf>.

7

"For the purpose of meeting its commitments under Article 3, any Party included in Annex I may transfer to, or acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources or enhancing anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in any sector of the economy…"42

This mechanism addresses the issue that emissions reduction costs vary from one country to another and across sectors of the economy. Joint Implementation projects seek to spread the implementation costs of emissions reduction projects across political and economic lines by allowing countries to work cooperatively to achieve their targets. JI can only occur between two industrialized countries with binding emissions reduction commitments. In 1998, COP-4 focused primarily on adopting a Plan of Action to implement details of the Kyoto Protocol and designated COP-6 as the deadline to decide the function of market mechanisms for emissions reduction. COP-5 set the timetable on which to carry out the Kyoto Protocol, provided a framework for negotiations over the measurement principles of emissions and specified methods to improve national communication. At The Hague in 2001, COP-6 finalized the policies that would govern the emissions trading program, the clean development mechanism, and attempted to specify how carbon sinks (such as forests or other natural features that sequester CO2) could be counted as emissions reductions. Finalization of the Kyoto Protocol rules occurred at COP-7, also in 2001 but held in Marrakech, where the delegates specified how emissions and reductions of GHGs would be measured, the degree to which nations could count sinks toward reduction targets, and methods to ensure compliance. In 2002, COP-8, focused more directly on how Annex II countries would participate. Specifically, COP-8 developed guidelines for Annex II national communications and established a Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) to assist these nations. Although the Clinton administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, President Clinton chose not to submit it for ratification by the U.S. Congress. It was clear that the agreement was politically infeasible and would foster little support in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. On July 25th, Senators Byrd and Hagel submitted a resolution that stated the Kyoto Protocol must include an emissions reduction commitment on the part of developing nations and cannot negatively impact the U.S. economy if the Senate is to garner support for its passage. This resolution passed by a heavy margin. In February of 2001 the current United States Administration decided not to participate in the Kyoto Protocol. Without the involvement of the U.S., the Kyoto Protocol is considerably less effective in achieving its overall goal of curbing global GHG emissions. The United States, with 5% of the world’s population, accounts for approximately 25% of the world GHG emissions and has, by far, the highest emissions per capita of any country. The Bush administration has renounced the treaty citing the possible financial ruin of curtailing GHG emissions. The potential for economic disaster as a consequence of implementing the Kyoto Protocol is highly debatable. The Protocol will become enforceable once 55 Annex I nations representing 55% of world emissions have ratified, accepted or adopted the provisions of the Convention. As of 42 Ibid.

8

February 2003, 84 Parties had signed with another 105 Parties having ratified and/or acceded to the Kyoto Protocol.43 The Annex I countries that have adopted the Protocol, thus far, are responsible for 43.9% of world CO2 emissions.44 Appendix B provides a climate change regime family tree.

The International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives & the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign The UNFCCC does not specify any formal role for local governments in the Kyoto Protocol. The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives has taken on the responsibility of coordinating municipalities around the world in an effort to make a positive impact on addressing environmental issues, such as climate change, at the local level. ICLEI is an international association of local governments that are committed to bringing environmental problems of global significance to a local stage. In fact, local efforts in addressing climate change predate the UNFCCC. In 1990 the City of Toronto, recognizing the need to reduce conventional pollution emissions, as well GHGs, and made a political pledge to reduce their GHG emissions to 20% below their 1988 levels by 2005.45 The First Local Government Summit on Climate Change and Urban Environment was held in January of 1993, and was jointly hosted by ICLEI and the UN. At this summit over 100 representatives of local governments gathered to discuss the role of local governments in global environmental issues.46 At this summit the Cities for Climate Protection campaign was established. Those represented at the Local Government Summit on Climate Change and Urban Environment agreed that climate change should be addressed at a local level because urban emissions of GHGs are significant enough to warrant action. Everyday activities, such as heating and cooling buildings, transporting people and goods, and electricity consumption by industries and businesses are all major emissions sources. Additionally, energy patterns for these types of activities can be “regulated”, largely, by municipal ordinances. For example, land use patterns can be influenced by local zoning laws and these are typically in control of City and County governments. The groundwork for the CCP campaign was originally laid in ICLEI’s Urban CO2 Reduction Project, which began in June of 1991.47 Initially, ICLEI recruited 13 cities from around the US, Canada, Europe and Turkey to participate in a 2-year pilot program to establish reduction targets and develop a strategy to meet their goals. The participating cities were:

• Ankara, Turkey • Bologna, Italy • Chula Vista, CA US • Copenhagen, Denmark

43 UNFCC, The Convention and Kyoto Protocol; March 6, 2003 <http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html>. 44 Kyoto Protocol Status of Ratification 23 February 2003 <http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf>. 45 ICLEI, The Role of Local Governments in Implementing the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), p. 4. 46 Ibid. 47 Ibid, p. 5.

9

• Denver, CO US • Hannover, Germany • Metropolitan Helsinki, Finland • Minneapolis, MN US • Portland, OR US • Saarbrucken, Germany • Saint Paul, MN US • Toronto, Canada • Metropolitan Toronto, Canada

Following the pilot program, local governments made commitments to monitor and reduce their CO2 emissions. When ICLEI and the UN held the First Summit on Climate Change and Urban Environment, these commitments were communicated to the entire participating body and the result was the adoption the Municipal Leaders’ Declaration on Climate Change. This declaration was a formal request for ICLEI to create the Cities for Climate Protection campaign and required the signatories to pledge a commitment to devising a GHG emissions reduction strategy. 48 In October 1995, ICLEI established several goals for the CCP campaign:49

• Campaign Recruitment and Coordination: An aim to recruit local governments representing 10% of total global CO2 by the year 2000. Recruitment has been primarily focused on cities in developed nations, because they are responsible for the great majority of global emissions. However, in recent years there has been a stronger commitment to recruit cities in the developing world, where urban growth and energy consumption rates are rising quickly.

• Development of Municipal Capacity: The campaign is designed to provide member

municipalities with as many resources as possible to help them achieve their reduction targets. Technical assistance by means of emissions quantification software, educational materials to help educate local officials, and overall coordination of the action plan development are the primary roles that ICLEI can offer member cities.

• Establishment of Accountability: A framework has been developed to hold local

governments accountable for meeting their emissions reduction commitment. However, it is unclear as to how exactly this is accomplished.

• Representation of Local Governments at the COP: In partnership with the

International Union of Local Authorities, ICLEI is the speaking voice of local governments in the international debate on the implementation of a worldwide GHG emissions reduction project.

48 ICLEI, Cities for Climate Protection Campaign: An International Framework for Local Action, p. 1. 49 ICLEI, The Role of Local Governments in Implementing the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), p. 7.

10

In order to become a member of the CCP campaign, local governments must formally adopt a local resolution. By committing to the CCP campaign, a municipality is agreeing to achieve their goal by following the framework of five milestones that ICLEI has defined. Cities are recognized in the CCP newsletter and CCP related conferences for their efforts as they achieve each individual milestone.

• Milestone 1: Conduct an energy and emissions inventory and forecast. In doing so, a baseline year must be established and the forecast must estimate growth out to a specific target.

• Milestone 2: Establish a goal for the City’s emissions reduction, as well as a

timetable for which to achieve this goal. • Milestone 3: Develop and obtain approval for a local action plan that illustrates the

strategy by which the City will achieve their goal. • Milestone 4: Implement policies and measures that the City has developed in their

emissions reduction strategy. • Milestone 5: Monitor and verify the results of implementation. This is an ongoing

process that requires the City to periodically quantify their emissions. Participation in the campaign has grown to more than 560 cities and counties worldwide.50 Other than ICLEI, there are many other efforts to bring GHG emissions reduction to a local scale. The Chicago Climate Exchange, established by Richard Sandor, is the first U.S. effort to trade GHG emissions. Corporations and local governments can voluntarily reduce their emissions, then buy or sell CO2 credits based on whether or not they have banked credits. Research suggests that state governments have had an extensive history of formulating GHG emissions reduction policies.51 In recent years, these policies have specifically targeted climate change; however, some GHG emissions reductions have been the incidental result of other programs. In addition, many New England states have partnered with the Canadian government in an effort to reduce GHG emissions regionally. To date, all U.S. efforts to reduce GHG emissions have taken place at the state and city levels as a consequence of the lack of both federal response and a failure to commit to addressing this global problem.

50 ICLEI, “CCP Participants” <http://www3.iclei.org/co2/ccpmems.htm>. 51 Rabe, Barry Greenhouse & Statehouse: The Evolving State Government Role in Climate Change, 2003.

11

THE ROLE OF GREENHOUSE GASES IN CLIMATE CHANGE The earth’s climate is driven by the sun’s radiation output. Solar energy (predominantly visible light and ultraviolet radiation) is absorbed by the surface of the earth and pumped through planetary convection systems – geologic, oceanic and atmospheric, and ultimately reradiated back into space as infrared radiation. To maintain planetary temperature, incoming solar radiation must be balanced by outgoing, reradiated, energy. The planet’s temperature rises when the heating potential of incoming solar radiation exceeds the loss of heat escaping to space. Planetary temperate decreases when the heating potential of incoming solar radiation is lower than the amount of heat escaping to space. The GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere helps to provide some inefficiency in this system (slows the release of infrared radiation) to maintain relatively consistent temperature. GHGs prevent large fluctuations between night and day temperate extremes by trapping reradiated infrared radiation, slowing its escape to space. Over the last century, the composition and mixture of atmospheric gases has changed. There are both natural and anthropogenic causes for these changes. This Project focuses on the anthropogenic causes. Earth’s atmosphere is composed of a mixture of gases. The dominant gases are nitrogen and oxygen, making up nearly 99%, by volume, of the atmosphere; neither significantly affects climate. Trace gases make up the remaining 1%. The most important of the trace gases, in terms of planetary temperature and climate change, are the GHGs. The “greenhouse effect” is caused by the heat-trapping properties of the GHGs. Without GHGs, the temperature on the planet would be significantly less stable. The gases act to trap heat radiated from the earth’s surface before it escapes into space, thus acting as a blanket. The natural mechanisms that regulate the abundance of greenhouse gases are vital to the survival of life on Earth because some GHGs trap heat more efficiently than others.

Conditions and Trends Between the years 1000 and 1750 AD atmospheric CO2 concentrations remained stable at about 280 ppm. Beginning in the mid-1700’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations slowly rose to approximately 300 ppm. In the late 1800s the industrial revolution marked the sharp, accelerated increased CO2 emissions. Today, CO2 concentrations are approximately 370 ppm. Both CH4 and N2O histograms depict a similar trend. CH4 concentrations remained stable at 700 ppb between 1000 and 1750 AD; today, atmospheric CH4 concentrations are at 1750 ppb. Atmospheric concentrations N2O were stable between 1000 and 1750 AD at 270 ppb; today, N2O concentrations are 316 ppb.52 A technical analysis of the GHG as well as an example calculation using global warming potentials can be found in Appendix C.

52 IPCC. Climate Change 2001 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policy Makers.

12

Figure 2: The Greenhouse Effect

13

THE BENEFITS OF REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Some benefits associated with reducing GHGs are clearly quantifiable and easy to express in financial terms; however, many are less obvious and are expressed in less quantifiable social terms. Many GHG emissions reduction measures have coupled benefits – both economic and social. The socio-economic benefits of reducing GHGs can be listed under the following headings: Social, Environmental, Economic and Public Health.

Social Benefits By adopting a comprehensive emissions reduction strategy, a community shares the value of committing time, energy, and personal resources to combating a global problem. The social benefits of reducing local GHG emissions are largely associated with making a community more “livable.” For example, by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through programs that encourage walking, biking, or public transportation in a community, one effectively reduces the number of cars on the road at any one time. The result is less congestion on city streets. Furthermore, reduced congestion leads to a decrease in vehicle emissions. These emissions not only contribute to the greenhouse effect, but are also largely responsible for urban smog and general air pollution. Therefore, measures that reduce VMT may offer a community multiple gains. Land use planning is another example of how local governments have the authority to combat climate change effectively and experience the dual benefit of reduced emissions. By adopting appropriate land use ordinances, a local unit of government can reduce the impact of urban sprawl, preserve downtown areas and conserve highly valued open spaces. All of these benefits contribute to the notion of “livability” in a community. Ultimately, the goal of any local government is to provide its citizens with the necessities with which they can function in a prosperous manner, and moreover, in a manner by which they can be civically fulfilled. By adopting programs that promote environmental stewardship governments allow their citizens a certain degree of pride with which they can feel that they are doing the better good.

Environmental Benefits The environmental benefits of reducing emissions are often unquantifiable. An attempt to determine non-use value in the natural environment has been an earnest undertaking by many economists. Whether one can financially (and accurately) appraise the natural environment can be assumed irrelevant if one accepts that there is a value associated with social utility – an intrinsic value to all of society. It is generally acceptable to assume that the environmental benefits from reducing GHG at a local level include:

14

• Aesthetic benefits of tree planting programs in urban and rural locations: Increasing the number of trees one plants in a business or residential area will have a positive effect on people’s mood, perception and utility for that specific area.

• Encouraging the preservation of biomass as a tool for carbon sequestration

by promoting sustainable forestry practices: Sustainable forestry practices enable communities to maintain healthy, safe, and enjoyable places for recreation. They also assure a certain amount of CO2 sequestration within a community, thus augmenting the city’s future GHG mitigation capabilities. For example, some research suggests that 1 acre of forest sequesters 3.33 metric tons of CO2 equivalents.53 It is important to note that these values tend to vary according to the source. According to the World Bank, 1 acre of the Amazon rain forest sequesters approximately 1,000 lbs. of CO2.54

• Reduced Urban Heat Island effect: By, encouraging a more “green” oriented

downtown planning scheme, the impact of Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect can be reduced. UHI is caused by the disproportionate balance of paved versus non-paved surfaces in a city. On a warm day, the effect of this can increase the daily temperature within that city by 6-8 ˚F.55 This effect will increase the use of air conditioners, thus increasing energy consumption and cost. The type of roofing material and the color of the roof have a large effect on UHI effect. Roofs painted with white titanium-oxide paints and granular surfaces can reflect solar radiation up to 80% more than a black shingled roof.56

• Better air quality through improved compliance: By reducing GHGs, local

governments will incidentally reduce the emissions of other noxious gases that contribute to local air pollution such as ground level ozone and particulate matter.

Economic Benefits Specific threads of climate change prevention have very real, specific economic benefits.

• Lower budget costs and deficits: By streamlining the various City departments (waste management, public transit, infrastructure, etc.), the duplication of work is avoided which translates into reductions in waste generation and energy consumption, and inevitably into increased cost-savings.

53U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Factors, Global Warming Potentials, Unit Conversions, Emissions, and Related Facts November 23, 1999. 54 The World Bank, World Bank, WWF Unveil Plan to Triple Brazil's Protected Forests http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS.html. 55 Heat Island Group, Learning about Urban Heat Islands <http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/LEARN/>. 56 Urban Heat Island Group; Cool Roofs <http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/CoolRoofs/>.

15

• Increased compliance with air quality regulations: Reducing GHGs will reduce the emissions of other regulated pollutants and, therefore, will lower the costs associated with fines and cleanup.

• Reduced costs through resident, business, and industry energy savings:

Implementing policies that educate and encourage citizens and local businesses to be more energy efficient will, in effect, reduce annual costs associated with energy use.

• Reduced environmental costs associated with air pollution: Smog and acid

rain damage natural environments, equipment, buildings and other infrastructures requiring continual repairs.

• Reduced economic dependence on oil: With recent political discussion

concerning national security it is anomalous that fuel switching has not been a posited option. By using alternative sources of energy for transportation, municipalities are no longer dependent on the wavering oil markets and can reduce expenditure on petroleum based fuels.

• Lower materials cost and disposal fees: Strong source reduction and reuse

programs diminish the amount of virgin materials needed to operate a government and/or business. Additionally, reductions in waste lowers the costs associated with landfill tipping fees.

• Lower maintenance costs with alternative technologies: For example,

installing more efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs decreases municipal expenditure on maintenance. CFLs have a longer life-span and consume less electricity.

• Increased worker productivity: Some studies have shown that employees tend

to be more productive when they have efficient lighting and personal control over heating and cooling their immediate space.

• Job creation: Implementing an effective climate change action plan will initiate

new employment opportunities across all sectors. For example, devising a proper waste management strategy will have real economic benefits for local communities. In a study conducted by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance it was concluded that reducing waste has the following economic benefits for every 15,000 tons of waste:57

• Landfilling the waste creates 1 job. • Composting the waste creates 7 jobs. • Recycling the waste creates 9 jobs.

57 The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Wealth to Waste Homepage <http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/>.

16

• Recycling creates 10 times more jobs per dollar invested than land filling or incinerating waste.

• Re-use and re-manufacturing products from recycled goods creates far more jobs per dollar of cost than using virgin materials like timber, metals, etc.

In a report compiled by the Clinton Administration (Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions), the economic costs of participating in the Kyoto Protocol could be effectively accounted for with a combination of a Clean Development Mechanism and emissions trading. The report suggests that the net costs of reducing GHGs would be modest with properly formulated policies. In some cases costs would be entirely covered by the ancillary benefits of a GHG emissions reduction policy. As an example of the macro-effect of reducing GHGs, the report details the ancillary benefits associated with sidestepping necessary “…NAAQS-related emissions controls…” (National Ambient Air Quality Standards): 58

If ancillary benefits of carbon mitigation make the NAAQS-related emissions controls unnecessary, substantial costs for controlling pollution will be avoided. Reasonable estimates of the cost-savings per ton are approximately $1,620 for NOx and $700 for SO2, based on current information about the specific technologies likely to be avoided at utilities and large industrial sources. (These estimates are derived from the estimates of the incremental costs of tighter regional caps on NOx and SO2 emissions that were developed for the NAAQS RIA.) Given these unit values, the value of these cost savings for sulfur dioxide is about $360 to $600 million per year and NOx is about $370 to $610 million per year. Adding these together gives savings of a bout $0.74 to $1.2 billion per year.59

Clearly such instances depend upon the entire approach one takes to addressing this issue. A national GHG emissions reduction strategy would be an incredibly complicated endeavor, one full of assumptions and uncertainties. The point made above simply illustrates, in contrast to many skeptics, the possibility that a GHG emissions reduction policy could have benefits that outweigh the costs.

Public Health Climate has and will continue to have an impact on human health. Based upon climate models which analyze data to predict climate change variability, scientists postulate that the effects of climate alterations will differ across regions. Climate change will inevitably affect humans both directly and indirectly. Direct effects will include increases in mortality due to prolonged and more intense heat-waves, increased incidents of severe and extreme weather events, and higher instances of cancers associated with increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation due to stratospheric ozone loss. Indirect effects of climate change will include increased transmission rates of infectious diseases, increased respiratory problems associated with higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, particulates, and other smog-forming 58 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions <http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/uniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BWJUP/$file/wh_c&b.pdf?>. 59 Ibid.

17

pollutants connected to GHG emissions, droughts that affect food supplies, decreased availability of fresh water, and loss of habitat due to sea level rise. A changing climate will affect the quality, quantity and type of food available regionally, the quality and quantity of available fresh water and the quality of the air we breathe. The degree to which climate change will impact human health is difficult to pinpoint. The factors that dictate the vulnerability of certain populations vary across populations and regions. These factors can include crowding and overcrowding, food scarcity, poverty, local environmental decline, population demographics and level and rate of industrialization.60 For the purpose of this Research Project, the Team will present some of the connected human health-related effects of climate change as they relate to efforts to reduce GHGs. While many GHGs targeted in climate action plans themselves pose little risk to human health directly, associated substances emitted in conjunction with GHGs do raise significant health concerns. This Research Project details the general human health threats in so far as the threats to human health are connected to reductions in GHGs. Weather conditions influence air pollution via pollutant transport and/or pollution formation. Exposure to air pollutants can have many serious health effects. Nearly all of the criteria air pollutants known to impact human health are also connected to the emission of GHGs. For example, in the process of generating electricity, CO2 and CH4, among other GHGs, are emitted. Concurrently, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxide, mercury, VOCs, and particulate matter are also emitted. Strategies that reduce GHGs by decreasing electrical consumption or that shift electrical generation to less intense GHG-forming fuels will also reduce many pollutants that negatively affect human health. Current air pollution problems are greatest in the cities of developing countries where pollution prevention technologies have not kept pace with the rate of development. The following are human health impacts associated with climate change: • Radon is an inert radioactive gas. The rate at which it is emitted from the ground is

dependent on temperature. High indoor exposures are associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. There is some evidence from modeling experiments that climate warming may increase radon concentrations in the lower atmosphere.61

• Ground-level (troposphere) ozone is one of the constituents of photochemical smog. Ground-level is associated with:

Irritation to the lungs, airways and causes inflammation much like a sunburn. Other symptoms include wheezing, coughing, pain when taking a deep breathe, and breathing difficulties during exercise or outdoor activities. People with respiratory problems are most vulnerable. But even healthy people who lead active lives out of outdoors can be affected when ozone levels are high.62

60 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Global Warming Visitor’s Center for Health Professionals. 61 IPCC. Climate Change 2001: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. 62 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Impacts where you live.

18

Repeated exposure to ozone pollution for several months may cause permanent lung damage. Anyone who spends time outdoors in the summer is at risk, particularly children and other people who are active outdoors.63 Even at very low levels, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health problems

including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity, and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis.64

• Formation and destruction of ozone is accelerated by increases in temperature and ultraviolet radiation. Existing air quality models have been used to examine the effect of climate change on ozone concentrations. The models indicate that decreases in stratospheric ozone and elevated temperature work in concert to increase ground-level ozone concentration. An increase in the occurrence of hot days could increase biogenic and anthropogenic emissions of volatile organic compounds (e.g., from increased evaporative emissions from fuel-injected automobiles).65

• Particulate Matter is classified by size. PM10 are particulates between 2.5 and 10

microns; PM2.5 are particulates below 2.5 microns. Particulates are connected to: aggravated asthma, increased respiratory symptoms like coughing and difficult or painful breathing, chronic bronchitis decreased lung function, and premature death.66

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx) form when fuel is burned at high temperatures. The primary

sources of NOx are motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources where fuels are combusted at high temperatures. NOx is the main ingredient involved in the formation of ground-level ozone which can trigger serious respiratory problems. It reacts to form nitrate particles, acid aerosols, as well as NO2, which also cause respiratory problems, contributes to the formation of acid rain, contributes to nutrient overload that deteriorates water quality, and reacts to form toxic chemicals.67

• Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas, formed when the carbon in fuels is not

thoroughly combusted. 60% of CO emitted comes from motor vehicle exhaust. Non-road vehicles account for the remaining CO emissions from transportation sources. CO enters the bloodstream through the lungs and reduces oxygen delivery to the body’s organs and tissues. At concentrations typically encountered in ambient air, the health threat from levels of CO is most serious for those who have cardiovascular diseases, such as angina pectoris.

63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts Adaptations and Vulnerability. 66 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Health and Environmental Impacts where you live. 67 Ibid.

19

RESEARCH METHODS AND LITERATURE REVIEW SYSTEM BOUNDARIES Located approximately 40 miles west of Detroit, the City of Ann Arbor has 17,252 acres of city-zoned land and 114,024 residents, including University of Michigan students and staff.68 As the major city within Washtenaw County, Ann Arbor residents participate in a wide variety of activities that generate GHG emissions. Table 2 indicates Michigan’s typical energy consumption by economic sector. As can be seen in the Table, electricity and natural gas dominate available energy carriers in the residential and commercial sectors. In order of decreasing use, the industrial sector uses electricity, natural gas, and coal. However, it can be presumed that coal is mostly used for electricity generation in power plants. It is no doubt that the majority of energy consumed by the transportation sector is gasoline. Assuming the energy profile of Michigan is transferable to the City of Ann Arbor, the Team determined that the primary energy carrier types inventoried in this Project are electricity, natural gas, and petroleum (petroleum is used in the transportation sector).

Table 2: Energy Consumption in Michigan (1999) 69

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Types of Energy Carrier TBtu % TBtu % TBtu % TBtu %

Coal 0.2 0.03% 0.3 0.05% 117.1 10.8% 0 0% Natural Gas 365.6 49.2% 186.9 33.0% 323.3 30.0% 23.3 2.8% Asphalt & road oil - - - - 44.3 4.1% - - Aviation gasoline - - - - - - 1.4 0.2% Distillated fuel 15.9 2.1% 7.4 1.3% 26.0 2.4% 132.7 15.7% Jet Fuel - - - - - - 51.7 6.1% Kerosene 3.4 0.5% 0.2 0.04% 0.3 0.03% - - LPG 38.9 5.2% 6.9 1.2% 8.4 0.8% 1.3 0.2% Lubricants - - - - 11.5 1.16% 9.5 1.1% Motor gasoline - - - - 5.3 0.5% 624.5 73.6% Wood and waste 9.5 1.3% 1.3 0.2% 78.6 7.3% - - Residual oil - - 0 0% 2.5 0.2% 0.3 0.04% Ethanol - - - - - - 3.4 0.4% Geothermal 0.9 0.1% 0.2 0.04% - - - - Solar 0.3 0.04% 0 0% - - - - Hydroelectric - - - - 0.9 0.08% - - Electricity 309 41.6% 363 64.1% 376.4 34.8% 0 0% Other - - - - 87.9 8.12% - -

Total 743.7 100% 566.2 100% 1082.5 100% 848.1 100%

68 Census 2000 <http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html>. 69 Energy Information Administration <ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/state.data/html/rcmi.htm>.

20

GHG emissions are directly related to energy consumption. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, Ann Arbor’s energy consumption is assumed to be provided by three major energy carriers: electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. These energy carriers require embodied energy as feedstock, plus processing energy. Total fuel cycle energy analysis encompasses the whole life cycle of energy production including mining and material extraction, the energy used to convert the feedstock into a fuel, the transportation energy associated with the movement of the fuel to the site of consumption, and the final consumption of the fuel. Although most of the activities prior to final consumption refer to upstream processes that are dealt with far from the City of Ann Arbor, the amount of energy consumed upstream can be significant. Therefore, the Team decided, for the purposes of this Project, to concentrate on on-site energy utilization consumed within the City of Ann Arbor plus upstream processes associated with each energy carrier. These figures are included in the greenhouse gas inventory as total fuel cycle energy consumption. Moreover, the Team divided the City of Ann Arbor into six energy use sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, municipal government, and the University of Michigan. Additionally, municipal solid waste management is inventoried as an auxiliary source of GHGs. We determined that this categorization would be valuable in developing and evaluating GHG emission reduction measures and policies. The system boundaries for the Project are the city limits of Ann Arbor, Michigan. The system boundaries define what aspects of the system, for both the energy carriers and the energy use sectors (including municipal solid waste management), are either included or excluded from analysis. Figure 3 illustrates the major pathways for the three energy carriers analyzed in the context of the system boundaries. The energy use sectors are defined as follows: Residential Sector: This sector consists of all private residences, whether occupied or vacant, owned or rented, including single family homes, multifamily housing units, and mobile homes.70 Ann Arbor’s residential sector includes 47,218 units of private residences, with an average of 2.22 persons per household.71 The GHG emissions associated with Ann Arbor’s residential electricity and natural gas consumption were inventoried for this Project. Commercial Sector: This sector is comprised of business establishments not engaged in transportation, manufacturing, or other types of industrial activities such as agriculture, mining, or construction. Commercial establishments include hotels, motels, restaurants, wholesale businesses, retail stores, laundries, and other service-enterprises. 72 Again, electricity and natural gas consumption are inventoried to determine this sector’s GHG emissions. Industrial Sector: This sector encompasses manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and forestry, with manufacturing comprising the largest part of the sector. There were 132

70 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000, ANNEX Z. 71 Census 2000 <http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html>. 72 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000, ANNEX Z.

21

industrial sites registered in the City of Ann Arbor in 1999. 73 The Team inventoried electricity and natural gas consumption to determine GHG emissions from this sector. Transportation Sector: This sector includes all private vehicles, community vehicles, the City of Ann Arbor fleet, the University of Michigan fleet, Ann Arbor Public Schools fleet buses, and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses. Aircraft and railways that pass over or through the City limits are excluded from this Project. Ann Arbor’s petroleum consumption, derived from total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), was inventoried to determine this sector’s GHG emissions. Municipal Government: This sector consists of ten major municipal departments in the City of Ann Arbor.74 Electricity and natural gas consumption were inventoried to evaluate this sector’s GHG emissions. Fleets vehicles owned and/or operated by the City of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Public Schools buses, and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses were not included in this sector, but were incorporated into the transportation sector. University of Michigan: In 2000, The University of Michigan (U of M) Ann Arbor campus had 38,248 students including undergraduate, graduate, and doctorate students. Including faculty and staff, the total population totaled 62,750 in 2000.75 The campus includes 214 major buildings and 221 apartment buildings within a land area of 26,912,087 square feet. The University of Michigan’s electricity is purchased from both private electricity providers76 and by its own electricity generating facility – the Central Power Plant (CPP). Natural gas is purchased directly from private natural gas suppliers for heating purposes. The GHG emissions associated with electricity production are attributed to the electricity produced at the CPP and not for the mixture of fuels used to produce the electricity.77 As mentioned previously, emissions from the U of M fleet are accounted for in the transportation sector. Municipal Solid Waste Management: This sector includes the methods (landfilling and/or resource recovery) used in Ann Arbor to transport and manage all waste generated by Ann Arbor citizens. Petroleum consumption from the collection and subsequent transportation of materials to end-of-life management, and methane generation from the decay of landfilled organic materials were inventoried. The upstream emissions generated from mining and processing materials to generate products were also included.78

73 See Appendix D. 74 Detailed information for ten municipal departments is described in Appendix D. 75 Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus. 76 The U of M Central Campus and Hospital receive their electric power from Engage Energy, a subsidiary of Duke Energy Trading and Marketing Company. The U of M North Campus receives its electric power from WPS (Wisconsin Public Service). 77 The Project used this method to avoid double counting emissions associated with electrical production at the CPP. Table 33 compares the fuel mixtures at the CPP and DTE. Table 42 shows the accounting of GHG for electrical production at the CPP. Natural gas consumption listed in Table 42 is not associated with the production of electricity at the CPP. It is inventoried as use for other purposes on campus. 78 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas coefficients for solid waste management incorporate upstream emissions.

22

Figure 3: Project System Boundaries - Major Energy Pathways

UPSTREAM PROCESS

MINING

EXTRACTION

PROCESSING

TRANSPORTATION

ELECTRICITY

NATURAL GAS

PETROLEUM

RESIDENTIAL

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

U OF M

TRANSPORTATION

The City of Ann Arbor

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE

MANAGEMENT

SYSTEM BOUNDARIES OF THIS PROJECT

23

GREENHOUSE GASES AS A CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVER In order for the Team to effectively propose changes to infrastructure, zoning, land-use, transportation, housing, energy consumption habits, and all the other sectors and behaviors that influence climate directly and/or indirectly, it was necessary for the Team to understand the complex network of atmospheric drivers that cause climate changes. To do this, the Team performed a review of available literature. While it is clear that current scientific understanding regarding the mechanisms of climate change involving GHGs is evolving, there is widespread agreement about the fundamental role of GHGs as climate forcing agents. The Team needed to gather information regarding possible modes of emission, atmospheric life expectancy, forcing properties, chemical properties including tendencies toward interaction with other atmospheric gases, and modes of removal from the atmosphere for all GHGs. The most comprehensive and widely accepted resources available on the subject are the collected publications of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000.

Figure 4: Greenhouse Gases Evaluation Methodology Used to Narrow Focus of the Reduction Strategy

CO2 is, by far, the most abundant of all GHGs. It is also the GHG most responsible for positive climate forcing. CO2 best lends itself to the development of mitigation strategies to reduce its emission because it is the most often emitted GHG and there is clear scientific understanding of its role as climate change agent. The same determinants were used to evaluate all remaining GHGs. For these reasons the majority of mitigation strategies evaluated and recommended in this strategy will focus on ways to reduce CO2 and CH4 climate change drivers.

All known greenhouse gases

Determinants used to

evaluate GHG to narrow the focus of the reduction strategy

GHGs that will serve as the focus for this strategy

Increasing level of focus

24

REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND CORPORATE GHG REDUCTION PLAN METHODOLOGY The Team reviewed a variety of published GHG emissions reduction action plans written within the United States in order to gain knowledge about the plan development process. In addition, the Team reviewed plans to help generate ideas about how to set a feasible reduction target for the City of Ann Arbor and to learn about viable measures used in other communities to reduce GHG emissions. Although this Project provides to the City of Ann Arbor a set of recommendations to reduce GHG emissions and further the City’s participation in the CCP campaign, the Project is not intended to focus solely on meeting CCP guidelines. Instead, by reviewing a variety of GHG emissions reduction plans, beyond just other city plans, the Team gained a broader understanding of the current methods used, both conservative and innovative, to reduce GHG emissions and attain diverse reduction targets. This broad analysis would, in the end, allow the generation of comprehensive, detailed, realistic, and effective recommendations for the City of Ann Arbor.79 Overall, the Team evaluated all GHG emission reduction action plans based on the feasibility of set reduction targets, the means by which recommendations were to be implemented to achieve their goals, and the quality and thoroughness of the action plan. The Team’s key findings from the research conducted on regional, state, local, and corporate plans are located in Appendix E.

Regional Plans To add legitimacy to our Project, the Project Team reviewed the only regional GHG emissions reduction project known to the Team - the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan of 2001. This specific plan is identified as having a strong influence on the development of Rhode Island’s state action plan. The NEG/ECP plan provided the Team with potential reduction measures that could be molded for successful implementation in Ann Arbor.

State Plans The Team did not conduct extensive research to locate all published state action plans, but instead researched the published state plans made available through the City of Ann Arbor Energy Office and the Internet (see Table 3).

79 It is important to note that since the culmination of our plan research, several other GHG emissions reduction action plans have been published and, therefore, none of our lists of plans reviewed is exhaustive.

25

Table 3: State Plans Reviewed

State Plans

Delaware Hawaii Iowa

Kentucky Maine

New Jersey Rhode Island

Tennessee Wisconsin Vermont

Of all the state plans reviewed, the Team selected the most detailed and pertinent plans for a more detailed assessment and comparison. The Team deemed plans as pertinent if GHGs emissions were generated by similar sectors compared to Ann Arbor. These included the plans generated by the following states: Delaware, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

Local Plans This Project intends to further the City’s participation in ICLEI’s CCP campaign; accordingly, the Team reviewed other local GHG emissions reduction plans written specifically for this campaign, which were available through the CCP website or the City of Ann Arbor Energy Office. The Team analyzed the reductions plans written by the following U.S. cities and towns: Austin, Texas, Brookline, Massachusetts; Burlington, Vermont, Fort Collins, Colorado, Madison, Wisconsin; Medford, Massachusetts; and Portland, Oregon. Although the Team recognized this to not be an exhaustive list of all local GHG emissions reduction plans, the Team chose to limit its focus to plans formally recognized by ICLEI as meeting the goals and criteria established by the CCP campaign. The Team reviewed all CCP plans and evaluated them based on their set reduction targets, and the means recommended to achieve their goals. The Team focused more specifically on local plans that ICLEI recommended as their best examples and also on those written for areas with similar demographics (areas with a similar population size, population density, and climate).80 The Burlington, Fort Collins, and Madison plans all met these criteria. The Team, therefore, analyzed these plans to find more detailed information relevant to this Project.

Corporate Strategies Lastly, the Team also reviewed a small number of publicly available corporate GHG emissions reduction strategies. The Team evaluated corporate strategies in order to learn

80 A Team member met with ICLEI representatives in their Berkeley office in August 2002.

26

about innovative methods employed by businesses to reduce GHGs. Although many companies have recently implemented plans to reduce GHGs, detailed information about the goals and processes outlined in these plans are not typically made available to the public. From the accessible information, the Team evaluated the following two well-known strategies adopted by large corporations (BP Amoco and Dupont). The Team felt that this selection of strategies would provide a general overview of the targets and methods adopted by prominent corporations to reduce GHG emissions from their facilities.

27

INTERVIEW METHODOLOGY In an effort to gain further knowledge and understanding of the GHG reduction plan writing process and obtain practical plan development advice, the Team contacted and interviewed authors of city and state plans. Authors contacted are those whose plans exhibited sound research and methodology, were analytically well-developed, and were well-written. The Team was particularly interested if the plan was written for communities with similar demographics to Ann Arbor. The Team evaluated the plans using the following criteria:

• Set a moderate to aggressive (yet attainable) GHG reduction target • Provided a detailed comparison and analysis of reduction measures

• Selected innovative yet realistic measures to reach reduction target

Using the above criteria, the Team contacted the authors who developed the following city and state plans: the cities of Burlington, Vermont; Brookline, Massachusetts; Fort Collins, Colorado, and the State of Rhode Island. The Team then developed a generalized one-hour telephone guideline to use in each interview (see Appendix F). From this guideline, questions were changed, eliminated, or reordered, depending on the specific circumstances of each interview (see Appendix F). For example, questions were eliminated from the interview if answers to questions were already available in some plans and/or interviewees specified that they could not allot one hour for an interview, due to schedule demands. Most importantly, interview questions were written to obtain information about the following:

• Resources used in the plan writing process • Time needed to complete the plan writing process

• Sectors targeted by plan and why

• Method for quantifying GHG emission reductions for each measure

• Current stage in the implementation process • Most easily implemented and successful reductions measure(s) (if applicable)

• Other contacts recommended to provide further information about the plan writing

process

One plan writer from each plan was contacted by email, given background information about our Project, and asked to participate in the interview process. The city of Burlington, Vermont was the only city that declined to be included in the study. The following plan writers participated in a telephone interview.

28

Table 4: Plan Writers Interviewed

Plan Writer Town/City/State Lucinda Smith81 Fort Collins, Colorado Suzy Gordon82 Fort Collins, Colorado Jonathan Raab83 Rhode Island Briony Angus84 Brookline, Massachusetts

These interviews were not intended to be an exhaustive in-depth examination of the writing process, but rather a complement to research already conducted by the Team. The interviews provided a behind-the-scenes view of the complicated plan development process, including the detailed proceedings that typically are not included in the plan. Overall, the interviews gave us insight into what did and did not work both in the writing and implementation processes. Please refer to Appendix E for the key findings from these interviews.

81 Lucinda Smith is the Senior Environmental Planner for the Fort Collins, CO. The interview took place on September 27, 2002. 82 Suzy Gordon is the Environmental Program Manager for Fort Collins, CO. The Team conducted the interview on October 28, 2002 as a follow-up to the original interview with Lucinda Smith to gather more detailed information about the success of a new recycling drop-off station in downtown Fort Collins. 83 Jonathan Raab is the President of Raab Associates, a consulting company hired to provide facilitation and project management services for the State of Rhode Island’s Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. The Team interviewed Jonathan on October 29, 2002. 84 Briony Angus is the Climate Change Project Coordinator for the Town of Brookline, MA. The Team conducted the interview on November 4, 2002.

29

EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY It is important to identify all of the GHG sources for the City of Ann Arbor, and establish current emission levels. The development of an initial baseline GHG inventory plays a vital role, not only in realizing actual emission trends, but also in developing policies and strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The primary energy carrier types used in Ann Arbor are: electricity, natural gas, and petroleum (used in the transportation sector). The development and proliferation of these energy carriers is synonymous with, and currently necessary, to sustain modern society’s energy needs. However, these carriers produce the most important (in regard to climate change), and abundant GHG, CO2. CO2 is principally produced and emitted during the combustion of the primary energy carriers (or in the case of electricity, in the combustion of fuels used to generate the electricity). The Team created a GHG emission inventory by quantifying the GHG emissions generated from the use of these energy carriers. Additionally, methane (CH4), derived from municipal solid waste, was inventoried as a part of the total GHG inventory. Data collection and GHG emissions calculations from the emissions inventory were conducted based on following procedures.

1. Inventory data associated with electricity, natural gas, petroleum, and municipal solid waste were gathered from several sources. Each dataset was applied to establish baseline values for the year 1990.85

2. Future values for each of energy carrier and municipal solid waste were projected to the year 2050 based on the Current Scenario.86

3. Finally GHG emission values were calculated and projected for the years between 1990 and 2050.87

Electricity GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption were derived mainly from fossil fuel combustion related to electricity generation at power plants. In the case of Ann Arbor, electricity is supplied mainly from two sources, private electricity providers including Detroit Edison (DTE), and the Central Power Plant at the University of Michigan (CPP). While the CPP supplies electricity to approximately 65% of all facilities on the central campus, DTE provides electricity to the whole City of Ann Arbor. DTE is heavily dependent on coal - the most carbon intensive fossil fuel. Electricity generated from DTE is more carbon intensive than the average electricity produced at other utilities in the U.S. On the other hand, since

85 Appendix G indicates municipal solid waste data, Appendix H shows electricity, Appendix I illustrates natural gas data, and Appendix J shows transportation data. 86 Appendix G, H, I, and J indicate the projected value of municipal solid waste, electricity, petroleum, and natural gas consumption respectively. 87 GHG values derived from municipal solid waste and petroleum are indicated in Appendix G and J respectively. The aggregated GHG emissions in the City of Ann Arbor are illustrated in Appendix K.

30

the CPP uses natural gas to generate electricity, their associated GHG emissions are lower because natural gas is a less carbon intensive fuel. Real data for electricity consumption was obtained from DTE and a previous master’s project (competed in April 2002), Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus. Electricity data for municipal government was collected from the Ann Arbor Energy Office. Electricity generation data for both the U of M’s CPP and DTE are available in Appendix D.

Natural Gas Natural gas is an energy carrier that is combusted at the final consumers’ site, and carbon dioxide is released through the combustion process. The primary uses of natural gas in the City of Ann Arbor principally stem from space and water heating as well as cooking needs in each of the energy use sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, municipal government, and the University of Michigan. The CPP consumes natural gas and provides both electricity and heat for parts of the main campus. This type of generation plant is known as a Cogeneration (combined heat and power) system. However, some of the University of Michigan facilities purchase natural gas directly from DTE for the purpose of space heating. Since GHGs associated with CPP were inventoried as outputs of electricity, the Project Team therefore excluded natural gas utilization in the CPP to avoiding double counting emissions. Natural gas consumption data was acquired directly from DTE and Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus. Municipal government data was obtained from the Ann Arbor Energy Office. Natural gas consumption data is available in Appendix D.

Petroleum Petroleum consumption in the City of Ann Arbor was determined based on the total number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. Two types of petroleum were considered as transportation fuels: gasoline and diesel. GHG coefficients are slightly different between the two fuel types.88 However, the total number of VMT was calculated including all types of vehicles. The Team considered fuel economies for each vehicle type when calculating VMT and developed an average fuel economy. Thus, this Project used the same GHG emissions coefficient for diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles.89 Assuming the average fuel economy of vehicles (expressed in miles per gallon), estimates of VMT were established for the driving activities of Ann Arbor residents and other local fleets. Fundamental data regarding motor vehicles was collected from the University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable System Material Flow Analysis Study, 1997.

88 According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, the emissions coefficient for diesel is 161.386 lbs CO2 per million Btu (=73.21kgCO2/million Btu), whereas that of motor gasoline is 156.425 lbs CO2 per million Btu (=70.94kgCO2/million Btu) <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/factors.html>. 89 Detailed information described in Appendix J.

31

Municipal Solid Waste Management GHG emissions associated with the management of Ann Arbor’s municipal solid waste are derived primarily from the generation of CH4 from the decomposition of organic materials in landfills. In addition, the upstream emissions generated from burning fossil fuels to acquire raw materials, manufacture, and then distribute products, and the GHGs generated from the combustion of fossil fuels to transport materials at end-of-life are included. The City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department provided all of the data on the generation of solid waste by Ann Arbor citizens. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency data was used to estimate all upstream emissions from solid waste management.

32

TWO SCENARIO METHODOLOGY The Team developed two scenarios, the Current Scenario and Progressive Scenario, in order to analyze current emissions levels and examine the effectiveness of possible mitigation measures and strategies for future GHG reductions. This “scenario-based approach” allowed the Team to examine actual GHG emissions in the City in order to establish long-term goals and objectives for GHG emissions reductions. It also allowed the Team to investigate the potential benefits and impacts of the Team’s recommended mitigation measures for the City of Ann Arbor.

Current Scenario The Current Scenario represents actual GHG emissions in the City of Ann Arbor. The Team calculated Ann Arbor’s Current Scenario using data provided by several sources90 detailing electricity and natural gas usage across City sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and U of M).91 The Team evaluated this data on a per capita basis and then estimated prior GHG emissions levels related to electricity and natural gas consumption dating back to the baseline year of 1990 based on annual population growth estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau between 1990-1998. The Team also estimated transportation-related GHG emissions during 1990-2000 based on the number of registered cars in Ann Arbor, assuming an average number of miles driven per year, and using the average national fuel economy during that time period. Lastly, the Team used waste generation data provided by the City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department for the years 1990-2001 to estimate GHG emissions from the management of the City’s solid waste. The Team then projected Ann Arbor’s total GHG emissions to the year 2050 to evaluate future emission rates. More specifically, the Team projected future GHG emissions from electricity and natural gas consumption between the years 2001 and 2020 using projections provided by the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The AEO data estimates per capita energy consumption to 2020; anticipated advancements in energy efficient technologies are embodied in these projections. In order to project GHG emissions beyond 2020, the Team relied upon population growth estimates provided by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). The Team projected transportation related GHG emissions between 2001and 2050 based on the analysis of future growth rates for Ann Arbor’s VMT per person, population growth, and anticipated national average fuel economy improvements. Solid waste generation estimates between 2002 and 2050 were based specifically upon population growth estimates. For detailed assumptions and calculations used to estimate current and future GHG emissions values, please see Appendices G, H, I, and J.

90 Sources include: DTE, CPP, Energy Office in the City of Ann Arbor, and Michcon. For more detailed analysis please see Appendix D. 91 The Team used actual natural gas and electricity consumption data for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for the years 1999 and 2000. U of M natural gas and electricity consumption data was available for the following years: 1990, 1995-2000. Municipal natural gas and electricity consumption data was available for the following years: 1990, 19995, 1999, 2000. For a more detailed analysis please see Appendix D.

33

Overall, the Current Scenario is used a reference case and was established to determine a baseline level of GHG emissions in order to compare it with the Progressive Scenario. Consequently, the Current Scenario serves as a benchmark for future emission reductions.

Progressive Scenario The Progressive Scenario includes the Team’s set of recommended GHG emissions reduction strategies and programs to achieve the GHG reduction target of 7% below 1990 levels by 2020. In this scenario, the Team evaluated a variety of reduction measures and detailed the potential annual GHG emissions reductions, implementation costs, annual costs, annual cost savings, and payback for each measure. The Team then subtracted the quantifiable annual GHG emissions reductions for all measures in the Progressive Scenario from the estimated total GHG emissions in the Current Scenario projections. For a detailed description of the Team’s assumptions and calculations please refer to the Progressive Scenario. Overall, the Progressive Scenario represents, what the research Team feels is a viable, implementable solution to achieve the recommended GHG reduction goal.

34

35

ANN ARBOR’S GHG MITIGATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS, 1991-2002 INTRODUCTION The City of Ann Arbor Energy Office has implemented a variety of programs since 1990 to reduce energy demands within Ann Arbor.92 These programs, in turn, have successfully decreased the City’s GHG emissions. In order to provide the City with an estimate of total GHG emissions reduction accomplishments to date, the Team researched City programs implemented between 1991 and 2002 and quantified the total annual GHG emissions attributed to these GHG reduction efforts. Researching past and current programs also enabled the Team to gain a thorough understanding of energy reduction efforts in the City so as not to recommend previously implemented measures to City officials. City programs in differing levels of implementation include: fuel switching for City fleet vehicles, municipal building retrofits, a landfill gas recovery project, replacing indoor and outdoor lighting with more energy efficient lighting technologies, updating traffic lights with LED technologies, encouraging the adoption of alternate fuels for public buses, and increasing public transit ridership in the City. Current and previous efforts to reduce energy consumption at the University of Michigan were considered beyond the scope of this Project, and therefore, were not inventoried by the Team.

92 The Ann Arbor Energy Office implemented programs to reduce energy consumption in the City prior to 1990. The associated GHG emissions reductions from these programs are not included in this Project because they were introduced prior to the 1990 baseline year.

36

BUILDING RETROFITS Building retrofits are projects that replace older, less efficient appliances and technology with newer more energy-conscious technology. These projects range in implementation costs and energy savings. The City of Ann Arbor has implemented a variety of building retrofits during the last 15 years. The projects have streamlined the City’s energy consumption patterns and have decreased energy costs. Although the impetus for the retrofit projects was the realization of lower costs, each project resulted in reduced GHG emissions. The complete projects required less electricity and/or natural gas (or both depending on the retrofit parameters), in turn, reducing associated GHG emissions. For a complete list of retrofit projects see Appendix L.

The Energy Efficiency Financing Fund In the late 1980s the City of Ann Arbor embarked on a major overhaul of municipal facilities to increase the energy efficiency of their operations on an incremental scale. As a predecessor to the Energy Fund, the Energy Efficiency Financing Fund was established to make small, but aggregately significant, retrofits to a wide variety of City facilities. Most projects were implemented in 1988 and 1989 and completed by 1990, and therefore cannot be considered credited emissions reductions under the guidelines of the Cities for Climate Protection campaign. However, the efforts provide clear evidence that Ann Arbor has been an aggressive proponent of reducing their impact on climate change. Facilities retrofitted include fire stations, maintenance garages, park buildings, public pools, airport facilities and streetlights. The scale and impact of each project varied significantly; for example, by insulating hot water pipes at the Seniors Center the City saved $19 a year and avoided 0.21 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually. Larger projects undertaken by this program included the installation of a natural gas chiller at City Hall (annual cost savings equaled $11,000/yr and reduced GHG emissions by 124.21 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually), conversion of streetlamps to high pressure sodium (annual cost savings equaled $14,673/yr and reduced GHG emissions by 165.69 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually), and conversion of the Maynard Street parking structure lights to high pressure sodium (annual cost savings equaled $48,527/yr and reduced GHG emissions by 547.96 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually). For a complete list of projects associated with the Energy Efficiency Financing Fund see Appendix M.

The City Energy Fund In 1988 the Ann Arbor City Council approved a $1.4 million Energy Bond, and in 1995 a Performance Contracting Bond that encourages the City’s commitment to employing energy efficient technology within municipal operations. An Energy Fund of $100,000 per annum was established to assist in building retrofits and other energy efficiency programs. The expiring Bond Payments were replaced by Energy Fund payments. These payments will come from payments made by facilities that benefited from the $1.4 million bond.93 93 Konkle, David, Memorandum to Berlin, Neal G. and Amin, James regarding the creation of a Municipal Energy Fund for FY 1998-1999 and beyond.

37

When facilities implement energy saving projects they are entitled to retain 20% of the cost savings while 80% goes back into the Energy Fund.94 This not only creates an incentive for individual facilities to execute energy conservation projects, but it also enables the Energy Fund to be self-sustaining. Projects have focused on achieving the City’s commitment to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Green Lights Program, for which lighting retrofits of qualifying buildings were conducted. Some of these improvements have been substantial. For example, a lighting retrofit in the Baker Commons facility resulted in $10,000 in annual cost savings, cutting electricity consumption by 126,607.59 kWh and reducing nearly 112.94 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year. Here is a description of how another project was financed (see Appendix M): The Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant has undergone an energy audit. It was

discovered that a lighting conversion would result in a significant cost reduction. By replacing old ballasts and lamps with more efficient ones the City could save approximately 107,500 kWh per year, or nearly 94 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually.

Project Cost: $47,644.00 Annual Savings: $12,296.00 Federal Tax Rate: 38.00% Discount Rate: 9.00% IRR: 28.50% Net Present Value: $45,446.17 Payback: 3.87 years

Table 5: Ann Arbor Water Treatment Plant Retrofit Parameters

Existing Lighting Upgraded Lighting Annual

Project Parameters System Costs System Costs Savings/Reductions

Total Peak kW 96 71.00 25Total Annual kWh 354,761 247,232 107,529 Total Annual Maintenance Cost $6,400 $1,263.00 $5,136 Total Annual Connected Load Cost $27,747 $20,587.00 $7,160 Total Annual Operating Costs $34,146 $21,851.00 $12,296 Lighting Upgrade Project Costs n/a $47,644.00 n/a Simple Payback n/a n/a 3.87 Total Watts per Square Foot 3.20 2.38 0.82 Total Annual Operating Costs/Square Foot $1.14 $0.73 $0.41

Projects financed by the Energy Fund are required to have a maximum payback of no longer than 5 years. The Waste Water Treatment Plant lighting conversion project is a perfect example of a simple, yet effective efficiency project that City officials can implement without expending a large quantities of political capital. To date, this project has had a net benefit of displacing 95.92 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in the City of Ann Arbor. 94 Ibid.

38

Interior Lighting

Method for Comparing Different Interior Lighting and Bulb Technologies Today, there are many bulb95 choices. Lightbulbs can be compared using several factors. Depending on the technology, bulbs last between several hundred and many thousands of hours, and will have different light outputs (measured in lumens96), having different light quality, while consuming different amounts of energy. Bulb life is the median, measured in terms of the number of hours of actual usage expected before half the bulbs are likely to fail. Light quality can be compared using the color rendering index (CRI)97, correlated color temperature (CCT) 98 and lamp efficacy 99 (the amount of energy consumed by a bulb measured in watts).100 Bulb technologies were evaluated using six comparison factors: lamp life, CRI value, CCT, lamp efficacy, wattage and light output. For the purpose of this paper, the greatest stress was placed on the bulb’s efficacy and light quality (both CCT and CRI) and the length of its expected life. Incandescent lamps are considered the standard by which all other lamp technology is compared. This is because of their high CRI value, and low CCT and widespread use. For the purposes of this comparison, lamp options will all be compared back to a standard incandescent bulb of equal luminance.

Incandescent Lighting

Description of Technology The technology used in today’s incandescent light bulbs has changed very little in over 200 years. An electrical current runs through the tungsten filament and because of resistance, the tungsten glows white hot, producing incandescent light. Inert gases are put inside the bulb to help control sublimation of the tungsten as well as reduce the rate of oxidation.101

95 The word bulb and lamp are used interchangeably and both refer to different types of light bulbs. 96 One lumen is equal to one candlepower which is equal to 1/683 watt per unit solid angle. 97 CRI is a measure of the degree of color shift objects undergo when illuminated by a lamp, compared with those same objects when illuminated by a reference source of comparable correlated color temperature. A CRI of 100 represents maximum value. Some colors illuminated under lamps of low CRI may appear unnatural. Incandescent lamps have a CRI of 95 (Source:T-5 Fluorescent Systems, Lighting Research Center). 98 CCT is a measure of the apparent color of a light source relative to the color appearance of an ideal incandescent source held at a particular temperature and measured on the Kelvin scale (K). The CCT rating of a lamp is an indication of the lamp’s warmth or coolness. Lamps with a CCT rating above 4000 K usually are considered cool while lamps with a CCT rating of under 3200 K are considered warm (Source: T-5 Fluorescent Systems, Lighting Research Center). 99 The ratio of the amount of light output of a lamp, measured in lumens, to its active power (watts) expressed in lumens per watt (LPW) (Source: T-5 Fluorescent Systems, Lighting Research Center). 100 A watt is equal to 1 joule per second. 101 Interactive Nano-visualization in Science and Engineering Education (IN-VSEE).

39

Sample Calculation Modern incandescent bulbs have a life of between several hundred hours and a maximum of approximately 1,500 hours. The actual life depends upon usage habits.102 To formulate the basis for comparison, the Team calculated the electricity consumed over the lifetime of three commonly used incandescent bulb options: 60 watts, 75 watts and 100 watts. GHG emissions reported in Table 6 are equal to the GHG emissions emitted by DTE for the generation of enough electricity to power each bulb throughout its respective lifetimes.103

Table 6: Incandescent Bulb Comparison

Wattage Lumens Efficacy Life Lifetime Energy Consumption

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Bulb

(watts) (lumens/watt) (hours) (kilowatts) (MTCO2e) 60 880 15 1000 60 0.05 75 1210 16 750 56 0.05

100 1600 16 750 75 0.07 Source: General Electric

Halogen Lighting

Description of Technology The 1960’s saw an improvement to the traditional incandescent. Halogen gas is used inside the bulb envelope to extend the life of the filament and allow high burning temperatures. The result is an extended lifetime beyond the standard incandescent bulb.104 Halogen bulbs typically range in wattage from 60 watts up to 600, with standard household interior lighting applications ranging between 60 and 300 watts (though higher wattages can be used for interior lighting applications). Halogen bulbs have a CRI value of 95 and a CCT of about 2900 K depending on exact bulb type and manufacturer.105 One side effect of higher burning temperature, afforded by the halogen gas, is hotter bulb temperature. Halogen bulbs can reach temperatures between 521 C and 649 C depending on the wattage. In comparison, incandescent bulbs can reach temperatures of 247 C and fluorescent bulb 140 C.

102 As with all bulb technologies, longer burn times and greater interval between burning increases bulb longevity, whereas short burn time and repeated energizing and de-energizing will greatly reduce bulb life. 103 See Appendix N for emissions coefficients used to quantify the GHG emissions. 104 See Table 6 for a comparison different bulb technologies and lifetimes. 105 Lighting Research Center – National Lighting Product Information Program.

40

Sample Calculation

Table 7: Comparison of Incandescent and Halogen Bulbs

Wattage Lumens Efficacy Life Lifetime Energy Consumption Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(watts) (lumens/watt) (hours) (kilowatts) (MTCO2e) 60106 880 15 1000 60 0.05

60 840 14 3000 180 0.16 150 2800 19 2000 300 0.26 300 5650 19 2000 600 0.53

Source: General Electric In a side-by-side comparison of GHG emissions of a 60 watt incandescent, a 60 watt halogen, a 150 watt halogen and a 300 watt halogen, there is little difference in the amount of GHG emissions reduced when switching to halogen technology. Table 8 compares the four bulbs using an equal basis of 5,650 lumens and 3,000 hours of operation.

Table 8: Comparison of Incandescent and Halogen Bulbs

Wattage Lumens

# of Bulbs needed to produce 5,650

Lumens Life

# of Replacements

needed to equal 3,000 hours

Lifetime Energy Consumption

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(watts) (hours) (kilowatts/3,000

hours) (MTCO2e/3,000

hours) 60107 880 6.42 1000 3 1,155.68 1.01

60 840 6.73 3000 0 1,210.71 1.06 150 2800 2.02 2000 1.5 908.04 0.80 300 5650 0.00 2000 1.5 900.00 0.79

Source: General Electric Small benefits are achieved at higher wattages, when halogen bulbs become more efficient. It is important to consider the quantity of light needed for any lighting application. While a 300 watt halogen may be more efficient than a 60 watt incandescent, the application my only require 880 lumens of light, not 5,650 lumens. In this example, the 300 watt halogen uses considerably more electricity compared to the 60 watt incandescent. If 5,650 lumens are needed for a lighting application, a single300 watt halogen is the better choice and will reduce GHG emissions marginally.

106 60 watt incandescent bulb. 107 60 watt incandescent bulb.

41

Low-Mercury Fluorescent Lighting

Description of Technology Fluorescent bulbs may represent the most energy efficient and cost effective option available (depending on the application). Fluorescent bulb technology has made significant advances in the last 10 years, with the most significant advances within the last few years. Fluorescent bulbs are now available for most residential and commercial applications. Fluorescent bulbs produce light without a filament. An electric current vaporizes mercury. The vaporous mercury emits ultraviolet radiation which is absorbed by a phosphorous coating on the inside of the glass envelope. The phosphorous coating glows, emitting light in the visible spectrum. For fluorescent bulbs to operate effectively (efficiently while maintaining their longevity) the electrical current used to vaporize the mercury must be controlled and stable. Ballasts are use to facilitate this function. The types of ballasts and their function are described in a subsequent section. For this Project the Team research two basic types of fluorescent bulbs: linear and compact. Linear (also referred to as tube-shaped) bulbs have external ballasting while compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs can have either external or internal ballasting. Linear bulbs come in several diameters from T5 to T12.108 Linear and compact fluorescent bulbs are able to achieve dramatically improved efficacy. As a result, the bulbs consume significantly less electricity per lumen of light produced. There are a few drawbacks to using fluorescent bulbs (linear and compact) in comparison to incandescent bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs have a reduced CRI value and higher CCT value. The newest linear fluorescent bulbs have a CRI of 85 and a CCT of between 3,000 and 6,500 K.109 CFL bulbs have CCT values of 2,200 and 4,100 with 2,700 and 2,800 being the most common. CFLs have a CRI between 82 and 88.110 All fluorescent bulbs contain elemental mercury, and in the case of CFLs, either elemental mercury or a mercury amalgam. The amalgam is used to reduce the overall amount of elemental mercury required. The quantity of mercury in bulbs varies among manufacturers, bulb sizes (T12, T8, T5), and bulb lengths. The newest, low-mercury linear fluorescent and CFL bulbs contain the lowest quantity of mercury. Table 9 shows a comparison between several linear fluorescent and CFL options and provides a comparison of mercury content for competing bulbs.111 Toxic substances like mercury must be disposed of properly to avoid environmental contamination. The Ann Arbor Drop-off Station accepts linear tube

108 The “T” in tubular fluorescent bulb descriptions refers to the diameter of the bulb equal to 1/8 inches. Hence a T5 bulb is 0.625”, a T8 bulb is 1.00” and a T12 bulb is 1.50” in diameter. 109 Lighting Answers: T5 Fluorescent Systems. 110 Specifier Reports: Screwbase Compact Fluorescent Lamp Products. 111 The newest low-mercury bulbs contain less than 3 milligrams of mercury per bulb. An exact amount was unavailable so 3.6 milligrams was substituted for comparison purposes. Actual mercury emissions reductions are greater than can be accurately analyzed here.

42

fluorescent bulbs for a fee of $1.00 per bulb or $10.00 a dozen but they must be pre-boxed.112 Environmental contamination from fluorescent bulbs can be mitigated through proper disposal. While fluorescent technology uses mercury to produce light, mercury is also one of the emissions from fossil-based electricity generation. Concerns regarding mercury contamination from the use of fluorescent bulbs cannot be assuaged through avoidance of fluorescent technology. As long as electricity is generated from fossil fuels (primarily coal) mercury emissions will continue regardless of bulb technology. When one compares the total mercury emissions associated with an incandescent bulb with those associated with a low mercury T5 linear fluorescent system, the mercury emitted through electricity generation outweighs the amount of mercury which may be emitted through improper disposal of expired fluorescent bulbs. The amount of mercury release from improper disposal of mercury bulbs is dependent on the quantity of mercury in the specific bulb. Quantities vary between manufacturers. See Table 9 for specific quantities.

Sample Calculation The benefit of using fluorescent bulbs is dramatically reduced electrical consumption. An equivalent CFL uses only 17 watts to produce the lumens emitted from a standard 60-watt bulb. A four-foot T8 linear fluorescent bulb uses only 32 watts to produce more than three times the lumens of a 60 watt incandescent bulb. Energy savings and GHG emissions reductions are significant. Fifty-two 60 watt incandescent bulbs are needed to equal the light output and life of an “eco-fluorescent” T12 linear fluorescent bulb. By switching to the fluorescent bulb, 2.13 fewer metric tons of CO2 equivalents are emitted during its 20,000 hour life.113 The energy and emissions saving can be further increased by utilizing smaller, more efficient T5 bulbs. A four-foot T5 bulb can reduce CO2 emissions by 2.77 metric tons of CO2 equivalents when compared with an equivalent number of 60-watt bulbs producing an equal amount of light over an equal life time. The life, energy use and emissions reductions can be further improved by installing dimmable electronic ballasts coupled with occupancy sensors, manual dimmers or photosensors. An analysis of these options appears in a subsequent section. A similar comparison can be made for a CFL. Using the example above, a 17 watt CFL produces the same number of lumens as a 60 watt incandescent bulb. It takes ten 60 watt incandescent bulbs to equal the life of one 17 watt CFL. Over the life of the CFL, GHG emissions are reduced by 0.38 metric tons of CO2 equivalents.114 The newest technology in fluorescent bulbs is the T5. As depicted in the example above, the T5 bulb can greatly reduce energy consumption and CO2 equivalent emissions when

112 City of Ann Arbor Recycling Guide. 113 Based on a T12 with a life of 20,000 hours, using 34 watts and producing 2280 lumens compared with a 60 watt incandescent bulb with a life of 1,000 and producing 880 lumens. See Table 8 for further comparison. 114 Based on a 17 watt CFL with a life of 10,000 hours, producing 880 lumens compared to an incandescent bulb with a life of 1,000 hours and producing 880 lumens.

43

compared with incandescent and T8 bulbs. Since the T5 is 40% smaller than a T8. Fewer materials are needed to make each bulb. Manufactures claim that T5 bulbs require 38% less glass and 22% less phosphor. In addition, packaging materials are reduced because of the smaller diameter and slightly shorter length of T5 bulbs.115 A lifecycle analysis could be conducted to better understand the energy and emissions effects of using T5 technology.

115 Lighting Research Center National - Lighting Product Information Program. Lighting Answers: T5 Systems.

44

Tab

le 9

: Com

pari

son

of B

ulb

Tech

nolo

gies

116

Bul

b T

ype

Wat

tage

L

umen

sEff

icac

yL

ife

Ele

c.

Usa

ge11

7M

ercu

ry

Con

tent

# of

Bul

bs

for

Func

tiona

l U

nit

Tot

al

Mer

cury

118

CC

T

CR

IT

otal

GH

G

Em

issi

ons11

9

(L

umen

s/

wat

t) (H

ours

) (k

Wh)

(m

g/bu

lb)

(m

g)

Kel

vins

Met

ric T

ons

CO

2e

Com

pact

Flu

ores

cent

Bu

lb

29

1750

60

.34

10,0

001,

806.

953.

6**

3.12

35

.72

2,20

0-4,

100

82-8

81.

58

T5 L

ow M

ercu

ry

Fluo

resc

ent T

ube

(4 ft

)*

28

2726

97

.36

20,0

0056

0.00

5.

0 1.

00

14.9

5 3,

000-

6,50

0 85

0.

49

T8 E

co-F

luor

esce

nt

Tube

(4 ft

)*

30

2700

90

.00

20,0

0060

5.78

22

.8

1.01

33

.57

3,00

0-4,

100

82-8

70.

53

T8 N

ew L

ow M

ercu

ry

Tube

(4 ft

) 34

17

75

52.2

1 20

,000

1,03

4.37

3.6

1.52

21

.99

3,00

0-6,

500

82-8

70.

91

T12

Eco-

Fluo

resc

ent

Tube

(4 ft

)*

34

2280

67

.06

20,0

0081

3.02

22

.8

1.20

37

.25

3,00

0-4,

100

82-8

70.

71

Inca

ndes

cent

Bul

b 60

88

0 14

.67

1,00

0 74

,345

.45

0.0

61.9

5 13

21.4

9 29

00

95

65.1

7

Hal

ogen

15

0 28

00

18.6

7 2,

000

29,2

07.1

40.

0 9.

74

519.

16

2900

95

25

.60

Sour

ces:

Lig

htin

g Re

sear

ch C

ente

r Ph

ilips

.com

G

E.co

m

http

://ww

w.at

lant

alig

htbu

lbs.c

om/a

lto3

NRD

C -

"Ben

chm

arki

ng A

ir Em

issi

ons o

f 100

Lar

gest

Elec

tric

Gen

erat

ion

Own

ers i

n th

e U

.S. –

2000

,” M

arch

200

2 ht

tp://

www.

scor

ecar

d.or

g/en

v-re

leas

es/

116 F

igur

es a

re b

ased

on

a fu

nctio

nal u

nit o

f 20

,000

hou

rs a

nd 2

,726

lum

ens o

f lig

ht.

117 E

lect

ricity

Usa

ge is

the

amou

nt o

f ele

ctric

ity c

onsu

med

. It

is re

porte

d in

kW

h pe

r fun

ctio

nal u

nit

118 T

otal

Mer

cury

is th

e am

ount

of m

ercu

ry a

ttrib

uted

to b

oth

elec

trici

ty c

onsu

mpt

ion

and

the

mer

cury

con

tain

ed in

the

bulb

s. It

is re

porte

d in

mg

per f

unct

iona

l un

it.

119 T

otal

GH

G E

mis

sions

are

repo

rted

in M

TCO

2e p

er fu

nctio

nal u

nit/.

45

Dimmable Electronic Ballasts

Description of Technology When fluorescent bulbs were first introduced, they relied on magnetic ballasts to control the steady flow of current required to maintain consistent light levels, and maximize bulb life. There are several drawbacks to the old magnetic ballast technology. They operated at 60 Hz, a frequency within the visual perception of some people. The phosphors inside the bulb are refreshed 120 times a second. This slow oscillation manifests itself as bulb flicker.120 A second drawback to magnetic ballasts is noise produced from the vibration of the magnetic core. The third drawback of older magnetic ballasts is energy consumption. A magnetic lamp ballast system using two T8 32 watt lamps will require approximately 70 watts of electricity. By comparison, the same system, using an electronic ballast requires 55-60 watts. Over the three to five year life of most ballasts, magnetic ballasts will use between 263 and 657 kWh of electricity. 121 In terms of CO2 equivalent emissions, magnetic ballasts are responsible for emissions between 0.23 and 0.50 metric tons of CO2 equivalents over their life. The amount of emissions changes if one considers that magnetic ballasts have a life of three to five years; electronic ballasts have a life of 10 to 20 years. It takes between 2 and 6.6 magnetic ballasts to equal one electronic one. A life cycle assessment of magnetic verses electronic ballasts could assess the energy and emissions ramification of switching to electronic ballasts. The materials used in the manufacturing of electronic ballasts will impact the outcome of such an analysis. The best alternative to magnetic ballasts is dimmable electronic ballasts. These ballasts improve on the performance of magnetic ballasts by using solid state technology. Instead of oscillating at 60 Hz electronic, ballasts cycle at 20 kHz. The phosphors in fluorescent bulbs are refreshed 40,000 times a second making them nearly, if not completely flicker-free.122 Electronic ballasts are nearly silent, and more energy efficient. Energy consumption is reduced by 10% to 15% when compared to magnetic ballasts and they do not give off excess heat. Less radiated heat from magnetic ballasts diminishes the load on air conditioners. Reduced air conditioning loads can lead to additional energy and GHG emissions reductions. The Team did not quantify the impact of reduced air conditioning in these GHG reduction calculations. The ability to dim fluorescent lights, an attribute of dimmable electronic ballasts, is a great improvement over the magnetic design. Dimmable electronic ballasts are capable of reducing light output 99%, though the majority can achieve only an 80% reduction. This

120 Lighting Research Center National - Lighting Product Information Program. Specifier Reports: Electronic Ballasts. 121 The lower number in the range is based a three life, consuming 10 watts and the upper number in the range is based on a five year life, consuming 15 watts. It is assumed that the ballasts are operating 24 hours a day, everyday over the life of the ballast. 122 Lighting Research Center National - Lighting Product Information Program. Specifier Reports: Electronic Ballasts.

46

means the light level and therefore energy requirements, can be controlled. By using either a manual or automatic dimmer control, light level can be changed to suit the application given the quantity of ambient light level. There are two basic options for dimming control – automatic and manual. Manual controls are similar to those used for incandescent systems, replacing an on/off switch with a variable adjustment slide or rotating knob switch. The automatic dimming option includes photosensors. Photosensors incorporate a light-sensitive silicon chip capable of “reading” ambient light levels. As ambient light decreases, the photosensor increases light output from the fluorescent fixture. When ambient light increases, the opposite occurs. The result is maximizing the use of ambient light and supplementing for it when it isn’t available.

Sample Calculation It is very difficult to calculate the actual savings from the use of dimmable ballasts. The results depend on the application, access to ambient light, and the length of daylight hours. It is possible to generate a hypothetical analysis for the sake of evaluating dimmable electronic ballasts as a viable alternative. Table 10 compares the energy and emissions savings through the use of dimmable electronic ballasts equipped with photosensors. Table 10: Comparison of Energy and CO2e Emissions between Dimmable Electronic and Non-Dimmable

Magnetic Ballast Luminaires

Type

Number of Ballasts Needed

Total hours of

use

Watts at max output

Watts 20%

Watts 60%

Watts 80%

Total Use (kWh)

MT of CO2e

Emitted Dimmed 1 175,320 55 11 33 44 5,647.81 4.95 Non-Dimming 5 175,320 70 N/A N/A N/A 12,272.40 10.76

Basis: An undimmed magnetic ballast luminaire using two 32 watt T8 bulbs compared with a dimmable electronic ballast luminaire using one 54 watt HO T5 bulb coupled with a photosensor. Life of the electronic ballast is assumed to be 20 years; magnetic ballast life is 4 years. No consideration was given for the energy requirements for any materials used in the replacement of the magnetic ballasts, or the replacement magnetic ballasts themselves. The energy requirement of the photosensor is assumed to be 1 watt (actual requirement is not known). Hours of use: 14 hours a day; 5 hours at 20%, 3 hours at 60%, 3 hours at 80%, and 3 hours at 100%.

Motion-activated Lighting and Timer Controlled Systems

Description of Technology Motion-activated lighting systems control lighting (either on or off) through either a passive infrared or ultrasonic occupancy sensor. Passive infrared sensors (PIS) are able to detect changes in the location of heat-emitting objects that are within their perceivable threshold. Ultrasonic sensors themselves emit sound waves at between 25 and 40 kHz. The sensor is

47

able to detect changes to that frequency caused by moving objects. The device works on the principle of the Doppler Effect. Objects moving away from the sensor will cause a lengthening of the frequency while objects moving toward the sensor will compress, or shorten the frequency. Unlike PIS, ultrasonic sensors are capable of detecting the movement of non-living objects (e.g. window curtains blowing in the wind). 123 It is important to consider not only the application but also the position of the sensor. Poor placement can cause the luminaire to energize when it is not supposed to, or conversely to de-energize when it should not. Both instances can be a nuisance and reduce efficiency. Most sensors are equipped with sensitivity settings to fine-tune control of the device for the desired application. Timer-controlled systems are a viable alternative to occupancy sensors. Utilization of this device tends to occur as a part of a building energy management system, though it is not necessary. Timer-controlled systems are equipped with both pre-programmed and programmable timing systems. The benefit of this system is its flexibility. It can be adapted to many different scheduling needs. With proper planning, systems can be separated into zones, having entirely different lighting schedules.

123 Lighting Research Center National - Lighting Product Information Program. Specifier Reports: Occupancy Sensors.

48

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

Street Lighting There are 5,410 streetlights in the City of Ann Arbor. Annually, the City spends approximately $103,183.52 for its streetlights account.124 Streetlights represent a huge point-source of both electricity consumption and GHG emissions in the City. Streetlights are energized for, on average, 12 hours a day, 365.25 days a year. Annually Ann Arbor streetlights require 4.7 megawatt hours of electricity. The electricity consumed by the streetlights is responsible for 4,112 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions per year.125 Measures that work to reduce hours of operation and/or decrease lamp wattage will serve to decrease associated CO2 equivalent emissions.

Table 11: Ann Arbor Street Lights Inventory - 2002

Lamp Bulb Type Watts Count KWH126

GHG Emissions/

Bulb Total GHG Emissions

(Year) (MTCO2e/

year) (MTCO2e/

year) EIA 100 watt Metal Halide 130 18 10,259 0.50 8.99175 watt Metal Halide 213 1,057 987,063 0.82 865.26250 watt Metal Halide 293 36 46,245 1.13 40.54400 watt Metal Halide 458 51 102,406 1.76 89.77100 watt High Pressure Sodium 128 1,936 1,086,440 0.49 952.37250 watt High Pressure Sodium 300 222 291,988 1.15 255.96400 watt High Pressure Sodium 467 4 8,190 1.79 7.181000 watt High Pressure Sodium 1,100 10 48,226 4.23 42.28OH-MID E1A 100 watt High Pressure Sodium 128 1 561 0.49 0.49OR E1B 175 watt Metal Halide 213 67 62,567 0.82 54.85400 watt Metal Halide 458 18 36,143 1.76 31.681000 watt Metal Halide 1080 4 18,940 4.15 16.60100 watt High Pressure Sodium 128 907 508,988 0.49 446.18250 watt High Pressure Sodium 300 989 1,300,792 1.15 1,140.27400 watt High Pressure Sodium 467 89 182,221 1.79 159.73De-Eng Orn E1B 100 watt High Pressure Sodium 128 1 561 0.49 0.49Totals 5,991.00 5,410.00 4,691,589.41 23.02 4,112.65Source: Electric America 2003 124 Electric America. Analysis of City of Ann Arbor streetlights performed by Electric America on February 5th, 2003. 125 Based on 0.0008766 MTCO2e per kWh of electricity. 126 Annual hours of operation are based on 12 hours of use per day for 365.25 days per year

49

A method to reduce lamp wattage and not sacrifice luminosity is to change lamp technology. Currently the City streetlights use a mix of high-pressure sodium (HPS) and metal halide. Table 11 lists all the City streetlights, lamp wattages, annual kWh, and associate GHG emissions. The City replaced all of its mercury vapor streetlight lamps with metal halide lamps in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Beginning in the mid 1990’s, the City began to replace its metal halide lamps with HPS. The project is not complete. HPS technology offers a few advantages over metal halide. HPS bulbs are rated for a longer functional life. High wattage (250 watts and higher) HPS bulbs are rated to upwards of 40,000-50,000 hours. In terms of years, 40,000 hours is approximately 9 years based on the City’s lighting schedule.127 Less frequent re-lamping saves the City dollars both in terms of replacement lamps and labor costs to replace the lamps. Replacement lamps alone cost the City nearly $90,000.128 HPS lamps are energy efficient. HPS lamps have an efficacy of between 70 and 120 lumens per watt. CRI of HPS bulbs is high as well. It can range between 20 and 80, with 65 being typical of most HPS lamps in Ann Arbor. The light output of a 400 watt HPS is 40,000. By contrast, the City still uses some older metal halide lamps. Metal halide lamps have significantly better CRI values, but slightly less efficacy. Metal halide lamps have CRI values that range from 65 to 92 and have efficacies between 40 and 100 lumens per watt. The trend over the last decade has been for municipalities to switch to the most efficacious streetlight lamp technology with the goal to decrease electric bills. In keeping with this goal, Ann Arbor should explore another lamp technology. Low-pressure sodium (LPS) lamps offer the greatest efficacy of any lamp technology currently available. LPS lamps have an efficacy between 100 and 180 lumens per watt. To illustrate the increased energy efficiency of the HPS and LPS lamp technologies over metal halide, Table 12 compares the wattages required to achieve a lumen output equal to that of a 400-watt metal halide lamp. Efficacies for all three lamps were derived by taking the average of efficacies reported in this section. kWh are based on 12 hours of use per day for 365.25 days per year. GHG emissions are based on the emissions factor of 0.0008766 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per kWh.

Table 12: Comparison of Three Street Light Lamp Technologies

Lamp Type Watts Efficiency Lumens kWh/yr GHG emissions (MTCO2e)

Metal Halide 400 70 28,000 1,753.2 1.54 HPS 311 90 28,000 1,363.6 1.20 LPS 200 140 28,000 876.6 0.77

127 The City streetlights operate on average 12 hours a day, 365.25 days a year. Actually hours vary day to day and depend on the hours between sunset and sunrise. 128 Electric America. Analysis of City of Ann Arbor streetlights performed by Electric America on February 5th, 2003.

50

If the City re-lamped all of its streetlights with LPS lamps producing equivalent lumens, the City could cut its electricity consumption, and therefore its GHG emissions, by one-third. Instead of emitting 4,112 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually, streetlight associated emissions would be reduced to 2,741 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually.

Traffic and Pedestrian-crosswalk Lights

Light Emitting Diode Traffic Lights (LEDs) The vast majority of traffic and pedestrian control lights in the United States use incandescent lamp technology with a plastic or glass lens to provide for a specific color. The bulbs in a typical three signal traffic light range between 69 and 150 watts each, therefore, a single head, or collection of signals, uses7 between 207 and 450 watts of electricity.

Description of the Technology Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) are an efficient, durable and long-lasting alternative to the traditional incandescent bulb. They are semiconductor devices which use electronics to produce light. A single LED light (or die) is made from a layer of electron-rich material separated from a layer of electron-poor material by a junction. When electricity is applied to this junction the electrons move across the junction to the “poor” layer, emitting photons of light at specific wavelengths. The wavelength, or color, depends on the physical materials that make up the die. An LED traffic signal would consist of a large number of dies packaged together with a reflective shield (to focus the light) and a protective glass lens. Replacement LED units are currently available in all three colors (only red and amber are approved by Michigan’s Department of Transportation), and may be substituted for ball, arrow and pedestrian uses.129 There are several factors which can influence the performance and life of an LED traffic light:

• Color Chemistry: The color of the light emitted from a die depends on the chemical make-up of the two separated layers of material. Because red and orange colors have longer wavelengths, they are much easier to produce and more efficient than blues and greens.

• Use and Temperature: The intensity of an LED fades with time and

temperature. By experimenting with the chemical composition of the die, the life-expectancy of an LED system has greatly increased. However, as temperature increases, LED performance decreases.

• Power Supply and Controller Circuitry: LED systems require certain power

specifications to be met in order to achieve maximum efficiency.

129 Personal Communication with Dave Konkle [March 15, 2003].

51

Table 13: Ann Arbor LED Traffic Light Inventory130

Installed To Be Installed Remain Total

12" reds 654 166 380 1200 12" ambers 60 760 380 1200 8" reds 144 0 372 516 8" ambers 0 200 316 516 Non DDA PEDs 45 0 1067 1112 DDA PEDs 30 166 0 196

Totals 933 1292 2675 4740

PEDs are pedestrian crossing lights DDA is the Downtown Development Authority which operates some traffic and pedestrian lights The City currently has 4,740 traffic and pedestrian-crosswalk lights in operation. Of these 4,740 units, 933 are currently operating with (at least partial) LED technology and plans are in place to replace another 1,292 individual bulbs.

Sample Calculation Most traffic lights in the City of Ann Arbor are 135 watt extended life incandescent lights with a life expectancy of approximately 4,380 hours (12 hours x 365 days). Red and pedestrian-crosswalk lights are assumed to operate 12 hours a day, and are changed every year. LEDs purchased by the City are 10 watts and have a 5-year warranty with an expected life of up to 10 years. Assuming they are changed once every 5 years, or 1825 days, each LED will last 5 times longer than an incandescent. Incandescent lightbulbs cost approximately $1.60/bulb and LEDs cost $111.40/system.

Purchase Cost131 1 Incandescent bulb = $ 1.60 1 LED = $111.40 5 Incandescent bulbs = $ 8.00 Savings = ($ 192.00) Energy Cost132 Detroit Edison charges 3.34 cents/cyclic watt/mo (cyclic watt = total watts/2) Incandescent: = 135 watts LED: = 10 watts Signal wattage reduction: = 125 watts Cyclic watt reduction: = 62.5 watts Savings: $0.034 x 62.5 x 12 mo = $25.05/yr

130 Courtesy of Mike Bergren, City of Ann Arbor 131 Email from Dave Konkle [March 17, 2003]. 132 Ibid.

52

Maintenance Cost133 Incandescent: = $27.50/5yrs LED: = $0.00/5yrs Payback134 Total retrofit cost: = $111.40 Bulb savings (over 5 years) = $8.00 Energy savings (over 5 years) = $125.25 Maintenance savings (over 5 years) = $27.50 Total Savings (over 5 years): $111.30 + $8.00 + $27.50 = $160.75 $160.75 / 5 years = $32.15 $111.40 / $32.15 = 3.47 year payback time Emissions Reduction135 Incandescent: (135 W) x (360 hrs/month) x (1 kWh/1,000 Wh) = 48.6 kWh/month (48.6 kWh/month) x (0.0008766 metric tons of CO2e/kWh) = 0.043 metric tons of CO2e /month (0.043 metric tons of CO2e /month) x (12 months) = 0.520 metric tons of CO2e /year LED: (20 W) x (360 hrs/month) x (1 kWh/1,000Wh) = 7.2 kWh/month (7.2 kWh/month) x (0.0008766 metric tons of CO2e /kWh) = 0.0063 metric tons of CO2e /month (0.0063 metric tons of CO2e /month) x (12 months) = 0.076 metric tons of CO2e /year

Table 14: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1 LED (MTCO2e/yr)

1 Incandescent (MTCO2e/yr)

0.076 0.520

The retrofitting of the 933 LED traffic and pedestrian-crosswalk bulbs that the City has thus far replaced has had the following emissions reduction impact. An LED conversion measure is particularly notable considering the savings are on an order of magnitude of nearly 10: (933 bulbs x 0.520 metric tons of CO2e /year/bulb) – (933 bulbs x 0.076 metric tons

of CO2e /year/bulb) = 414.252 metric tons of CO2e /year 133 Email from Dave Konkle [March 17, 2003]. 134 Ibid. 135 Conversion factors and coefficients from: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Factors, Global Warming Potentials, Unit Conversions, Emissions, and Related Facts.

53

GREET TRANSPORTATION MODELS To assess the GHG emissions from different vehicle configurations (passenger cars, light duty 1 trucks and light duty 2 trucks) using different fuels (conventional gasoline [CG], California Reformulated Gasoline [CARFG], Federal Reformulated Gasoline [FRFG], 100% biodiesel [B100], 80% biodiesel/20% conventional diesel [B80], 20% biodiesel/80% conventional diesel [B20], compressed natural gas [CNG], ethanol, and electricity), the Team used Argonne National Lab’s Greenhouse Gas, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation software 1.6beta (G.R.E.E.T. 1.6 beta) to determine the well to wheels emissions. Well to wheels refers to full fuel cycle accounting and includes life cycle stages from the point where fuel is extracted from the earth (well) to the stage where fuel is combusted in a vehicle (wheels). The vehicle emissions and energy use tables included in the Changes to Fuel Source for Fleet Vehicles section of the Project detail GHG emissions, total energy, and criteria air pollutants for each of three stages. The first stage, feedstock, includes recovery (extraction), transportation and storage of the specific fuel. The second stage, fuel, includes production, transportation, storage and distribution. The third stage, vehicle operation, represents fuel combustion while operating the vehicle.

Figure 5: Stages Covered in GREET Fuel Cycle Analysis

Source: Argonne National Labs Development and Use of GREET 1.6 Fuel-Cycle Model For Transportation Fuels and Vehicle

Technologies GREET models the fuel cycle energy and emissions for each transportation fuel/technology combination separately.

• Fuel-cycle energy consumption for the following three source categories:136 1. Total energy (all energy sources) 2. Fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas [NG], and coal) 3. Petroleum

• Fuel-cycle emissions of the following three greenhouse gases (GHGs):137

136 Argonne National Labs Development and Use of GREET 1.6 Fuel-Cycle Model for Transportation Fuels and Vehicle Technologies. 137 Ibid.

54

1. Carbon dioxide (CO2) (with a global warming potential [GWP138] of 1) 2. Methane (CH4) (with a GWP of 21) 3. Nitrous oxide (N2O) (with a GWP of 310)

Each table lists the three primary GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O). Quantities of individual GHGs are reported in grams per mile for each GHG. Total GHGs are reported in grams per mile of CO2 equivalent emissions. The tables also include figures for total energy, fossil fuels and petroleum. Figures for total energy, fossil fuel and petroleum are reported in units of BTUs per mile. To calculate the total GHGs, each individual GHG was converted, using their respective GWP139, to CO2 equivalent emissions. Five criteria air pollutants, (NOx

140, CO141, VOC142 , PM10143, and SOx

144 ) are quantified and divided into urban and total emissions. Urban criteria air pollutant emissions are those emissions that occur in urban areas while total criteria air pollutant emissions is the aggregate number for all criteria air pollutant emissions. All assumptions and variables used to program the GREET model software are contained in Appendix O. Additional WTW emissions profiles for some vehicles referred to, but not included in this section, are included in Appendix O.

138 Global warming potentials are multipliers used to convert greenhouse gases into carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. This is done to compare the relative forcing potential of different gases on equal terms. An explanation of how to use GWPs to convert GHGs to carbon dioxide equivalents can be found in Appendix C. 139 GREET 1.6 beta uses GWP from the IPCC Second Assessment Report. This is the only location in the Project where older GWPs were used. Results will vary slightly if new GWPs are used to calculate CO2 equivalent emissions. The team was unable to adjust the GREET software to incorporate the new GWP from the IPCC Third Assessment Report. 140 NOx is any one of many nitrogen oxides including NO2, NO3, NO4, and N20. They formed when nitrogen in the atmosphere is oxidized during combustion. Nitrogen tends to oxidize at high combustion temperatures associated with complete combustion of fuels. High combustion temperatures are used to prevent carbon monoxide formation. 141 Carbon monoxide is the bi-product of incomplete combustion. CO forms when an inadequate quantity of oxygen is present during combustion. To prevent CO formation, the air/fuel mixture must be monitored and controlled. 142 Volatile Organic Compounds are organic-based substances that vaporize (become a gas) at room temperature. 143 Particulate matter of between 2.5 and 10 microns is called coarse particulates. PM10 enters the atmosphere in a number of ways including blowing dust and sand, combustion of fossil fuels (mainly coal and fuel oil), or it can form chemically from a combination of exhaust constituents. 144 SOx is any of a number of sulfur oxides that form during the combustion process. Fuels with sulfur content (coal, and petroleum-based fuels) are oxidized in the combustion process, forming SO2, SO3, or SO4.

55

CHANGES IN FUEL SOURCE FOR FLEET VEHICLES

In the year 2000, transportation vehicles owned or operated in Ann Arbor consumed 55,031,388 gallons of petroleum-based fuels145 and 493,631.55 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions for that year. This represents 19.40% of all emissions in Ann Arbor for that year under the Current Scenario. The Ann Arbor municipal fleet vehicles consumed 0.42% of the petroleum-based fuels in 2000, or 248,333 gallons. Municipal fleet vehicles were responsible for the emission of 2,227.5 metric ton of CO2 equivalents.146 To reduce the use of non-renewable, fossil-based transportation fuels, the City has initiated several programs designed to shift the fleet to less polluting alternatives. These programs include the purchase of biodiesel, the installation of three compressed natural gas filling stations, and the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). The City is currently drafting a Green Fleets Policy. The policy is designed to provide formal guidelines to be used by departments when making vehicle purchases. Vehicles will be purchased to suit their intended function (e.g. a vehicle with a large 8-cylinder engine may not be needed if the desired function does not require the add power of a large engine), and whenever possible, the most fuel-efficient vehicles will be purchased. This sector of the Project is designed to help the City design this policy, by providing a technical resource of currently available AFV technology and demonstrates the emissions reductions of these options. As a part of this evaluation, the Team has referenced, wherever possible, AFVs that are currently a part of the municipal fleet. The second purpose of this section is to quantify the emissions reduction accomplished thus far by the City of Ann Arbor, in regard to the transportation sector.

Bi-fuel Vehicles

Description of Technology Bi-fuel vehicles are capable of running on two different fuels. Bi-fuel vehicles have two separate fuel storage and fuel delivery systems. The engines of these vehicles have been specially designed to allow for the combustion of the two different fuels. The vehicle has an onboard computer system that determines which fuel is being used, and adjusts the combustion parameters to optimize efficiency and performance. Several modifications must be made to the vehicle in order to accommodate this system. Depending on the two fuels used, engine modifications are necessary. It is also necessary to design and install two separate fuel storage and delivery systems. A drawback to a bi-fuel system is the addition of a weighty second fuel storage and delivery system. The additional weight reduces the efficiency of the vehicle when compared with the same vehicle using a dedicated system. The advantages of a bi-fuel vehicle over a dedicated vehicle are convenience and flexibility.

145 Transportation vehicles includes vehicles owned by private citizens, vehicles in the municipal fleet, owned by the University of Michigan, the Ann Arbor Public School System and the Ann Arbor Transit Authority. Vehicle classes included are: passenger, light duty and heavy duty (including buses). 146 Based on the assumption that the mixture of fuels is the same for all transportation sectors.

56

The owner has the option to use the alternative fuel (AF) when it is available, but the owner is not tied to the AF should it be not convenient or available. Table 15 illustrates the well to wheels (WTW), total fuel cycle energy and emissions allocated to a bi-fuel CNG LDT 2 vehicle operating on CNG. Table 16 illustrates the WTW energy and emissions allocated to a dedicated CNG vehicle. Table 17 and 18 illustrate the same comparison but for a passenger vehicle. In each case choosing a dedicated AFV (in this case a CNG) reduced GHG emissions over the bi-fuel alternative. It is important to note the combined WTW GHG emissions over all three lifecycle stages. In this comparison a dedicated CNG LDT2 reduced WTW GHG emissions by 33 g/mile147 when compared with a LDT2 bi-fuel CNG and 127 g/mile148 when compared with a LDT2 CG vehicle. In the passenger class, the dedicated CNG reduced WTW GHG emissions by 20 g/mile149 when compared with the bi-fuel model and 77 g/mile150 when compared to a CG vehicle.151

Table 15: Near-Term Technologies, Light-duty Trucks 2: Well-to-Wheel Energy Consumption and Emissions (per Mile)

Bi-Fuel CNGV Operating on CNG

Btu/mile or grams/mile

Item Feedstock Fuel Vehicle

OperationTotal Energy 609 702 8,912Fossil Fuels 605 656 8,912Petroleum 33 9 0CO2 44 48 532CH4 1.968 0.163 0.900N2O 0.001 0.001 0.024GHGs 85 52 558VOC: Total 0.008 0.000 0.393CO: Total 0.062 0.015 11.792NOx: Total 0.111 0.220 1.173PM10: Total 0.003 0.430 0.023SOx: Total 0.029 0.007 0.003VOC: Urban 0.002 0.013 0.393CO: Urban 0.004 0.214 11.792NOx: Urban 0.010 0.392 1.173PM10: Urban 0.000 0.003 0.023SOx: Urban 0.001 0.004 0.003

Table 16: Near-Term Technologies, Light-duty Trucks 2: Well-to-Wheel Energy Consumption and Emissions (per Mile)

Dedicated CNGV



Operation Total Energy 577 665 8,443Fossil Fuels 573 622 8,443Petroleum 31 9 0CO2 42 46 504CH4 1.864 0.154 0.900N2O 0.001 0.001 0.032GHGs 81 49 532VOC: Total 0.008 0.000 0.204CO: Total 0.058 0.014 10.108NOx: Total 0.105 0.209 1.173PM10: Total 0.003 0.408 0.022SOx: Total 0.027 0.006 0.003VOC: Urban 0.001 0.012 0.204CO: Urban 0.004 0.203 10.108NOx: Urban 0.009 0.371 1.173PM10: Urban 0.000 0.003 0.022SOx: Urban 0.001 0.004 0.003

147 Table 16 – GHG emissions: 532 + 49 + 81 g/mile = 662 g/mile. Table 15 – GHG emissions: 558 + 52 + 85 g/mile = 695 g/mile. 695 g/mile – 662 g/mile = 33 g/mile. 148 Table 16 – GHG emissions: 532 + 49 + 81 g/mile = 662 g/mile. Table 20 – GHG emissions: 622 + 119 + 48 g/mile = 789 g/mile. 789 g/mile – 662 g/mile = 127 g/mile 149 Table 18 – GHG emissions: 348 + 32 + 52 g/mile = 432 g/mile. Table 17 – GHG emissions: 364 + 33 + 55 g/mile = 452 g/mile. 452 g/mile – 432 g/mile = 20 g/mile. 150 Table 18 – GHG emissions” 348 + 32 + 52 g/mile = 432 g/mile. Table 19 – GHG emissions: 401 + 77 + 31 g/mile = 509 g/mile. 509 g/mile – 432 g/mile = 77 g/mile. 151 Well to wheels GHG emissions for LDT2 and passenger CG vehicles can be found in tables 18 and 19.

57

The most commonly used bi-fuel vehicle design is the conventional gasoline/compressed natural gas system, but conventional gasoline/liquefied petroleum gas (propane) and conventional gasoline/liquefied natural gas vehicles are available. The City of Ann Arbor currently owns six such vehicles; two Ford pickup trucks (CG/LPG), two Ford Contours (CG/CNG) and two Chevy Luminas that have been retrofitted to operate on CG/CNG. The two Ford pickup trucks are classified, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s vehicle classification system, as light-duty truck 2 (LDT2). This classification is designated based on body style, in this case a pickup, as well as gross vehicle weight (GVW). LDT2 vehicles have a GVW of between 6,001 and 8,500 lbs. LDT1 vehicles have a GVW of less than 6,000 lbs.

Sample Calculation Assuming a 100,000 mile vehicle life, the Team compared the emissions of a conventional gasoline (CG) LDT2 vehicle with an equivalent dedicated CNG and bi-fuel gas/CNG LDT2 vehicle operating on CNG. The comparison assumes the all vehicles are driven under the same conditions in each instance.

Table 17: Near-Term Technologies, Passenger Vehicle: Well-to-Wheel Energy Consumption and Emissions (per Mile)

Bi-Fuel NGV Operating on CNG




Table 18: Near-Term Technologies, Passenger Vehicle: Well-to-Wheel Energy Consumption and Emissions (per Mile)

Dedicated CNGV




58

The CG LDT2 vehicle will emit: 100,000 miles x 789 g/mile152 = 78,900,000 g of CO2e = 78.9 metric tons of CO2e The dedicated CNG LDT2 vehicle will emit: 100,000 miles x 662 g/mile153

= 66,200,000 g of CO2e = 66.2 metric tons of CO2e

The bi-fuel gas/CNG LDT2 vehicle will emit: 100,000 miles x 695 g/mile154 = 69,500,000 g of CO2e

= 69.5 metric tons of CO2e

Table 19: Near-Term Technologies: Well to Wheels Energy and Emissions155

Passenger Vehicle Gasoline Vehicle: CG Btu/mile or grams/mile


Operation Total Energy 217 1,028 5,156Fossil Fuels 209 1,015 5,156Petroleum 65 497 5,067CO2 21 74 390CH4 0.469 0.102 0.084N2O 0.000 0.001 0.028GHGs 31 77 401VOC: Total 0.016 0.068 0.207CO: Total 0.041 0.037 5.517NOx: Total 0.112 0.105 0.275PM10: Total 0.003 0.014 0.033SOx: Total 0.023 0.093 0.085VOC: Urban 0.001 0.029 0.207CO: Urban 0.002 0.020 5.517NOx: Urban 0.003 0.046 0.275PM10: Urban 0.000 0.008 0.033SOx: Urban 0.001 0.047 0.085

Table 20: Near-Term Technologies: Well to Wheels Energy and Emissions156

Light Duty Truck 2 Gasoline Vehicle: CG Btu/mile or grams/mile


OperationTotal Energy 337 1,600 8,021Fossil Fuels 324 1,579 8,021Petroleum 101 773 7,883CO2 32 115 607CH4 0.730 0.158 0.090N2O 0.001 0.002 0.040GHGs 48 119 622VOC: Total 0.025 0.106 0.785CO: Total 0.063 0.058 16.846NOx: Total 0.174 0.164 1.173PM10: Total 0.005 0.022 0.036SOx: Total 0.036 0.145 0.132VOC: Urban 0.002 0.045 0.785CO: Urban 0.004 0.032 16.846NOx: Urban 0.005 0.071 1.173PM10: Urban 0.000 0.012 0.036SOx: Urban 0.002 0.074 0.132

The result is, over their respective lives, for every CG LTD2 vehicle that is replaced with a dedicated CNG, 12.7 metric tons of CO2 equivalents are not emitted. 9.4 metric tons of CO2

152 Table 20 – GHG emissions: 622 + 119 + 48 g/mile = 789 g/mile. 153 Table 16 – GHG emissions: 532 + 49 + 81 g/mile = 662 g/mile. 154 Table 15 – GHG emissions: 558 + 52 + 85 g/mile = 695 g/mile. 155 See Appendix O, Passenger Car: Dedicated vs. Bi-Fuel CNG Comparison for GREET input variables and assumption regarding this comparison. 156 See Appendix O, Light Duty Truck 2: Dedicated vs. Bi-Fuel CNG Comparison for GREET input variables and assumption regarding this comparison.

59

equivalents will not be emitted if a CG LTD2 vehicle is replaced with a bi-fuel CG/CNG operating on CNG.157

Quantifiable Reductions The City currently owns six bi-fuel vehicles: four CG/CNG passenger cars and two LDT2 CG/LPG pickup trucks. The CG/LPG pickups are never driven on LPG and were excluded from further analysis. The passenger vehicles were driven 13,005 miles in FY 2000-2001. The total emissions of these vehicles were:

Contour #9001: 4,483 miles x 57 grams/mile158 x metric tons/1,000,000 grams

= 0.26 metric tons of CO2e annually

Contour #1101: 1,472 miles x 57 grams/mile159 x metric tons/1,000,000 grams = 0.08 metric tons of CO2e annually

Lumina #3002: 3,359 miles x 57 grams/mile160 x metric tons/1,000,000 grams

= 0.19 metric tons of CO2e annually

Lumina #3163: 3,691 miles x 57 grams/mile161 x metric tons/1,000,000 grams = 0.21 metric tons of CO2e annually

The purchase date for both Contours was 1998 for both vehicles. The purchase date for both retrofitted Luminas was 1997. Annual VMT is only available for FY 2000-2001. Assuming similar VMT for all years since the install date, the two passenger bi-fuel vehicles are responsible for a total emissions reduction of: 4 yrs x 0.34 metric tons of CO2e/yr = 1.36 metric tons of CO2e 5 yrs x 0.40 metric tons of CO2e/yr = 2.00 metric tons of CO2e In all cases for this calculation, the emissions reductions assume that all four vehicles are driven 100% of the time using CNG. Any VMT using CG will result in reduced emissions reductions.

157 See Appendix O, Light Duty Truck 2: Dedicated vs. Bi-Fuel CNG Comparison for GREET input variables and assumption regarding this comparison. 158 57 is the difference between total GHG emissions from a CG passenger vehicle and a bi-fuel CNG vehicle. 159 57 is the difference between total GHG emissions from a CG passenger vehicle and a bi-fuel CNG vehicle. 160 Ibid. 161 Ibid.

60

Dedicated CNG Vehicles

Description of Technology Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles refer to vehicles that operate on CNG instead of CG. CNG vehicles are dedicated fuel vehicles. They operate on a single fuel source as opposed to bi-fuel or flex-fuel vehicles that can switch between two fuels (flex-fuel vehicles will be analyzed in a later section). The CNG is stored in cylinders, under pressure. CNG does not have the same heating value as CG. The lower heating value (LHV) of CNG is 46.96 Btu/gram and the LHV of CG is between 41.38 Btu/gram. CNG also does not have the same energy density compared to CG. As a result, a greater volume of CNG is needed in order to travel an equivalent distance. Additional fuel storage tanks are necessary to enable CNG-powered vehicles to travel an equivalent distance. The extra fuel tanks diminish passenger and cargo space. CNG is a viable option where either passenger and/or cargo space is not impeded (in the case of large vans and pick-ups) or where long distance travel is not a determining factor. CNG burns cleaner than CG. As a result, GHG emissions are significantly reduced on a gram per mile basis. Using the data contained in Tables 18 and 20 the dedicated CNG LDT2 emits 127 g/mile less GHGs.162 This can have a significant impact on the GHG emissions should an entire fleet be converted from CG to CNG.

Sample Calculation Assuming a 100,000 mile vehicle life, the Team compared the emissions of a CG LDT2 vehicle with an equivalent dedicated CNG vehicle. The comparison assumes the all vehicles are driven under the same conditions in each instance. The CG vehicle will emit: 100,000 miles x 789 grams/mile163 = 78,900,000 g of CO2e = 78.9 metric tons of CO2e The dedicated CNG vehicle will emit: 100,000 miles x 662 grams/mile164 = 66,200,000 g of CO2e = 66.2 metric tons of CO2e The dedicated CNG LDT2 vehicle will reduce emissions by 12.7 metric tons of CO2 equivalents over its 100,000 mile life.

162 This is the difference between the total GHG emissions across all three fuel cycle stages for the CG LDT2 and the dedicated CNG LDT2. 163 Table 20 – GHG emissions: 622 + 119 + 48 g/mile = 789 g/mile. 164 Table 16 – GHG emissions: 532 + 49 + 81 g/mile = 662 g/mile.

61

Quantifiable Reductions The City of Ann Arbor owns nine dedicated CNG vans and one dedicated CNG pickup. Five of the nine vans have been a part of the City fleet since 2001. The remaining four vans are recent additions to the fleet as of late 2002. No data is only available for these four CNG vans. Since they were purchased late in 2002 any emissions reductions realized will be minute given the duration of operation. They have been excluded from further analysis. The City has placed an order for an additional two new Ford E-250 vans, but no data is available for these vehicles either, due to their age. They have been excluded from the further analysis as well. VMT is not available for the five vans purchased in 2001, but gasoline gallon equivalents (GGE) used is available for FY 2001 only.165 Fuel economy for the pickup vehicles was assumed to be 11.6 miles per GGE for city driving.166 Fuel economy for the vans was assumed to be 10.6 miles per GGE for city driving.167 While the vehicles used to estimate fuel economy are not the exact year and model owned by the City, they provide a reasonable approximation for the purposes of these comparisons. The vans used 3,858.3 GGE of CNG. Collectively, the vans drove the equivalent of 40,897.98 miles annually. The dedicated CNG pickup used 489.1 GGE; this equated to 5,673.56 miles annually. The five vans have an install date of 2001 while the pickup has an install date of 2000. Assuming all vehicles were driven the same number of miles every year and using the data from Table 16, page 54 and Table 20, page 56, these six vehicles have reduced GHG emissions by the following amount: The dedicated CNG Vans: 40,897.98 miles x 127 grams/mile168 = 5,194,043.46 g of CO2e = 5.19 metric tons of CO2e annually The dedicated CNG Pickup: 5,673.56 miles x 127 grams/mile169 = 720,542.12 g of CO2e = 0.72 metric tons of CO2e annually (5.19 metric tons of CO2e x 1 yrs) + (0.72 metric tons of CO2e x 2 yrs) = 6.63 metric tons of CO2e

Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Hybrid electric vehicles, also called hybrids or HEVs, made their way to the market within the last few years. All HEVs are powered by an energy conversion unit (typically an internal combustion engine (ICE) and an electric motor, but advances in technology may allow fuel cells to replace the ICE) and an energy storage device. Today there are three mass-produced HEVs available from major manufacturers. The two-seat Honda Insight was the first mass-produced HEV sold in the United States. In April of 2002, Honda introduced an HEV

165 City of Ann Arbor Inventory of Ann Arbor Fuel-comsuming vehicles and devices. See Appendix P. 166 National Renewable Energy Labs Fact Sheet: Ford F-250 Dedicated CNG Pickup. 167 National Renewable Energy Labs Fact Sheet: Dodge B2500 Dedicated CNG Van. 167 It is assumed the vans have a gross vehicle weight greater then 6,001 lbs. 168 Table 16 – GHG emissions: 532 + 49 + 81 g/mile = 662 g/mile. Table 20 – GHG emissions: 622 + 119 + 48 g/mile = 789 g/mile. 789 g/mile – 662 g/mile = 127 g/mile. 169 Ibid.

62

version of their Civic. In 1999, shortly after Honda began selling the Insight in the U.S., Toyota began selling the Prius. Technologies vary between vehicles, but all HEVs offer a leap forward in fuel efficiency and reduced emissions without sacrificing vehicle range. HEVs were once seen as an intermediary technology between traditional ICEs and full electric vehicles (EVs). The obstacle to overcome with EVs is energy storage technology. But over the years, without substantive improvements in energy storage technology, and the future of fuel cell-based vehicles still a long way off, HEVs are now viewed as the next future of automotive technology.

Description of Technology HEVs combine, in some form, an ICE with an electric motor. The two systems can work either in parallel or in series. The advantage of an HEV is the convenience of widely available refueling stations (typically conventional gasoline or diesel), significantly extended range compared to a conventional vehicle, and reduced tailpipe emissions. It is important to note in Table 21 the lower WTW GHG emissions compared to a CG passenger vehicle (Table 19, page 56).

Sample Calculation To compare a CG vehicle and an HEV, the Team assumed both vehicles traveled the same number of miles annually. In this sample, both vehicles are passenger cars, and travel 15,000

Table 21: Grid-Independent SI HEV: FRFG170

Btu/mile or grams/mile Item Feedstock Fuel Vehicle Operation

Total Energy 155 802 3,683 Fossil Fuels 149 793 3,683 Petroleum 47 325 3,310 CO2 15 57 279 CH4 0.335 0.153 0.084 N2O 0.000 0.001 0.028 GHGs 22 61 289 VOC: Total 0.012 0.049 0.148 CO: Total 0.029 0.033 4.414 NOx: Total 0.080 0.090 0.275 PM10: Total 0.002 0.010 0.035 SOx: Total 0.016 0.065 0.027 VOC: Urban 0.001 0.019 0.148 CO: Urban 0.002 0.012 4.414 NOx: Urban 0.002 0.026 0.275 PM10: Urban 0.000 0.005 0.035 SOx: Urban 0.001 0.029 0.027

170 See Appendix O, Passenger Vehicles: Comparing Convention Gasoline to Hybrid Electric for GREET input variables and assumption regarding this comparison.

63

miles per year. Both vehicles are assumed to be driven under the same conditions and carrying the same loads. Well to wheels GHG emissions for the CG vehicle are 509 grams per mile.171 The HEV’s GHG emissions are 372 grams per mile.172 Over 15,000 miles, the HEV can reduce emissions by 2.055 metric tons of CO2 equivalents (509 g/mile – 372 g/mile) x (1 metric ton/1,000,000 grams) x (15,000 miles/years) = 2.055 metric tons of CO2e The above sample calculation represents the emissions reductions realized by replacing a CG with an HEV for a single year. If an entire vehicle fleet is replaced, whose useful lives span five to seven years, even more dramatic emissions reductions can be realized. Over the useful life of a fleet vehicle (assuming five to seven years) a single vehicle HEV is able to reduce emissions by 10.275 to 14.385 metric tons of CO2 equivalents.

Quantifiable Reductions Currently the City does not own any HEVs. There exists great potential for reducing fleet emissions through the replacement of CG and conventional diesel (CD) vehicles with more fuel-efficient hybrid electric ones.

Battery-Electric Vehicles

Description of Technology Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) are fundamentally different from all other vehicle technologies examined by the research Team. All previously examined vehicle technologies utilized, to some degree, an ICE to provide locomotive power to the wheels. BEVs do not. Instead, these vehicles rely on a very simple design. A battery powers an electric motor that, in turn, is connected to a controller/transmission that connects to the wheels. In contrast, ICEs have carburetors or injection systems to regulate fuel mixtures, pumps to move fuel, oil and water, emissions control systems, an alternator to recharge the battery, and a transmission to connect the ICE to the wheels. As a result, BEVs have no tailpipe emissions. For this reason, BEVs are one of a few vehicle designs termed as Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEVs). However, using this term for BEVs is a misnomer. Even though the BEV emits no tailpipe emissions, the BEV is still responsible for other GHG emissions. The BEV must be recharged and recharging requires electricity. If the electricity used to recharge the BEV is generated from sources that themselves emit GHGs, then the emissions emitted to produce electricity to recharge the BEV should be allocated to the BEV itself. This is illustrated in Table 22, page 64. While Vehicle Operation emissions are zero for all but PM10, Feedstock and Fuel emissions are still associated with electric vehicles for the aforementioned reason. 171 See Table 19, page 56. 172 See Table 21, page 60.

64

The Feedstock and Fuel emissions are based on a U.S. National average fuel mixture. Emissions from electricity generation in Michigan are higher because of a greater reliance on coal. If vehicles are recharged with electricity produced from “cleaner” sources, associated EV emissions will be lower. BEVs are available for a wide range of functions. Their travel range and capabilities vary greatly depending on the intended use. BEVs can be used as golf carts, or ‘run-abouts.’ They are well suited to indoor applications where exhaust emissions from ICE vehicles are undesirable. BEVs have also been developed as an alternative to conventional automobile technology. They offer significant advantages over conventional vehicles, and equally significant disadvantages. As a replacement to the CGV, BEVs offer highly responsive performance characteristics, exceptionally low noise level during operation, excellent durability, low maintenance and zero tailpipe emissions. BEVs have one moving part compared to the hundreds of moving parts in CGVs. Fewer moving parts reduces wear, and frequency of repairs. There are five major limitations to BEVs. The first major limiting factor for BEVs is range of operational use. Since batteries power BEVs, the range they are capable of traveling between each charging is dependent on the energy storage capacity of the onboard batteries. The same battery technologies used in HEVs are used in BEVs. The most often used technologies are lead-acid, nickel-metal hydride, and lithium ion batteries. In general, lithium ion batteries offer the greatest range for the lightest weight. Lead-acid batteries offer the least dollar cost, quickest recharge time, but the shortest range and the heaviest weight. Depending on the amount of electrical storage capacity, measured in kWh, BEVs can travel between 20 and 130 miles before needing a recharge. The Honda EV Plus has a range of 60 – 80 miles between charges.173 The Toyota RAV4 EV has a range of 80 – 100 miles between charges.174 The General Motors second generation EV1 has a range of 55 – 95 miles between charges when using lead-acid batteries, or 75 – 130 miles when using nickel-metal hydride batteries.175 The actual distance the vehicle is capable of traveling is dependent on energy storage capacity, travel speed, the number of energy–consuming accessories in operation (radio, headlights, windshield wipers) temperature, and driving habits. Once the BEVs’ batteries have been drained, it needs to be recharged before the vehicle can be driven again. Because BEVs are typically used as commuter vehicles, or to fill niche applications, the obstacle of lengthy recharge time is not a major disadvantage for use in these specific applications. But recharge time is the second limiting factor that has affected the BEVs ability to break out of niche markets and enter the mainstream. The length of time required to fully recharge a BEV will depend on the level of depletion, the storage capacity of the battery system, and the type of charging system employed. Typically, most vehicles can be 80% recharged in two to six hours, and fully recharged in six to eight hours. The governing factor limiting the speed of recharge is damage to the battery system. Recharging the vehicle’s batteries too quickly can seriously and permanently damage them.

173 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board – Honda EV Plus 1999 Fact Sheet. 174 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board – Toyota RAV4 EV 2002 Fact Sheet. 175 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board – GM EV1 1999 Fact Sheet.

65

Most BEVs are recharged during the nighttime. Owners can install special recharge stations in the home garage, parking space, or fleet garage. They operate on standard 110 VAC or 220 VAC. Higher voltage chargers are capable of recharging BEVs more quickly. It is possible for owners to receive special electric rates when the vehicle is recharged during off-peak hours (at night). Vehicles can be recharged for as little as two to five cents per kWh during off-peak times. Another recharge option is public recharge stations. Table 23 shows the number of public recharge stations in the United States.176 The local municipality, or electric company usually pays for the cost of electricity at the public recharge site. These services are offered as an incentive to increase BEV use. Recharge sites often come with preferential parking as an additional incentive. The third limiting factor is the additional cost associated with the initial purchase. The vast majority of BEVs still available through major auto manufactures only offer the vehicles through leasing programs. Those still available for purchase typically cost between $10,000 and 20,000 dollars more than a comparable gasoline-powered vehicle. The GM EV1 has a lease price of about $499 a month.177 When it was available, the EV version of the Toyota RAV4 sold for $42,500.178 By comparison, a base model Toyota RAV4 sells for between $17,000 and $19,000.179 Federal, state and local tax incentive programs can offset a portion of the additional costs. These incentives can be substantial, depending on the state of residence. New York, offers a $3,000 exemption on the sales tax for the purchase of a BEV, as well as a 2,000 dollar tax credit on state income taxes. The State of California’s Air Resources Board offers a $9,000 incentive rebate. The federal government offers a $2,000 dollar alternative fuel vehicle tax rebate for which BEVs qualify. Local communities may offer additional tax and rebate incentive programs. The forth limitation is their availability to the general public. BEVs are produced and sold in very limited quantities in the United States. Manufacturers have typically only offered BEVs as part of pilot test programs, or in conjunction with fleet, city, or state sponsored programs. Currently, California, Arizona, and New York have committed to BEV use in state-owned fleet vehicles.180 California’s program relies heavily on BEVs as a part of a greater, comprehensive emissions reduction effort. New York has initiated a statewide effort to transition state-owned vehicles to AFVs, with BEVs as a part of their program. BEVs, however, are not readily available to the general public. In the last five years, large auto manufactures, including Ford, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, and General Motors, have offered both high and low-speed electric vehicles either to the public and fleet manager, or to fleets managers only. Nearly all of these programs have stopped, or had the scopes severely curtailed by the manufacturer. 176 According to the Alternative Fuels Data Center. 177 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board – GM EV1 1999 Fact Sheet. 178 California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board – Toyota RAV4 EV 2002 Fact Sheet. 179 Toyota website <http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/rav4/price/rav4_price.html>. 180 This list of state BEV programs is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all state-sponsored fleet procurement programs. It is meant to serve as an example of a few programs currently in operation around the United States.

66

DaimlerChrysler no longer offers their BEV version of the Dodge Caravan, called the Epic. Toyota no longer offers its EV version of the RAV4. Honda has ended their EV Plus program. Ford no longer offers the EV Ranger pickup outside of California. General Motors offers the EV1 and the S-10 pickup and both are available through dealerships in California and Arizona, or by special order throughout the United States. Ford’s Think! Program offers low-speed EVs like the Think Neighbor, and faster EVs like the Think! City. Currently, Ford has abandoned its electric vehicle program. The last limiting factor is insufficient infrastructure to support the ownership of BEVs by the general public. Range of operation, the first limitation of BEVs, necessitates the availability of recharge stations throughout the region of operational use. Table 23 shows the number of recharge stations in each state. It is not known how current the information from the Alternate Fuels Data Center (AFDC) is. The City of Ann Arbor recently installed an EV recharge station, yet the station does not appear in the AFDC’s recharge station database. It is likely that other recharge stations, recently added to the recharge station infrastructure have yet to be added to the AFDC’s database. The extent to which this is true is unknown.

Table 22: Electric Vehicle Near-Term Technologies: Well to Wheels Energy Consumption and Emissions

Light Duty Truck 1 Btu/mile or grams/mile


OperationTotal Energy 194 5,596 0 Fossil Fuels 185 4,841 0 Petroleum 63 71 0 CO2 15 437 0 CH4 0.622 0.006 0.000 N2O 0.000 0.006 0.000 GHGs 29 439 0 VOC: Total 0.031 0.006 0.000 CO: Total 0.021 0.060 0.000 NOx: Total 0.098 0.511 0.000 PM10: Total 0.018 0.051 0.021 SOx: Total 0.041 1.146 0.000 VOC: Urban 0.000 0.001 0.000 CO: Urban 0.001 0.009 0.000 NOx: Urban 0.002 0.035 0.000 PM10: Urban 0.000 0.004 0.000 SOx: Urban 0.001 0.060 0.000

Table 23: Number of BEV Recharge Stations181

State Number of Recharge Sites

Alabama 24 Arizona 25 California 545 Colorado 6 Georgia 24 Maryland 1 Massachusetts 25 Michigan 1 New Hampshire 12 New York 16 North Carolina 6 Texas 7 Vermont 11 Virginia 11

Fleet managers, local municipalities, city, state and federal agencies, and who have made a commitment to installing recharge stations have had success with BEVs. But with the recent

181 Recharge station information was provided by the Alternative Fuels Data Center’s Alternative Refueling Station Locator.

67

cancellation of many BEV programs on the part of automakers and the availability of highly efficient and less expensive HEVs, the future of BEVs may be bleak.

Sample Calculation Electric Vehicle:182 Wheel to wheels GHG emissions = 468 grams/mile183

CG vehicle: Wheel to wheels GHG emissions = 509 grams/mile184 Basis: 100,000 miles vehicle life

(509 g of CO2e/mile – 468 g of CO2e/mile) x (100,000 miles/vehicle life) x (1 metric ton/1,000,000 g)

= 4.1 metric tons of CO2e/vehicle life.

Quantifiable Reductions The City owns 5 E-Z-Go electric utility vehicles. It is extremely difficult to calculate the emissions reductions from the use of these vehicles. Any comparison between two comparable vehicles requires knowing the distance each vehicle traveled, and/or the amount of fuel/electricity each vehicle used. The distance traveled is unavailable for the E-Z-Go vehicles. The Research Team made the following assumptions in this calculation.

1. Each electric vehicle is recharged every night, regardless of its state of charge, and will require 5 kWhs each.

2. Each E-Z-Go is capable of traveling 15 miles on a full charge 3. An equivalent gasoline version is equipped with a 10 horsepower, 286 c.c.,

four cycle engine. 4. The gasoline version consumes 0.4 gallons per hour of operation, and travels

at an average speed of 8 miles per hour.185 5. Both vehicles travel 10 miles per day. 6. The exact electrical requirements and battery configuration of the particular

vehicles owned by the City is not known, E-Z-Go manufactures three basic utility vehicle configurations; a 24 volt, a 36 volt, and a 48 volt battery system each having 220 amp-hours. Using the median value of 36 volts at 220 amp-hours, each E-Z-Go will require 7,920 watts hours, or 7.92 kWh of electricity to fully recharge the vehicle. The calculation was performed as follows:

watts = volts x ampere -hours watts = 36 volts x 220 ampere-hours

182 The emissions for electric vehicles are dependant on the fuel mixture used to generate the electricity used to recharge the vehicle. Refer to Appendix O for the electrical mixture assumed when modeling using the GREET software. 183 Table 21 – GHG emissions: 439 + 29 g/mile = 468 g/mile. 184 Table 18 – GHG emissions: 401 + 77 + 31 g/mile = 509 g/mile. 185 Fuel consumption and engine specifications for the gasoline utility vehicle is based on the John Deer Gator utility vehicle.

68

= 7,920 watt-hours 7,920 watts-hours x 1kWh/1,000 watt-hours = 7.92 kWh

For five vehicles:

kWh x 5 vehicles = 39.6 kWh per recharge for 5 vehicles Using the basis of 10 miles per day, each electric and the gasoline powered utility vehicles will travel 3,652.5 miles each year. Using well to wheels GHG emissions factors: Electric vehicle: 468 grams of CO2e/mile Gasoline vehicle: 509 grams of CO2e /mile To determine the emissions savings the follow equation was used:

(509 g of CO2e/mile-468 g of CO2e/mile) x 365.25 miles/year x 1 metric ton of CO2e/1,000,000 grams of CO2e

=0.15 metric tons of CO2e per year per vehicle = 0.75 metric tons of CO2e per year Two of the BEVs have been in operation for 5 years. The other three BEVs have been in operation of 2.5 years. The total emissions reduction realized can be calculated as follows: 0.15 metric tons of CO2e per year x 22.5 vehicle years = 3.38 metric tons of CO2e

Biodiesel

Description of the Technology Biodiesel (BD) is a petroleum diesel alternative that has increased in popularity over the last decade as growing pressure on the diesel industry has necessitated a need to find cleaner burning fuels for diesel-powered vehicles. BD has several advantages over conventional diesel (CD). BD can be used in CD engines with little or no modifications. BD is a stronger solvent than CD. BD will clean and remove deposits throughout the fuel system. Initially the vehicle’s fuel filter may to be changed more often until the BD cleans out the deposits left behind by the CD. Once the system is clean, normal fuel filter replacement is all that is required. The second advantage of BD is, in its pure form (B100), it is a very safe fuel. It is a completely biodegradable, non-toxic, agriculturally-based fuel. BD is manufactured through the transesterification of vegetable oils. Figure 6 illustrates the method for the production of

69

BD. The BD feedstock is domestically produced, usually soybeans, reducing the dependence on imported oil. BD has significantly lower sulfur content than even ultra-low sulfur diesel. Another significant advantage of BD is it is a bio-based fuel. 95% total tailpipe CO2 emissions of B100 are sequestered when the subsequent year’s crop is grown.186 Because the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers BD an alternative fuel, users are eligible for EPAct credits. For every 450 gallons of B100 purchased, consumers receive one EPAct credit. Consumers who mix B100 with CD, need to assess their purchase and/or consumption in terms of B100. For example, a consumer purchases 2,250 gallons of B20 in a given year. S/He would be eligible for one EPAct credit because only 20% of the fuel purchased was B100.187

0.20 x 2,250 gallons of B20= 450 gallons of B100

Figure 6: Biodiesel Production Process188

Life cycle, well to wheels, emissions (including GHGs and particulates) from vehicles burning either B100, or a mixture of BD and CD (B80, or B20), are less than the emissions from a comparable vehicle burning only CD. Using the GREET model the Team analyzed the emissions from an LDT1 burning CD, LSD, B100, B80, and B20. Tables listing well to

186 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. p. 19. Total tailpipe emissions of B100 are 573.96 g/bhp-hr and total lifecycle biomass CO2 equals 543.34 g/bhp-hr. 187 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Information Series, Technical Assistance Fact Sheets. Biodiesel Offers Fleets a Better Alternative to Petroleum Diesel.

Biodiesel

70

wheels emissions and energy consumption are contained in Appendix O Greet Model inputs and Assumptions. Analysis of results indicate there is less than a one gram per mile reduction in GHG emissions by switching from CD to LSD. Switching to LSD greatly reduces SOx emissions.189

Table 24: GHG and Particulate Emissions from Conventional, Low-Sulfur & Bio-Diesels (g/mile)

Fuel CO2 CH4 N2O PM10 Total GHG190

B100 124 0.0973 0.0214 0.057 143 B80 205 0.395 0.04 0.057 225 B20 433 0.516 0.029 0.055 451 Conventional Diesel 532.53 14.57 0.025 0.126 552.74 Low-Sulfur Diesel 503 0.554 0.025 0.056 522

When low sulfur diesel is mixed with BD, GHGs are significantly reduced. Using B100, B80 and B20 instead of CD can reduce GHG emissions by 379.74, 297.74, and 71.74 grams per mile respectively. There is a significant cost increase associated with the purchase of biodiesel. Biodiesel can cost between $1.25 and $2.25 a gallon depending on the source, state taxes, and quantity purchased. If mixed with CD the cost differential can be reduced to between $0.13 and $0.22 a gallon for B20. It is important to note that the costs mentioned above are costs at the pump. For both BD and CD external costs are not represented here. External costs may include infrastructure, traffic, congestion, pollution, accidents, increase pesticide use, and cleanups.

Quantifiable Reductions The City of Ann Arbor purchased and consumed 60,000 gallons of B20 in 2001 and 70,158 gallons in 2002. The fuel was burned in a wide variety of light duty and heavy duty vehicle classes. This posed an enormous challenge for the Team. Each vehicle type and weight class consumes diesel fuels at different rates, and emits different quantities of emissions. Some vehicles, like refuse haulers, are constantly accelerating and decelerating. Heavy machinery may lift and haul heavy loads. For each vehicle type and weight class, separate emission profiles are created. The Team did not possess the resources, detailed information for individual vehicles refueling with B20, nor the time needed to analyze each vehicle’s emissions profile. Instead, by using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Update Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions Conversion Factors for MOBILE6, the Team was able to create an average for all diesel-using heavy-duty vehicles in the fleet. The Team made the following assumptions:

188 National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel Production and Quality. 189 Total SOx emissions from CD are 0.2005166 grams/mile. Total SOx emissions from LSD are 0.088 grams/mile. 190 Reported in grams/mile of CO2 equivalents.

71

1. CD conversion factor: 633.28 grams of CO2 per brake-horsepower hour191 2. BD conversion factor: 136.45 grams of CO2 per brake-horsepower hour192 3. Conversion factor: 2.128 brake-horsepower hours per mile193 4. Fuel Economy of heavy-duty diesel trucks: 9.11 miles/gallon194 5. All B20 was consumed in heavy-duty vehicles

a. None of the B20 was consumed in buses

Table 25: Quantification of Emissions Reductions from Fuel Switching Programs – Biodiesel

Fuel Type Calculations Total Emissions Units

Conventional Diesel 633.28 g/ CO2e 2.128 bhp-h 9.11 miles = 12,276.82 grams of CO2e/gallon

1 bhp-h 1 miles 1 gal.

Life Cycle Fossil CO2e emissions 633.28 g of CO2e / bhp-h

26,031.6 gallons X 12,276.82 = 319,585,182.71 grams of fossil CO2e by burning conventional diesel

Biodiesel 136.45 g/ CO2e 2.128 bhp-h 9.11 miles = 2,645.23 grams of CO2e/gallon 1 bhp-h 1 miles 1 gal.

Life Cycle Fossil CO2e emissions 136.45 g of CO2e / bhp-h

26,031.6 gallons X 2,645.23 = 68,859,585.30 grams of fossil CO2e emitted by burning biodiesel

Total = 250,725,597.41 grams of total fossil CO2e reduced by substituting 26,031 gallons of conventional diesel for an equal amount of biodiesel

= 250.73 Metric Tons of CO2e Using the equations in Table 25, the Team calculated that the City was able to reduce GHG emissions by 250.73 metric tons of CO2e by switching a portion of its diesel needs to BD.195 191 Conversion factor represents life cycle CO2 emissions for CD as reported in Lifecycle of Inventory of Biodiesel and Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus, May 1998. 192 Conversion factor represents life cycle CO2 emissions for BD as reported in Lifecycle of Inventory of Biodiesel and Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus, May 1998. 193 This conversion factor was derived by averaging the brake-horsepower hours/mile conversions factors for all heavy-duty vehicle classes during the years reported in Update Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions Conversion Factors for MOBILE6: Analysis of BSFCs and Calculation of Heavy-Duty Engine Emissions Conversion Factors. May 1998. 194 See Appendix O, Light Duty Truck 2: Dedicated vs. Bi-Fuel CNG Comparison for GREET input variables and assumption regarding this comparison. 195 This reduction is an absolute emission based on the substitution of 130,158 gallons of CD for the same quantity of BD during the City’s two-year BD fuel-switching program.

72

Currently, the quantity of BD does not satisfy the entire diesel fleet’s fuel needs. During the two years since the inception of this program BD has been used in the warmer months. Beginning in 2003 the City was awarded a grant from the state of Michigan, which will offset the purchase cost of BD for the City. The Energy Office intends to use the additional funds to expand the BD purchase program.

73

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Get! Downtown The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA) offers intra and inter-city bus service forthe Cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. In terms of GHG emissions, bus service provides residents with the opportunity to share the environmental impacts of a single vehicle. A bus with high ridership can replace the equivalent of 50 or more automobiles. AATA buses operate on low-sulfur diesel. A single bus can emit 2,923 grams of CO2 equivalents per mile.196 By comparison, a passenger car using CG emits 360 grams of CO2 equivalents per mile. A LDT1 1 using CG emits 543 grams of CO2 equivalents per mile.

Table 26: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Three Vehicle-Types

Vehicle Emissions of CO2e (grams/mile) Passenger Car 360 Light Duty Truck 1 543 City Bus 2,923

If one assumes that every bus rider would drive a passenger car instead, it would take only 8.12 bus riders to balance out the bus’s emissions. The Team also assumed that a person who rode the bus or drove in their automobile would travel the same distance no mater which vehicle they chose (personal vehicle or city bus).

2,923 g of CO2e/miles (city bus) --------------------------------------------------- = 8.12 360 g of CO2e/mile (passenger car)

However, it is not correct to assume that all bus riders drive passenger cars only. Approximately one-third of vehicles in the United States are LDT1. A larger percentage of LDT1 vehicles factored into the above calculation will reduce the number of bus riders needed to balance the emissions of a single city bus. Given this consideration, the equation below details why only 6.95 bus riders are needed to balance the emissions of a single city bus. 2,923 g CO2e /mile (city bus) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- = 6.95 (0.33 x 543 g CO2e /mile) + (0.67 x 360 g CO2e /mile) (LDT1) (passenger car)

196 Argonne National Labs – GREET 1.6a. The GREET software is designed to model the well to wheels emissions and energy use for light duty vehicles. AATA buses are heavy duty vehicles. The Team changed the assumptions used to calculate vehicle missions to reflect a heavy duty vehicle. Input assumptions used can be found in Appendix O.

74

As a method to encourage ridership on city buses, the AATA, the Downtown Development Authority, the Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, and the City of Ann Arbor developed the Get Downtown program. Get Downtown offers employers the option to purchase go!passes for their employees at a reduced rate. Go!passes grant pass holders unlimited access to the bus system. The passes cost employers only $5.00 dollars per year for every full-time employee. Currently there are 4,500 go!pass holders riding AATA buses. According to AATA ridership surveys, the average bus rider rides the bus 3.24 miles per day. The team assumed that go!pass holders were average riders and traveled 3.24 miles per day on normal commuting days (Monday-Friday). To calculate the GHG emissions reduction attributed to the go!pass program, the Team compared the emissions of AATA buses with the emissions of a mix of 33% LDT1s and 67% passenger cars. City buses are rarely at or near capacity. Using information from ridership surveys conducted by the AATA the Team assumed that each bus operating on any given day at any given time had an average of 6.9 people on board. Assuming 6.9 people per bus, it would take 652.17 buses running at once, each traveling 3.24 miles per day, to accommodate all of the go!pass holders. To determine the number of bus-miles traveled each day, the Team used the following equation. 652.17 buses x 3.24 miles/days = 2,113.03 bus-miles/days. Using the GHG emissions information from Table 26 above, an AATA bus emits 2,923 grams per mile. 2,113.03 bus-miles/day x 2,923 grams of CO2e/mile = 6,176,386.69 grams of

CO2e/day = 6.18 MTCO2e/day 6.18 MTCO2e/day x 235197 days/year = 1,452.30 MTCO2e/year Using the GHG emissions information from Table 26 above, a mix of 33% LDT1s and 67% passenger cars emit 420.39 grams of CO2 equivalents per mile. There are 4,500 go!pass holders. Each pass holder travels 3.24 miles per day. If the go!pass holders all drove personal vehicles they would emit 4,500 go!pass holders x 3.24 miles/day = 14,580 miles/day

14,500 miles/day x 420.39 grams of CO2e/mile = 61,296,286.20 grams of CO2e/day = 61.30 MTCO2e/day 61.30 MTCO2e/day x 235 days/year = 14,405.50 MTCO2e/year

197 235 days per year is the assumed number of days per year pass holders ride the bus. The number is derived from the number of weeks people work per year x 5 days/week. The team assumed that pass holders had 3 weeks vacation and 2 weeks of holidays/personal days off per year.

75

The difference between a go!pass holder riding the bus or taking their own vehicle is the total emissions reduction for the Get Downtown program.

14,405.5 MTCO2e/year - 1,452.3 MTCO2e/year = 12,953.20 MTCO2e/year

76

LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY PROJECT The Landfill Gas Recovery project has resulted in the largest portion of emission reductions for which the City can be accredited under the Current Scenario. The landfill first began as a gravel pit in the 1930s, officially becoming a City operation in 1959 (Phase I). Phase I closed in 1984, at which time the “modern” landfill (Phase II) opened, operating until 1992. The planning for the Landfill Gas Recovery project began in 1994 and was built in 1996 by DTE Biomass Energy. They bored 38 wells in Phase I and constructed a surface collection system in Phase II, at a cost of approximately $1 million. The gas flare was ignited in September 1996 and the electricity generation system was constructed in October of the following year by Michigan CoGeneration Systems at a cost of approximately $1.2 million. By April of 1998, the Landfill Gas Recovery system was operational and powering two 800 kW generators - enough electricity to power 1,000 households.

Table 27: Landfill Gas Recovery Project Overview

Year MMBtu MWh MTCO2e Diverted 1996 31,173.00 0.00 24,627.50 1997 133,290.00 0.00 102,737.16 1998 121,823.00 5,687.20 107,315.36 1999 89,895.00 5,415.10 82,559.11 2000 76,825.00 5,028.00 67,853.57 2001 67,099.00 5,371.33 62,551.21 2002 60,599.00 4,851.01 56,491.89

Total 580,704.00 26,352.64 503,535.81 A landfill gas recovery system is generally comprised of three major components: collection wells, a condensation collection system, and a compressor. Most also include a flaring device to burn excess gas or for use when the electricity generation system is down. Collection wells are typically constructed in vertical columns, however, in particularly deep landfills, or landfills which are still being filled, horizontal trenching is a viable option to maximize gas collection. However the collection wells are developed, they must be incorporated into a system of lateral piping, designed to enable control and monitoring of gas flow. A condensation collection system is necessary to remove fluids that result from the cooling of methane as it travels through the piping. If condensation is not collected it can cause a backup in the gas collection system. These systems typically exist within the piping, often in the form of concrete gutters through which the runoff exits the system at the periphery. This effluent is either directed to the Public Owned Treatment Works (POTW), or onsite treatment facilities. A blower and compressor work together to effectively move the landfill gas through the collection network and prepare it for energy extraction. The extent to which these components are used depends greatly on the size of the landfill and the physical properties of the landfill gas collected. The flaring scheme is a simple device; it directs the captured methane into a pipe where it is ignited as it exits. Flaring is most useful during startup and

77

downtime of a facility, and periods of transition where energy cannot be captured in electrical form.

Figure 7: Components of a Landfill Gas Collection System198

Ann Arbor’s Landfill Gas Recovery system works by trapping approximately 1 million cubic feet (Mcf) of gas each day, produced from anaerobically decomposing waste in the landfill. Landfill gas is typically comprised of 50% methane, 48% CO2, and 2% trace gases. The gas produced by Ann Arbor’s Landfill is particularly “wet”, therefore, six condensation traps have been built into the piping to remove moisture. The majority of the gas collected is burned in the generator engines, while excess gas is flared. The economic benefits of trapping landfill gas are exceptional. The City saves $20,000 a year because it no longer has to filter the gas emitted from the landfill in accordance with State law. DTE Biomass receives a federal tax credit for capturing the pollutant and using it as a source of energy. Landfill Energy Systems secured a $0.0575/kWh from DTE and pays the City $15,000/yr for landfill gas extraction rights.199 Since September of 1996 the Landfill Gas Recovery system has generated 26,352.64 MWh for a total income of nearly $1.5 million (in electricity sales alone). By displacing electricity that would have been traditionally generated by a more carbon intensive fossil fuel mixture (i.e. coal and oil) the City is responsible for saving 519,763.25 metric tons of CO2 equivalents over the course of 7 years – or approximately 74,251.89 metric tons CO2 equivalents per year200. An average passenger car emits 4.54 metric tons of CO2 equivalents annually. The Landfill Gas Recovery project has reduced the carbon intensity of the City equivalent to removing about 16,000 cars from the road each year. The recovery of landfill gas has been decreasing at approximately 10-15% per year over the last four years. The original approximations of recoverable landfill gas were overestimated. If this trend continues it can be expected that the landfill will be dry of recoverable resource in less than 8 years.

198 City of Ann Arbor Landfill Gas to Energy Project Facts 199 City of Ann Arbor Landfill Gas to Energy Project Facts. 200 Appendix Q is the actual landfill gas data measured by Landfill Energy Systems and reported to the City.

78

RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING The City of Ann Arbor, through a contract with Recycle Ann Arbor (a local non-profit organization), began offering residents a curbside recycling collection program in 1977.201 The City has also operated and maintained a recycling drop-off station for community residents since 1975. In 1991, the City officially expanded curbside recycling to all residents, including multi-family units.202 Ann Arbor currently provides 2 recycling bins to homeowners, and larger sized carts to multi-family dwellings. The current list of acceptable items for recycling include:

Table 28: Ann Arbor’s List of Acceptable Items for Recycling

Paper and Paperboard Products Containers Corrugated cardboard Glass Boxboard Plastic Bottles #1 & #2 Newspaper Scrap Metals Magazines Milk cartons and juice boxes Mixed paper Ceramics Phone books and paperback books Paper bags

The City also began collecting yard waste203 (leaves, branches, grass clippings, etc.) for composting in 1989.204 These materials are brought to Ann Arbor’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF), are ground, and then are processed into either mulch or compost. The City ultimately uses the end product or sells it to local businesses or residents.205 As mentioned previously, there are GHG emissions associated with the transportation of municipal solid waste, the subsequent decomposition of landfilled organic materials, and the upstream emissions associated with manufacturing the products. Similarly, GHG emissions are released from the transportation of recyclable and compostable materials to a MRF and, ultimately, to a remanufacturing facility or end user. 206 Yet, through recycling, the generation of methane as a result of material decomposition is avoided. In addition, there are significant energy savings from manufacturing a product with recycled material, as opposed to using 100% virgin resources. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WARM software accounts these GHG emissions reductions in its recycling coefficients (see Appendix R). It is important to state that the software unrealistically assumes that all recyclables are made into 100% recycled-content products. Therefore, the Team believes the software overestimates GHG emissions reductions from recycling.

201 Collection services at this time were only offered to sections of Ann Arbor. 202 Recycle Ann Arbor, <http://www.recycleannarbor.org/au/history.html>. 203 A Michigan law banning yard clippings from landfills became effective on March 28, 1995. 204 A Quick Guide to the City of Ann Arbor’s Resource Recovery Center, p. 2. 205 Ibid. 206 The transportation emissions from moving baled recyclable materials to a remanufacturing facility, and compost to an end user are not accounted for in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WARM Software.

79

The City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department provided the Team with the City’s recycling and composting data for the years 1991-2001.207

Table 29: Tons Recycled and Composted, Ann Arbor: 1991-2000

Year Recycling (tons)

Composting (tons)

1991 7,998.00 4,887.25 1992 8,414.50 6,783.75 1993 9,769.50 7,653.75 1994 10,710.25 8,687.25 1995 10,769.50 9,868.50 1996 13,623.00 10,922.00 1997 13,721.00 14,325.00 1998 12,796.00 11,514.00 1999 13,435.00 11,310.00 2000 14,375.00 11,987.00 2001 16,042.00 12,681.00

Table 30: Ann Arbor’s Diversion Levels, 1991-2001

Year Recycle Compost Total Diverted Waste Total Waste Generated % Diverted

1991 7,998.00 4,887.25 12,885.25 51,104.75 63,990.00 20.14% 1992 8,414.50 6,783.75 15,198.25 37,327.50 52,525.75 28.93% 1993 9,769.50 7,653.75 17,423.25 30,748.50 48,171.75 36.17% 1994 10,710.25 8,687.25 19,397.50 30,589.00 49,986.50 38.81% 1995 10,769.50 9,868.50 20,638.00 31,044.00 51,682.00 39.93% 1996 13,623.00 10,922.00 24,545.00 36,408.00 60,953.00 40.27% 1997 13,721.00 14,325.00 28,046.00 40,240.00 68,286.00 41.07% 1998 12,796.00 11,514.00 24,310.00 39,775.00 64,085.00 37.93% 1999 13,435.00 11,310.00 24,745.00 38,375.00 63,120.00 39.20% 2000 14,375.00 11,987.00 26,362.00 40,225.00 66,587.00 39.59% 2001 16,042.00 12,681.00 28,723.00 39,903.00 68,626.00 41.85%

Ann Arbor has achieved a relatively high waste diversion rate, which has appeared to level off at approximately 40% (see Table 30). Although Ann Arbor has clearly made significant waste diversion progress, composted materials make up nearly half of all diverted materials. Since these figures are reported in mass, it is likely that heavy, wet leaves collected in the Fall make up a large percentage of this figure and likely contribute to an inflated diversion rate. The Team then used the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WARM software to estimate the actual emissions avoided through the City’s recycling and composting efforts since 1991.208

207 2002 data was not available during the production of the Project.

80

Table 31: Ann Arbor’s GHG Emissions Reductions from Recycling and Composting

Year MTCO2e Emissions

Reductions from Recycling MTCO2e Emissions

Reductions from Composting Total 1991 20,983.02 977.45 21,960.47 1992 22,075.72 1,356.75 23,432.47 1993 25,630.61 1,530.75 27,161.36 1994 28,098.70 1,737.45 29,836.15 1995 28,254.14 1,973.70 30,227.84 1996 35,740.40 2,184.40 37,924.80 1997 35,997.50 2,865.00 38,862.50 1998 33,570.73 2,302.80 35,873.53 1999 35,247.17 2,262.00 37,509.17 2000 37,713.29 2,397.40 40,110.69 2001 42,086.72 2,536.20 44,622.92

TOTAL 345,398.00 22,123.90 367,521.90 For detailed assumptions and calculations see Appendix R. Even though composting makes up nearly one half of all waste diverted, this material does not contribute significantly to the CO2 equivalent emissions reductions. Composting materials both release methane and sequester CO2, resulting in a slight overall GHG emissions reduction. Overall, through its waste reduction efforts, the City has avoided the release of nearly 368,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents throughout a decade. Increased recycling and waste reduction efforts by the City could result in an even more significant GHG emissions reduction.

208 The Team did not evaluate GHG emissions savings from source reduction (i.e. less materials consumed through material reuse, etc.).

81

DISCUSSION Combined, all of the City energy savings programs initiated between the years 1991 and 2002 have noticeably reduced GHG emissions. If these measures had not been implemented, the City would have emitted 2,419,670 metric tons of CO2 equivalents rather than the actual 2,348,631 metric tons of CO2 equivalents emitted in 2002; a difference of 71,039 metric tons of CO2 equivalents.209 Overall, between 1991 and 2002, the City avoided releasing a total of 922,619 metric tons of CO2 equivalents. For a detailed listing of City programs and their associated GHG reductions, see Appendix L.

Figure 8: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1991-2002 with & without City Mitigation Efforts210

City programs have reduced GHG emissions in the following 3 sectors: transportation, municipal, and municipal solid waste management. The majority of total reductions can be attributed to the City’s Landfill Gas Recovery and recycling/composting efforts. As made apparent in Table 32 and Figure 9, the Landfill Gas Recovery project reached its peak, one year after initiation, in 1997. Since then, the methane recovery rate has declined steadily every year. The reductions attributed to this project will continue to decline from present date until all methane in the Ann Arbor landfill is exhausted. Therefore, in order to maintain or further reduce GHG emissions from MSW management, the City must increase resource recovery efforts. It is important to note that landfill gas was extracted at an expedited rate.

209 2002 recycling and composting data was not available, so the emissions reductions from these programs were not included in the total reductions from that year. 210 Since 2002 recycling and composting data was not available during the production of this Project, the Team assumed that recycling and composting tonnages would be the same in 2002 as in 2001 for the purposes of producing a more accurate graph.

1,900,000

2,000,000

2,100,000

2,200,000

2,300,000

2,400,000

2,500,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

MT

CO

2e

Actual GHGEmissions

GHGEmissionsWithout CityMitigationEfforts

82

Without this project, methane from the landfill would have been emitted naturally over a much longer timeline. The above graph (Figure 8) does not accurately reflect this fact.

Table 32: GHG Emissions Reductions from City Programs, 1991-2002 (MTCO2e)

Year Municipal Transportation MSW Total 1991 0.00 0.00 21,960.47 21,960.47 1992 0.00 0.00 23,432.47 23,432.47 1993 0.00 0.00 27,161.36 27,161.36 1994 0.00 0.00 29,836.15 29,836.15 1995 0.00 0.00 30,227.84 30,227.84 1996 0.00 0.00 63,612.47 63,612.47 1997 0.00 2.30 148,698.24 148,700.54 1998 220.91 3.66 145,628.13 145,852.70 1999 393.62 3,242.19 120,751.05 124,386.86 2000 422.89 6,481.50 111,022.05 117,926.44 2001 790.20 9,840.58 107,851.39 118,482.16 2002 837.15 13,098.43 57,103.53 71,039.11 TOTAL 2,664.76 32,668.66 887,285.15 922,618.57

Figure 9: Municipal Solid Waste Management GHG Reductions, 1991-2002

The most influential City transportation program that has reduced GHG emissions to date has been the AATA Get! Downtown public transportation program. Overall, annual GHG reductions have grown every year since transportation programs were first implemented in 1997 (as shown in Figure 10).211 Without the Get! Downtown program, these reductions would have been minimal. The City must consider increasing efforts to reduce transportation

211 The transportation reductions for 1997 and 1998, 2.3 and 3.7 metric tons of CO2 equivalents respectively, do not show up on the graph because they are so small.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

GH

G R

educ

tion

(MT

CO

2e)

83

GHG emissions, since presently, this sector’s emissions alone, account for nearly 25% of Ann Arbor’s total GHG emissions.

Figure 10: Transportation GHG Emissions Reductions 1997-2002

Figure 11: Municipal GHG Emissions Reductions, 1998-2002

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

GH

G R

educ

tion

(MT

CO

2e)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

GH

G R

educ

tion

(MT

CO

2e)

84

Programs implemented to improve the municipality’s energy efficiency have increasingly reduced GHG emissions since 1998 (see Figure 11). Although significant reductions have not been achieved, these efforts reduced the City’s GHG emissions in 2002 by 1.8%. The increase in reductions between 2000 and 2001 was due primarily to switching over a large proportion of traffic lights to LED light technologies. Although clearly the City has reduced GHG emissions throughout the last decade, Ann Arbor is far from curbing their annual growth trend. Further programs and policies must be implemented to reduce these emissions, and the City should focus on targeting sectors with high GHG emissions levels and growth (residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and U of M). The success of the City’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions to date has provided the municipality with evidence that these programs have recognizable impacts. The logical next step for the City is the adoption of an emissions reduction target and action plan.

85

INITIAL INVENTORY – CURRENT SCENARIO POPULATION AND GROWTH TRENDS The amount of GHGs emitted by a community is the product of its standard of living and population size, and over time, by its population growth. Therefore, the emissions projections in the Current and Progressive Scenarios are contingent upon Ann Arbor’s estimated population growth during that time period. Also, estimating and projecting the City’s population rates enabled the Team to evaluate Ann Arbor per capita GHG emissions generation rates over time. The City of Ann Arbor, located within Southeast Michigan’s Washtenaw County, 212 encompasses 27 square miles. In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated Ann Arbor’s population at 109,592 residents. By 2000, Census population estimates for Ann Arbor rose by 4%, totaling 114,024 residents. Assuming a linear trend, Ann Arbor’s population has grown slightly more than 0.4% annually. In contrast, during the same time period, the overall U.S. population rose by nearly 13%; at an average annual rate of 1.2%.213 Within Southeast Michigan, Ann Arbor has grown at a slow to moderate pace compared to other communities in the area. 214 Unlike the majority of its outlying communities, the majority of Ann Arbor has already been built, leaving less opportunity for further development. The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)215 estimates that Ann Arbor will experience moderate population growth over the next three decades.216 More specifically, the U.S. Census Bureau projects that Ann Arbor’s population growth rates will slow to an annual rate of 0.25% between 2000 and 2010, and then will increase to an annual growth of 0.37% during the following decade.217 These assumptions were used to project Ann Arbor’s population for the purposes of this Project (see Table 33).

212 Washtenaw County includes the Cities of Ann Arbor, Barton Hills, Saline, Whitmore Lake, Whittaker. Willis, and Ypsilanti; parts of Chelsea, Dexter and Milan; and the following Townships: Augusta, Bridgewater, Freedom, Lima, Lodi, Lyndon, Manchester, Northfield, Pittsfield, Salem, Scio, Sharon, Superior, Sylvan, Webster, and York. 213 U.S. Census Bureau, <http://www.census.gov/>. 214 Melaina, Marc, Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the City of Ann Arbor, p. 7. 215 Members of SEMCOG include Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. 216 Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), <http://www.semcog.org/>. 217 Melaina, Marc, Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the City of Ann Arbor, p. 7.

86

Table 33: Ann Arbor Population Size and Growth Rates

Year Population Growth Rate

( % per Decade) 1990 109,592 0 % 2000 114,024 4.04 % 2010 117,047 2.65 % 2020 121,426 3.74 % 2030 125,719 3.54 % 2040 129,891 3.32 % 2050 133,840 3.04 %

Beyond 2030 and 2050, the Team projected that annual population growth rates would decrease gradually over time due to a decrease in available land for development within the Ann Arbor city limits (see Table 33). Therefore, it is assumed that most of this growth will occur along the outlying edges of Ann Arbor and may likely expand beyond Ann Arbor’s borders.

Figure 12: Ann Arbor Population

City of Ann Arbor Population, 1990-2050

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

Pers

ons

87

ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Electricity Each of energy use sectors in the City of Ann Arbor (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Municipal government) receives electricity from DTE except for the University of Michigan.218 The U of M acquires electricity from the CPP and private suppliers (Engage Energy Company and Wisconsin Power Service).219 The CPP is a facility located on the central campus providing electricity, heating, cooling, and hot water to approximately 130 university facilities on campus using primarily uses natural gas, a less carbon intense fuel, to operate the boilers and gas turbines. GHGs from the CPP tend to be low compared to coal and oil fired power plant (see Appendix N for additional information). On the other hand, DTE supplies electricity to most of the consumers within Ann Arbor city limits. Due to cheap and abundant resources in the heart of the Midwest, DTE’s fuel mixture relies heavily on coal to generate electricity. Table 34 shows the fuel mixture for DTE, CPP compared to the U.S average. As shown in the Table 43, the difference in fuel mixtures explains why DTE’s electricity emissions profile is far more carbon intensive than most electricity emissions profiles across the country.

Table 34: Comparison of Fuel Mixture

Coal Natural gas Oil Nuclear Hydropower Renewables U.S. Average220 51.8 % 15.7 % 2.9 % 19.9 % 7.2 % 2.2 % DTE221 76.7 % 3.2 % 0.6 % 18.1 % 0.1 % 1.3 % CPP222 0 % 98.7 % 1.3 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Figure 13 indicates historical electricity consumption in the City of Ann Arbor. Total electricity consumption was 1,214,897,204 kWh in 1990, and 1,500,778,261 kWh in 2000. The average annual growth rate was 2.1% during this period. Per capital usage was 11,086 kWh in 1990 and 13,162 kWh in 2000. Compared to the U.S. average of 12,810 kWh per person in 2000,223 electricity consumption in Ann Arbor was slightly higher than the national trend.

218 The electricity suppliers have been diversified since 2001 due to the Customer Choice and Electric Reliability Act (2000 PA 141) in order to promote competition between generating companies supplying electricity in Michigan. There are 25 alternative electric suppliers in Michigan including Engage Energy Company and WPS Energy Services Inc. <http://www.cis.state.mi.us/mpsc/electric/restruct/esp/> However, the energy inventory for this Project focuses on electricity consumption before 2000. The Project assumes that the City of Ann Arbor is supplied primary by electricity from Detroit Edison. 219 The U of M Central Campus and Hospital receive their electric power from Engage Energy, a subsidiary of Duke Energy Trading and Marketing Company. The U of M North Campus receives its electric power from WPS (Wisconsin Public Service). 220 AER2000 Table 8.2 221 DTE website <http://www.dteenergy.com/community/environmental/fuelMix.html>. 222 Data for CPP refer to the average from 1996 to 1999 UM Utilities website <http://www.plantops.umich.edu/utilities/Utilities/CentralPowerPlant/>. 223 AER 2001, Table 8.1.

88

Figure 13: Historical Electricity Consumption in Ann Arbor

0.80

0.90

1.00

1.10

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

billi

on k

Wh

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Natural Gas Natural gas use has spread throughout most major urban areas and many rural areas in the U.S. because of increased natural gas pipeline construction during the 1950’s. Since then, natural gas has joined petroleum as one of the dominant energy carriers in the U.S. After having idle periods in the 70’s and early 80’s due to shortages and major price increases, natural gas consumption has increased nationwide. In 2000 the U.S. residential sector natural gas consumption accounted for about 24% of all end-use natural gas consumption in the market. Commercial, industrial, and electricity generation sectors accounted for 16%, 39%, and 21%, respectively, of natural gas consumption.224 On the other hand, as can be seen in Figure 14, natural gas consumption in the City of Ann Arbor is dominated by the residential and the commercial sectors. This trend may be due to the fact that Ann Arbor’s industrial sector is relatively small compared to the size of the residential and commercial sectors. The residential and commercial sectors consume natural gas for space heating, water heating, cooking and other natural gas-fueled appliances. Consumption levels in these sectors are influenced by climate patterns associated with space heating.

224 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Recent Trends and Prospects for the future, <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/oiaf0102.pdf>.

89

Figure 14: Natural Gas Consumption in 2000 by Sector

Figure 15: Historical Natural Gas Consumption in Ann Arbor225

As revealed by Figure 15, natural gas consumption in the City of Ann Arbor increased from 7,610,335 thousand cubic feet (mcf) to 8,046,649 mcf between 1990 and 2000. These figures indicate a 5.7% increase for the ten-year time period between 1990 and 2000, or 0.6% per year. In comparison, the national average annual growth rate is approximately 2.4%.226 The increase in natural gas consumption in Ann Arbor seems to be relatively steady. On a per person basis, the national average for natural gas consumption in 2000 was 80,875 cubic

225 The specific numbers described in this table are shown in Appendix I. 226 Energy Information Administration, U.S. Natural Gas Markets: Recent Trends and Prospects for the future, <http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/oiaf0102.pdf>.

Residential 54%

Commercial33%

Industrial 1%

Municipal 1% U of M

11%

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

Mill

ion

mcf

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

90

feet per person per year227, while per capita natural gas consumption in Ann Arbor was 70,570 cubic feet per person per year.

Petroleum Automobiles are the most widely used mode of transportation in regions of the United States where population densities and/or financial support do not make public transportation systems, such as railways and buses, easily accessible and/or convenient. Although there are a significant number of people in Ann Arbor, including many students, who do not drive motor vehicles on a daily basis, many Ann Arbor residents need to drive to their office, work, or school. Numerous local activities are highly dependent on the use of motor vehicles including freight trains and passenger buses. In 1997, approximately 81,000 vehicles traveled throughout the City of Ann Arbor at 10,761 miles/vehicle/year. These motor vehicles traveled approximately 873 million miles within Ann Arbor city limits in 1997.228 Table 35 illustrates the historical changes in VMT in Ann Arbor. VMT is an important indicator that shows the amount of petroleum consumption corresponding to total mileage traveled by all vehicles. Ann Arbor’s VMT amounted to 6,968 miles per person in 1990, and 7,979 miles in 2000; an average increase of 1.4% per year. Compared to the U.S. average VMT, Ann Arbor’s is slightly lower. However, Ann Arbor’s average growth rate is very close to the national average growth rate.

Table 35: VMT Comparison between Ann Arbor and the U.S.

Vehicle Mile Traveled per Capita Year Ann Arbor229 U.S. Average230 1990 6,968 8,596 2000 7,979 9,995

Growth Rate per Year 1.4 % 1.5 %

Assuming an average fuel economy during vehicle operation, petroleum consumption can be calculated based on VMT values between the baseline year 1990 and 2000.231 Petroleum consumption has increased from 47,725,748 gallons in 1990 to 55,094,895 gallons in 2000; an average annual increase of 1.6%. This increase is understandable in light of the annual increase in VMT and population. Petroleum consumption numbers represent a combination of gasoline and diesel fuel use.

227 Energy Information Administration, 2001) 228 Detailed data are described in Appendix J. 229 See Appendix J. 230 U.S. Average - U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 22, September 2002, Table 11.2 <http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/>. 231 The specific numbers described in this table are shown in Appendix J.

91

Figure 16: Historical Petroleum Consumption between 1990 and 2000 in Ann Arbor

40.00

42.00

44.00

46.00

48.00

50.00

52.00

54.00

56.00

Mill

ion

Gal

lons

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Year

92

CURRENT AND PROJECTED FUTURE GHG EMISSIONS BY SECTOR

Overview GHG emissions in the City of Ann Arbor are calculated based on three major energy carriers: electricity, natural gas, and petroleum. These energy carriers generate the most important GHG, CO2. CO2 is emitted as a byproduct of combustion. Additionally, CH4 derived from municipal solid waste is also inventoried. In combination, emissions from use and/or combustion of electricity, natural gas and petroleum along with GHG emissions from municipal solid waste are aggregated to determine total GHG emissions. Each energy carrier’s requisite GHG emissions contribution to the inventory’s GHG total is quantified based on historical consumption trends between the years 1990 and 2000. Projections are made to the year 2050 based on the Current Scenario. GHG calculations are quantified for seven energy use sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, municipal government, transportation, the University of Michigan, and municipal solid waste. The total GHGs are aggregated across all sectors for each year. These values are converted into CO2 equivalents based on global warming potentials.232

Recent Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends in Ann Arbor Figure 17 illustrates actual GHG emissions in the City of Ann Arbor between 1990 and 2000 based on the Current Scenario.233 GHG emissions for all sectors in Ann Arbor totaled to 1,951,858 metric tons CO2 equivalents in 1990 and 2,294,814 metric tons CO2 equivalents in 2000. The overall rate of change in GHG emissions between 1990 and 2000 was approximately a 1.6% increase per year. This overall rate of change is higher than to the national trend, which has a 1.3% annual growth rate.234 On a per capita basis, Ann Arbor’s GHG emissions amounted to 17.8 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 1990 and 20.1 metric tons CO2 equivalents in 2000. In comparison, U.S. national GHG emissions were approximately 20.2 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per capita in 1990 and 21.7 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per capita in 2000.

232 Global warming potentials used in this Project are from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). 233 The specific numbers described in this table are shown in Appendix K. 234 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000.

93

Figure 17: GHG Emissions in the City of Ann Arbor (Current Scenario)

Figure 18 shows projected future GHG emissions in the City of Ann Arbor.235 These projections of GHG emissions were established by examining the growth rates researched and reported by the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Reviews (AER) and Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). The projections are described in Appendix H and I.

Figure 18: Projection of GHG Emissions in the City of Ann Arbor (Current Scenario)

235 The specific numbers described in this table are shown in Appendix K.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Year

MT

CO

2e

1,500,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 1,900,000 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,200,000 2,300,000 2,400,000

MT

CO

2e

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

94

Total GHG emissions in the City of Ann Arbor may reach 2,584,618 metric tons of CO2e in 2010, and 2,878,741 metric tons of CO2e in 2020. This represents 22.1 and 23.7 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per person respectively. 236 The overall growth rate of total GHG emissions between 2000 and 2050 is estimated at approximately 0.85% per year. Compared with the baseline year, 1990, this projection indicates GHG emissions in the City of Ann Arbor would have increased by about 87% over this period if no additional emission mitigation measures were implemented after 1990.

Table 36: Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the City of Ann Arbor by Energy Use Sectors

1990

2000 Sector

MTCO2e % MTCO2e %

Growth rate (% per year)

Residential 486,957 24.9% 528,863 23.0% 0.8% Commercial 339,857 17.4% 420,383 18.3% 2.1% Industrial 316,968 16.2% 352,756 15.4% 1.1% Transportation 415,652 21.3% 501,766 21.9% 1.9% Municipal 47,866 2.5% 45,367 2.0% -0.5% U of M 319,713 16.4% 427,193 18.6% 2.9% Municipal Solid Waste 24,845 1.3% 18,487 0.8% -2.9% Total 1,951,858 100.0% 2,294,815 100.0% 1.6%

Figure 19: Ann Arbor’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector (2000)

Table 36 illustrates GHG emissions of the years 1990 and 2000 for the City of Ann Arbor by energy use sector. GHG emissions by economic sector for the entire U.S. are shown in Table 37. As can be seen, emissions from the residential sector accounted for the largest portion (23.1%) of GHG emissions for the City of Ann Arbor in 2000. In contrast, the industrial sector accounts for the largest share of entire U.S. GHG emissions. This difference may be 236 Based on projected populations in 2010 and 2020.

Residential23.0%

Commercial 18.3%

Industrial15.4%

Transportation 21.9%

Municipal 2.0%

U of M 18.6%

Municipal SolidWaste

0.8%

95

accounted for by the fact that Ann Arbor is a small urban area with very little industry. This analysis indicates that it is important to put emphasis on GHG mitigation measures for Ann Arbor’s residential sector.

Table 37: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Energy Use Sectors

1990

2000 Sector

TMTCO2e % TMTCO2e %

Growth Rate (%/ yr)

Residential 1,131.2 18.5 % 1,357.4 19.4 % 1.8 Commercial 890.7 14.5 % 1,113.8 15.9 % 2.3 Industrial 2,029.7 33.1 % 2,054.7 29.3 % 0.1 Transportation 1,530.5 25.0 % 1,879.7 26.8 % 2.1 Agriculture 520.5 8.5 % 557.7 8.0 % 0.7 U.S. territories 28.1 0.5 % 38.0 0.5 % 3.1 Total 6,130.7 100 % 7,001.2 100 % 1.3

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2000, Table ES-5

Figure 20: GHG Emissions in 2000 by Sector (the United States)

Transportation Sector The transportation sector in the City of Ann Arbor includes all privately-owned, community-owned, municipally-owned and U of M-owned fleet vehicles, as well as vehicles owned by the Ann Arbor public schools and the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority. According to the study completed by the University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable Systems Material Flow Analysis Study in 1997, there were 81,112 total automobiles in the City of Ann Arbor in 1997. The aggregate VMT of these vehicles was estimated to be approximately 872 million

Residential19.4%

Commercial 15.9%

Industrial29.3%

Transportation 26.8%

Agriculture8.0%

U.S. territories0.5%

96

miles. Total gasoline consumption was predicted to be about 53 million gallons.237 GHG emissions produced from the transportation sector were calculated based on the total gasoline consumption that occurred within the city limits of Ann Arbor. The methodology for estimating GHG emissions is explained in Appendix J. Table 38 illustrates the actual GHG emissions from the transportation sector in Ann Arbor. The transportation sector represents the second largest contributor of GHG emissions in Ann Arbor. This trend reflects a similar national trend and is likely due to U.S. cultural dependency on private transportation. This sector’s GHG emissions increased 20.1% from 1990 to 2000, or 1.9% annually. This increase in GHG emissions could be due to the increase of VMT and the increased number of automobiles within the City. The increase in automobiles may be connected to population growth in the community.

Table 38: Transportation Sector, Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Emissions238

1990 2000 Growth Rate Vehicle Miles Traveled 763,611,964 923,495,230 1.9 % Total gallons of fuel 46,363,811 55,969,408 1.9 % GHG emissions (MTCO2e) 415,652 501,766 1.9 %

Projections Figure 21 illustrates the future GHG emissions for the transportation sector based on the Current Scenario. These projections were developed based on the analysis of future growth rates for Ann Arbor’s VMT per person, population growth, and improvements to the national average fuel economy. Appendix J outlines and explains this analysis. The reference case projection in the Annual Energy Overview 2003 (AEO2003) indicates that transportation energy consumption in the United States will grow annually at a rate of 2.0% between 2001 and 2025. In the case of Ann Arbor, GHG emissions are projected to increase, reaching a combined 42.3% growth between 2002 and 2050, or 0.7% annually. The annual growth rate for GHG emissions in Ann Arbor will be slower than the national trend. However, this projection indicates that GHG emissions in the transportation sector will increase by about 76.8% if no emission mitigation measures were undertaken compared with the baseline year of 1990. This growth could be caused by a constant increase in VMT and population, although fuel economy is expected to improve due, in part, to new, more fuel-efficient automotive technologies.

237 The specific numbers detailed in this table come from Appendix J. 238 In petroleum consumption calculation, fuel economy is assumed as 16.47 miles per gallon between 1990 and 2000 based on the actual data analysis (Appendix J, Table J-1). This number seems to be relative small compared to national automobile Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, which values vary in vehicle classification. However, the Team decided that it is practical to adapt 16.47miles per gallon as fuel economy since this value is based on the calculation from real data, and it involves all types of vehicles (old and new cars). See Appendix j for more for more detailed information.

97

Figure 21: Projected GHG Emissions in Transportation Sector (Current Scenario)

Residential Sector There are 47,281 residential units in the City of Ann Arbor including single-family and multifamily buildings.239 In this Project, GHG emissions for the residential sector encompass two sources, electricity and natural gas consumption. Electricity consumption includes lighting, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration and powering an array of other household appliances. Natural gas consumption, the other contributor of GHG emissions for this sector, is used mainly for cooking, space heating, and water heating. As shown in Table 39, electricity consumption in the residential sector increased 1.9% yearly between 1990 and 2000, while natural gas consumption remained nearly stable during the same period. This outcome may be attributed to existing mitigation programs the City has already completed. In 2000, GHG emissions associated with electricity and natural gas consumption resulted in 528,863 metric tons of CO2 equivalents. The growth rate from 1990 to 2000 was approximately 0.8% per year.

Table 39: Ann Arbor’s Energy Carrier Consumption and GHG Emissions in Residential Sector

1990 2000 Growth Rate Electricity (kWh) 249,571,212 300,513,065 1.9 % Natural Gas (mcf) 4,440,019 4,394,496 -0.1 % GHG emissions (MTCO2e) 486,957 528,863 0.8 %

239 U.S. Census 2000.

516,390580,176

655,930 677,349 702,536 734,857

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

MT

CO

2 Equ

ival

ents

98

Projections Figure 22 illustrates GHG emissions projected for Ann Arbor’s residential sector between 2002 and 2050. GHG emissions are projected to increase from 534,880 to 640,841 metric tons of CO2 equivalents during this period; an average annual increase of 0.4%. The growth rate of Ann Arbor’s GHG emissions seems to be diminutive compared to the national trend described in Annual Energy Outlook 2003. The national trend estimates residential energy consumption will grow at an average rate of 1.0% per year between 2001 and 2025. Various kinds of residential appliances are designed to be energy efficient. The EnergyStar Program certifies that “energy-efficient” devices actually meet real efficiency standards. EnergyStar establishes and maintains standards of efficiency for a wide range of devices including: air conditioners, refrigerators, and water heaters. Energy use for refrigeration has declined by 1.3% per year from 1990 to 1997 and is expected to decline by about 1.4% per year through 2025.240 New, more stringent efficiency standards, may have had a significant effect on residential energy consumption.

Figure 22: Projected GHG Emissions in Residential Sector (Current Scenario)

Commercial Sector There were 8,192 commercial units241 within the city limits of Ann Arbor in 1999 including retail shops, restaurants, hotels, wholesale businesses, and other service enterprises. Energy consumption in the commercial sector includes energy for space heating, cooling, water heating, lighting, refrigeration, and associated office work such as personal computer

240 Annual Energy Review 2003, p. 57. 241 Appendix D.

534,880 556,988585,357 608,244 626,573 640,841

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

MT

CO

2 Equ

ival

ents

99

operation. However, lighting accounts for the majority of commercial energy consumption.242 GHG emissions for the commercial sector indicate that this sector has the most rapidly growing emissions of all sectors in this decade. The commercial sector produced 339,857 metric tons of CO2 equivalent GHG emissions in 1990 and 420,383 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2000. The increase over this decade was 23.7% growth above 1990 levels, or 2.2% growth annually. This development may be associated with a robust economic growth in the United States during this period.

Table 40: Ann Arbor’s Energy Carrier Consumption and GHG Emissions in Commercial Sector

1990 2000 Growth Rate Electricity (kWh) 229,887,870 297,568,942 2.6 % Natural Gas (mcf) 2,290,307 2,641,232 1.4 % GHG emissions (MTCO2e) 339,857 420,383 2.2 %

Projections The Annual Energy Outlook 2003 predicts overall a 1.6% yearly growth in U.S. commercial energy demand between 2001 and 2025, which is the same rate of increase predicted for commercial floor space. In the case of Ann Arbor, GHG emissions in the commercial sector are projected to increase in line with the national trends. Based on the Current Scenario, GHG emissions would grow from 435,188 metric tons of CO2 equivalents to 775,424 metric tons of CO2 equivalents between 2002 and 2050, an average annual rate of 1.2%. According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2003, end use energy consumption in the commercial sector would continue to grow as commercial markets expand. In particular,

Figure 23: Projected GHG Emissions in Commercial Sector (Current Scenario)

242 Annual Energy Outlook 2003, p. 59.

435,188494,181

571,087644,227

712,627775,424

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

MT

CO

2 Equ

ival

ents

100

energy use for personal computers is projected to grow by 3.0% per year. Energy use for other office equipment, such as copiers, fax machines, and larger computers, is predicted to grow by 4.2% per year.243 Although it is likely that the efficiency of office equipment will improve, demand and energy consumption is predicted to exceed any technological efficiency improvements.

Industrial Sector The industrial sector encompasses manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and forestry. However, manufacturing makes up the largest part of this sector. There were 132 sites registered as industrial in Ann Arbor in 1999.244 Major industrial companies in Ann Arbor include Pfizer Global Research & Development, Borders Group Inc, and Domino's Pizza Inc. The largest portion of industrial sector employees are employed by the University of Michigan. End use GHG emissions from the U.S. industrial sector decreased slightly, 0.5%, between 1990 and 2000, although the growth of domestic industrial output increased by about 49%. At the same time the overall U.S economy also grew by about 32%.245 Ann Arbor’s, industrial sector produced 316,968 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 1990 and 352,756 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2000; an average increase of 1.1% per year. While the industrial sector accounts for the largest share of entire U.S. GHG emissions (29.3% in 2000), Ann Arbor’s industrial sector occupies a relatively small portion for total GHG emissions in this inventory. This tendency might be due to small urban area with little industry compared to national trends.

Table 41: Ann Arbor’s Energy Carrier Consumption and GHG Emissions in the Industrial Sector

1990 2000 Growth Rate Electricity (kWh) 358,245,821 398,826,647 1.1 % Natural Gas (mcf) 48,503 52,054 0.7 % GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 316,968 352,756 1.1 %

Projections Primary energy use in the industrial sector for the entire United States is projected to increase by 1.3% per year between 2001 and 2025.246 In Ann Arbor, GHG emissions in the industrial sector are projected to increase from 359,159 to 543,712 metric tons of CO2 equivalents between 2002 and 2050; an average annual increase of 0.9% based on the Current Scenario.

243 Projected growth rates for energy use of personal computer and other office equipment are relatively high (3.0% and 4.2% respectively), however, overall growth rate for U.S. commercial sector would be 1.6% per year. This is because energy consumption from office equipment is a small portion of the total energy use in the commercial sector. 244 Appendix D. 245 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000. 246 Annual Energy Outlook 2003, p. 60.

101

Improvements to the industrial sector’s energy intensity (the ratio of the energy consumed by all industries in the sector in relation to total production) may be a key strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Historically, total energy consumption in the U.S. industrial sector grew by only 1% between 1980 and 2001, although industrial shipments increased by 45% between 1980 and 2001. Thus production efficiencies derived from the improvement of energy intensity should be investigated as a part of GHG mitigation efforts.

Figure 24: Projected GHG Emissions in Industrial Sector (Current Scenario)

Municipal Government The municipal government sector includes ten municipal departments in the City of Ann Arbor.247 Electricity and natural gas consumption in these departments are included in the GHG inventory. Between 1990 and 2000, electricity consumption was reduced by 0.7% per year due, in part, to several mitigation measures that the City undertook during this period. Although natural gas consumption increased at an average annual rate of 1.0% in this period, total GHG emissions were reduced at an average rate of 2.3% yearly. GHG emissions in this sector are responsible for approximately 2% of all GHG emissions in Ann Arbor.

Table 42: Ann Arbor’s Energy Carrier Consumption and GHG Emissions in Municipal Government

1990 2000 Growth Rate Electricity (kWh) 50,025,191 46,681,772 -0.7 % Natural Gas (mcf) 66,457 73,596 1.0 % GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 47,866 45,367 -0.5 %

247 Detailed information for the ten municipal department is described in Appendix D.

359,159385,664

424,128463,506

503,542543,712

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

MT

CO

2 Equ

ival

ents

102

Projections

Figure 25 illustrates the future growth of GHG emissions for the municipal government sector. Based on the Current Scenario, GHG emissions are projected to increase from 46,798 to 86,565 metric tons CO2 equivalents between 2002 and 2050; an average annual increase of 1.3%. It is assumed that the growth rate expected for this sector will match the expected growth rate for the commercial sector between 2002 and 2050.

Figure 25: Projected GHG Emissions in Municipal Government (Current Scenario)

University of Michigan GHG emissions from the University of Michigan include the consumption of two energy carriers, electricity and natural gas. Natural gas is consumed at the Central Power Plant (CCP) on the University of Michigan’s central campus. Raw material input is excluded from the GHG emission inventory because the electricity produced by the CPP has accounted for this life cycle stage and is included in the inventory.248 Table 43 details the quantity of electricity both purchased from private providers249 and generated on site at the CPP. The table reveals that electricity generation for both the CPP and private providers dramatically increased between 1990 and 2000. Natural gas consumption on the central campus increased as well over the same time period. As a result,

248 Greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity production are attributed to the electricity produced in the CPP and not for the mixture of fuels used to produce the electricity. The team used this method to avoid double counting emissions associated with electrical production at the CPP. Natural gas consumption listed in this table is not associated with the production of electricity at the CPP but is used for other purposes on campus. 249 The U of M Central Campus and Hospital receive their electric power from Engage Energy, a subsidiary of Duke Energy Trading and Marketing Company. The U of M North Campus receives its electric power from WPS (Wisconsin Public Service).

46,79853,970

63,13371,693

79,53286,565

010,00020,000

30,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000

90,000100,000

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

MT

CO

2 Equ

ival

ents

103

GHG emissions have increased from 319,713 to 427,193 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in this period; an average increase of 2.9% per year. The increase in GHG emissions may be due to the increase in campus population and physical size (an increase in the square footage of the campus). From 1990 to 2000, the campus population, including students, faculty, and staff grew from 57,629 to 62,750 people; an increase of 9%. The total building area also increased 20.2% in this period. 250 These factors may explain the growth of energy consumption in the University of Michigan.

Table 43: Energy Carrier History and GHG Emissions for the University of Michigan

1990 2000 Growth Rate

Electricity (kWh)

254,979,960 (purchased)

72,187151 (CPP)

312,537,733 (purchased)

144,650,102 (CPP)

2.1 %

7.2 %

Natural Gas251 (mcf)

765,070 885,270 1.5 %

GHG emissions (MTCO2e)

319,713 427,193 2.9 %

Projections GHG emissions generated by activities at the University of Michigan are projected to increase from 437,761 to 703,278 metric tons of CO2 equivalents between 2002 and 2050, an average annual increase of 1.0%. This prediction is based on a scenario that energy consumption at the U of M will maintain the same growth rate as the commercial sector. It is important to note that actual GHG emissions growth in the U of M sector may be higher than the commercial sector as the U of M continually adds square footage (new buildings) to the Ann Arbor Campus that may be more energy intensive per square foot than the commercial sector due to the construction of new laboratories. Appendices H and I detail how historical energy carrier consumption at the U of M was used to project future GHG emissions.

250 Sustainability Assessment and Reporting for the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor Campus. 251 Natural gas consumption listed in this table is not associated with the production of electricity at the CPP but is used for other purposes on campus.

104

Figure 26: Projected GHG Emissions for the University of Michigan (Current Scenario)

Municipal Solid Waste Management The management of Ann Arbor’s municipal solid waste generates GHG emissions both through the transportation of materials to landfills at end-of-life and the subsequent release of CH4 emissions from the decomposition of organic solid waste. 252 The Team’s GHG estimates from solid waste management also include the upstream emissions generated from burning fossil fuels to acquire raw materials, manufacture, and then distribute products (see Appendix G for related assumptions and calculations). The Team also incorporated the sequestration potential (the ability to store carbon long-term) of all landfilled materials into our overall estimates of solid waste-related GHG emissions.253 During the last decade, Ann Arbor’s solid waste has been disposed of in two separate landfills, the Ann Arbor Landfill and the Woodland Meadows Landfill located in Canton, Michigan and operated by B.F.I. The Ann Arbor Landfill was officially sealed and capped in 1993 and holds 2.75 million tons of disposed materials.254 Since that time, all Ann Arbor trash has been transported to the B.F.I. landfill. In the Current Scenario, the Team examined Ann Arbor’s landfilled waste to quantify GHG emissions from municipal solid waste management. In 1990, Ann Arbor residents disposed of 54,059 tons of municipal solid waste. Total solid waste disposal decreased by nearly 26%

252 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Reusable News: The Link Between Climate Change and Waste Management, Fall 2001, p. 2. 253 The upstream emissions and sequestration potentials are embedded in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency WARM Software. 254 City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department, A Quick Guide to the City of Ann Arbor’s Resource Recovery Center.

437,761494,789

559,550615,706

663,382703,278

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

MT

CO

2 Equ

ival

ents

105

to a total of 40,225 tons in the year 2000 due to the City’s material recovery efforts.255 During this same time period, per capita disposal rates also decreased by nearly 19%, from 2.7 pounds to 1.93 pounds per day. It is important to note that the daily waste disposal rate of an Ann Arbor citizen in the year 2000 (1.93 pounds) is considerably less than the national rate in the same year, 3.83 pounds person per day.256 This means that the GHG emissions generated from Ann Arbor’s municipal solid waste management likely make up a smaller proportion of total City emissions compared to other U.S. communities.

Table 44: Total Ann Arbor Waste Landfilled, 1990 and 2000

Year Total Waste Generation (Tons) Lbs/Day/Ann Arbor Resident

1990 54,059 2.70 2000 40,225 1.93

Source: Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department Annual Reports, 2000-2001 In 1990, Ann Arbor’s solid waste management resulted in the generation of 24,845 metric tons of CO2 equivalents. By the year 2000, total GHG emissions decreased by 28% to 18,487 metric tons. On an annual basis, Ann Arbor’s solid waste management generated the least GHG emissions when compared to the other sectors examined in this Project.

Table 45: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ann Arbor’s MSW

Year GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)

1990 24,845 2000 18,487

Projections Using City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department waste disposal data, the Team projected future waste disposal rates and the associated GHG emissions from the years 2002 to 2050 for the Current Scenario. 257 The Team assumed per capita waste disposal rates would remain constant over time (see Appendix G for related assumptions and calculations). Therefore, the GHGs generated from solid waste management increase continuously at a rate based on the City’s estimated population growth during those years (see Figure 27).

255 Materials recovery includes recycling and composting. 256 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Final Report. 257 2002 Ann Arbor waste disposal figures were not available during the production of this Project.

106

Figure 27: Projected GHG Emissions for MSW (Current Scenario)

In the Current Scenario, GHG emissions growth rates coincide directly with projected population growth rates - an average of 0.3% annually. Between 2002 and 2050, the Team estimates that GHGs associated with Ann Arbor’s waste management will grow by 16.8% and will total to 978,331 metric tons of CO2 equivalents without improved City waste reduction efforts.

18,454.65

18,849.53

19,554.79

20,246.05

20,917.93

21,554.01

17,500

18,000

18,500

19,000

19,500

20,000

20,500

21,000

21,500

22,000

2002 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050Year

Met

ric

Ton

s CO

2 Equ

ival

ents

107

DISCUSSION The largest GHG emitter between the years 1990 and 2002 was Ann Arbor’s residential sector followed by transportation, commercial, U of M, industrial, municipal, and MSW management. Even so, during this time period, the sector to experience the largest growth in GHG emissions was the University of Michigan, at 36.9%. This is likely due to the continual expansion of the University campus. Other sectors to experience large growth rates during this time period included the commercial (28.1%) and transportation (24.4%) sectors. The Team projects that GHG emissions will grow at variable rates for each sector between the present date and 2050 (see Tables 46 and 47). Currently, the largest GHG emitter in Ann Arbor is the residential sector followed by transportation, U of M, commercial, industrial, municipal, and MSW management respectively. Table 46: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Transportation Sectors

(Current Scenario)

Residential

Commercial Industrial Transportation Year MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth1990 486,957 N/A 339,857 N/A 316,968 N/A 415,652 N/A

2000 528,863 0.83% 420,383 2.15% 352,756 1.08% 501,766 1.90%

2010 556,988 0.52% 494,181 1.63% 385,664 0.90% 580,176 1.46%

2020 585,357 0.50% 571,087 1.46% 424,128 0.96% 655,930 1.23%

2030 608,244 0.38% 644,227 1.21% 463,506 0.89% 677,349 0.32%

2040 626,573 0.30% 712,627 1.01% 503,542 0.83% 702,536 0.37%

2050 640,841 0.23% 775,424 0.85% 543,712 0.77% 734,857 0.45%

Table 47: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Municipal, University of Michigan, and Municipal Solid Waste

Sectors (Current Scenario)

Municipal U of M

MSW Total

Year MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth MTCO2e Growth1990 47,866 N/A 319,713 N/A 24,845 N/A 1,951,858 N/A

2000 45,367 -0.53% 427,193 2.94% 18,487 -2.91% 2,294,814 1.63%

2010 53,970 1.75% 494,789 1.48% 18,850 0.19% 2,584,618 1.20%

2020 63,133 1.58% 559,550 1.24% 19,555 0.37% 2,878,741 1.08%

2030 71,693 1.28% 615,706 0.96% 20,246 0.35% 3,100,971 0.75%

2040 79,532 1.04% 663,382 0.75% 20,918 0.33% 3,309,110 0.65%

2050 86,565 0.85% 703,278 0.59% 21,554 0.30% 3,506,232 0.58%

By 2050 this order, again, is predicted to shift to some degree. In 2050 the Team projects that the commercial sector will be the largest GHG emitter followed by transportation, U of M, residential, industrial, municipal, and MSW management. Overall, between 2003 and 2050, the municipal sector’s GHG emissions are predicted to experience the largest growth (81.5%) among all sectors, even though they only account for a small proportion of the City’s total GHG emissions. Similarly, the Team estimates that the commercial sector’s GHG emissions will also experience a similar growth rate between these years (75.2%).

108

Based on these findings, the Team believes that the City’s mitigation measures should focus primarily on reducing GHG emissions from the largest sector emitters. These would include foremost the following sectors: commercial, transportation, residential, industrial, and U of M. By targeting these sectors specifically, larger future reductions can be achieved.

Figure 28: GHG Emissions by Sector (Current Scenario)

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

MT

CO

2e

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Year

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Transportation Municipal U of M MSW

109

PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO INTRODUCTION The Progressive Scenario is a framework that can be used by the City for the development of a GHG Reduction Action Plan. While the Current Scenario details the course the City took between 1990 and today, and predicts where the City will be in 2020 and beyond, the Progressive Scenario illustrates a series of options the City can implement to reduce GHG emissions. The Progressive Scenario will redirect the path of the City towards a future where total GHG emissions are lower in 2020 than they were in 1990. Prior to developing a set of mitigation measures, the Team set the goal of achieving a GHG reduction of 7% below 1990 emissions levels in 2020. Total GHG emissions in 1990 were 1,951,858 metric tons CO2 equivalents. Projected 2020 total GHG emissions will be 2,878,741 metric tons of CO2 equivalents. The following equation was used to establish the quantity of GHG emissions reductions needed to meet the specified target (986,602 tons of CO2 equivalents).

(2020 GHG emissions – [1990 GHG emissions - (1990 GHG emissions x 7%]) = Total Emissions to be reduced

The Team then established a Start Year when the City will begin implementing reduction measures and a Target Year when all mitigation measures should be fully implemented. Recognizing that the City will need time to develop and initiate implementation strategies, the Team set the Start Year for 2005 and the Target Year for 2020. Through research of other strategies the Team developed 29 viable mitigation measures for the Progressive Scenario. These measures were developed based on the following criteria:

1. Measures cannot pre-exist; and, 2. Measures must make geographic and political sense for the City of Ann Arbor; and 3. Measures must be relatively cost effective with a reasonable payback; or, 4. Measures must make use of progressive technology; or, 5. Measures must have significant greenhouse gas reduction potential

It is important to note that the list of possible programs from which the Team selected the 29 measures to include in this Project was not an exhaustive list (Appendix U contains a selection of 240 mitigation measures extracted from local GHG reduction plans and does not contain all measures evaluated by the Team). Aside from the 29 proposed measures, there are many other GHG reduction programs that the City could implement. Clearly, more aggressive GHG mitigation programs do exist that work beyond those proposed by the Team, e.g., in the areas of building retrofits and further clean transportation fuel substitution options. But the Team chose these 29 measures in order to provide the City of Ann Arbor with a framework to develop implementable programs. In creating the list of 29 measures,

110

the Team passed over many opportunities for significant GHG reductions and omitted many programs if they did not conform to the five criterions listed above. Measures are divided into five broad categories: Community Outreach and Education, Energy Conservation, Transportation, Solid Waste Management, and Other.

Community Outreach and Education: These measures encourage the development of programs that educate the community about climate change drivers and the impact of personal behavior on GHG emissions. It is important to note that while the direct quantifiable benefits of Community Outreach and Education programs may be small and depend upon voluntary participation, the long-term, unquantifiable benefits can be substantial.

Significant research and analysis beyond the scope of this Project is necessary to understand these hidden benefits.

Energy Efficiency: These measures encourage sectors to replace older, less efficient technology, with newer, less energy intensive models. Other methods to decrease building energy consumption, as well as programs to effectively switch from carbon-based fuels to non-carbon based renewable sources of

energy, are also examined. Programs detailed in this category often employ incentive and volunteer-based methods to promote these changes.

Transportation: These measures reduce transportation sector GHG emissions in three different ways. First, programs create incentives for individuals to find alternatives to low-occupancy transportation options, which are mainly passenger cars, and light duty trucks (both averaging less than two occupants). By encouraging people to use high-occupancy

transportation options (trains, buses, and carpools) the impact of GHG emissions is divided among each occupant by encouraging high-occupancy transportation options (trains, buses, carpools, etc.), the greater the occupancy, the lower the GHG emissions per occupant. The second type of program encourages people to use less carbon intensive fuel sources, or alternatives to conventional fuels that have no direct GHG emissions. Examples of these types of programs include the transition toward NG powered vehicles or encouragement of bicycle use. The third type of program encourages participants to simply consume less fuel. For example, driving a car fewer miles per year or purchasing an HEV will decrease GHG emissions by reducing the amount of gasoline expended. All three strategies result in either a reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled, or a reduction in the quantity of fuel consumed.

Solid Waste Management: These measures attempt to address methods to reduce the total amount of landfilled materials each year by increasing Ann Arbor’s waste recovery efforts. Waste recovery efforts include: source reduction, reuse, recycling, and composting. Expanding waste recovery efforts reduces the associated upstream life cycle GHGs emitted through the

acquisition of virgin raw materials and manufacturing.

111

Other: These measures are unquantifiable programs that the City has no authority over, but should publicly support. These measures are typically state and federal programs that will reduce GHG emissions on a larger, geographic scale. At the local level, the City should support the efforts of state and federal decision-makers working to implement these measures. For example, the City could draft a letter to Congressional lawmakers articulating their support for increasing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) for all passenger cars and light trucks. Each measure details a specific program, quantifies the associated GHG emissions reductions and identifies which individual sectors are affected by each measure. Some measures work to reduce GHG emissions in several sectors while others target a specific sector only. Icons at the top right of each measure indicate the sector(s) where GHG reductions take place. The Team used the following icons to identify each sector.

The City of Ann Arbor

The Industrial Sector

The Commercial Sector

The Residential Sector

The University of Michigan

Five factors are quantified (where appropriate) for each measure. (1) Initial Cost is the startup cost needed to purchase and/or install materials or infrastructure. The dollar costs are reported in terms of money spent by the City only. Costs to other sectors are not reported due to high variability and insufficiency in data sources. (2) Annual Cost is the continued dollar cost incurred by the City each year as a result of the specific measure and are reported for the City only. (3) Annual Cost Savings are the dollars saved by the City on an annual basis as a result of the specific measure. (4) Payback is the number of subsequent years from the Start Year it will take for the measure to repay any initial and/or annual costs. Some measures have a very short payback period because the annual cost savings is large in comparison to the initial and annual costs. If the annual cost savings of a program is less than the annual cost of the program, then the payback was reported as “N/A” (None Assumed). If a measure has no initial or annual costs but has annual savings, the Team reported “0” as the length of the payback period. (5) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction in 2020 is the total quantity of GHGs reduced by the measure when it is fully implemented in the year 2020. The GHG reduction was reported in metric tons of CO2 equivalents. It is important to note that the degree of precision implied by the number of

112

significant digits in the emissions reduction calculations do not accurately reflect the actual emission reductions do to inherent uncertainties associated with projecting data. To develop and quantify each mitigation measure, the Team listed data and assumptions used to structure each program. Within the Data and Assumptions section of each measure actual data is identified with an asterisk. Data not directly referenced in the Reference portion of the measure came directly from this Project. Assumptions made for each measure were based on an assessment of similar assumptions made in other local and state GHG reduction strategies, and/or our own professional judgment. The data and assumptions are divided into two sub-sections. (1) General are those used to frame the structure of the program. These assumptions are based upon real data when available. Data that was pulled directly from our Research Project (such as the number of Ann Arbor residential units) was not listed under General Assumptions in order to avoid redundancy. Equations employed in the Data and Calculations section of each measure specify exactly what data was used to make each calculation. (2) Cost are the assumptions used to estimate the dollar costs incurred by the City to implement and annually maintain each program. The equations used to determine the dollar costs incurred by the City are contained in the Data and Calculations section of each measure. Double counting the GHG reductions from each measure can incorrectly inflate the aggregate GHG emissions reductions achieved. To reduce the likelihood that emissions reductions are double counted, the team deliberately underestimated the rates of participation in each measure where participation was a consideration. Using this technique, the Team could, with greater confidence, count the entirety of GHG emissions reduction benefits from each measure. The justification for using this approach to avoid double counting emissions reductions is that the Team could not accurately predict nor estimate the impact participation and subsequent emissions reductions could have on other measures that work to reduce emissions in a similar manner. The Team developed a matrix to summarize the vital information from each mitigation measure. The matrix groups the measures by their general categories: Community Outreach and Education, Energy Efficiency, Transportation, Solid Waste Management, and Other. The sectors affected by each measure are marked with an “X”. The matrix includes a brief description for each measure as well as the Initial and Annual Costs, Annual Cost Savings, Payback, and CO2 equivalent reductions for each measure. For further analysis Table 48 on page 194 illustrates the cost per metric ton of CO2 equivalent for each of the 29 measures. The cost per CO2 equivalent may vary from initial implementation and subsequent years due to annual cost accruement. Estimations for cost per CO2 equivalent is are often inconsistent from one study to another. For example according to our analysis, the Compact Fluorescent Bulb Program will have a cost of $9.80/MTCO2e, while a similar program in the Brookline, MA plan estimated cost to be $101.46/MTCO2e. Variance in cost analysis results from distinctions among the assumptions drawn in order to frame each measure. The Brookline plan takes into account the costs to residents who are purchasing the bulbs themselves, rather than having a coupon provided by the City.

113

In order to realistically predict how the sum total of GHG reductions would affect the total Current Scenario GHG emissions projections in any given year, the Team needed to address two key issues: the rate at which programs are implemented between 2005 and 2020, and how the reduction for any given year will be applied across all the sectors affected by each measure. To address the first issue it was necessary to establish rates of implementation for the mitigation measures. The Team could not reasonably assume that all of the measures would be fully implemented by the Start Date – 2005. It is likely that measures will slowly be implemented over a long time period. It is also likely that some measures will be more easily implemented than others. The ramp-in schedule established by the Team assumes a linear trend. While it is unlikely that any proposed schedule for implementation will accurately reflect the actual schedule, the total GHGs reduced in 2020 will remain the same regardless of the ramp-in schedule as long as the Start Year and Target Year remains the same. The team will address alternate Target Years in the conclusion. For the purposes of this analysis, programs will be implemented at an incremental rate of 6.25% per year. By the end of 2005, the GHG reductions realized will be:

Total GHG Reduction in 2020 x (6.25% x 1 year(s) of implementation to date) = GHG Reduction in 2005

The GHG reduction in 2010 will be: Total GHG Reduction in 2020 x (6.25% x 6 year(s) of implementation to date)

= GHG Reduction in 2010 Using this method, reductions for any year can be determined. The number of years of implementation is determined as follows: subtract the year for which GHG reductions are desired (e.g. 2005 or 2010) from the Start Year and add 1. Example: (The year desired – Start Year) +1 = Years of implementation to date To determine the percent of total GHGs reduced in any given year for each sector for which the measure applies, the Team established a year-dependent ratio for each sector. The ratios were determined by dividing the sector total GHG emissions for a given year by the total GHGs for all sectors during that same year. The ratios are year-dependent because the percent of total GHG emissions for any sector is projected to change between 2005 and 2020. Therefore, any sector’s requisite percent of total GHG emissions varies from year to year. This yearly variation is considered in the Team’s implementation schedule. The Team used the equations in the following example to distribute GHG reductions across sectors. Applying the GHG reductions for a hypothetical measure affecting three sectors (Sectors X, Y, and Z) to an individual sector (Sector X) in 2005: Step 1: Total GHG Reduction in 2020 x (6.25% x 1 year(s) of implementation to date)

= GHG Reduction in 2005

114

Step 2: Sector X GHG emissions in 2005 / Total GHG Emissions in 2005 = The Ratio for Sector X in 2005 Step 3: (GHG Reduction in 2005 x The Ratio for Sector X in 2005) / (The Ratio for Sector X

+ The Ratio for Sector Y + The Ratio for Sector Z) = GHG Reduction for Sector X in 2005

Note: Ratios for Sectors Y and Z can be determined using the same method that was used for Sector X

115

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS MEASURES

Community Outreach and Education Measures

Green Youth Corps Program

Description of Measure Developing a summer program to hire City teens to work on beautification and tree planting projects will increase the total number of trees in Ann Arbor, thus increasing CO2 sequestration.. Data and Assumptions General 1. 30 teenage workers are engaged for 8 weeks, 5 days/week 2. Planting rate: 100 trees/day 3. Tree mixing rate: 2,000 conifers and 2,000 hardwoods (60% fast, 20% medium and slow

for both species) 4. CO2 sequestration in 2020 (16th year from 2005) is the same value as 2019 (Since the

sequestration calculation software is unable to input values for more than 15 years) Trees are typical, nursery-raised trees, sold in a 15-gallon container or balled and burlapped

Costs

1. Tree price: $80.00/100 trees* 2. Order unit: 100 trees* 3. Purchase price for hardwoods and conifers is the same 4. Payment for tree planting instructor: $30.00/hr 5. Payment for student worker: $8.00/hr

116

Green Youth Corps Program

Calculations General

Tree Type Mixing Ratio Trees Conifer (50%) Fast (60%) 1,200 Medium (20%) 400 Slow (20%) 400

Tree Type Mixing Ratio Trees Hardwood (50%) Fast (60%) 1,200 Medium (20%) 400 Slow(20%) 400 Total 4,000 Sequestration Summary

Year

GHG Emissions Reduced

(MTCO2e in 2020) 2005 10 2006 23 2007 40 2008 61 2009 85 2010 113 2011 145 2012 182 2013 222 2014 267 2015 316 2016 369 2017 425 2018 486 2019 550 2020 550

117

Green Youth Corps Program Costs Initial Costs

Price ($/100 trees) Trees Order Unit Initial Cost

80 4,000 40 $3,200.00 Price x order unit = initial cost Annual Costs

Workers Working

(hrs/day) Work Time

(days/yr) Wage ($/hr)

Additional Cost

Annual Cost

Instructor 1 8 40 30 $250.00 $9,850.00Student 30 8 40 8 0 $76,800.00Total $86,650.00 Workers x work time x working days + additional cost = annual cost Initial Cost: $3,200.00Annual Cost: $86,650.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 550 MTCO2e References 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Carbon Sequestration

Workbook ver. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/techassist.html>

118

Tree Distribution and Planting Partnership

Description of Measure Developing a partnership with local growers to distribute native trees to the community will increase the total number of trees in Ann Arbor, thus increasing sequestration of CO2.

Data and Assumptions General 1. Commercial units in Ann Arbor: 8,192* 2. Residential units in Ann Arbor (owned): 20,685* 3. Industrial sites in Ann Arbor: 132* 4. Participation rate: 10% 5. Tree planting rates: 1 tree/commercial unit/yr, 1 tree/housing unit/yr, and 10

trees/industrial unit/yr 6. Tree planting mix rate: 50/50 conifer and hardwood , involving 60% fast growing, and

20% medium and 20% slow growing 7. CO2 sequestration in 2020 (16th year from 2005) is the same value as 2019

(Since the sequestration calculation software is unable to input values for more than 15 years)

8. Trees are typical, nursery-raised trees, sold in a 15-gallon container or balled and burlapped

Costs

1. Tree price: $80/100 trees * 2. Purchase price for hardwoods and conifers is the same 3. Order Unit: 100 trees*

119



Sector Sites Participation Trees Commercial 8,192 819 819 Residential 20,685 2,069 2,069 Industrial 132 13 132 Total 3,020 Commercial sites x 10% x 1 tree/sites/yr = trees in commercial sector Residential sites x 10% x 1 tree/sites/yr = trees in residential sector Industrial sites x 10% x 10 trees/sites/yr = trees in industrial sector

Tree Type Mixing Ratio Trees Conifer (50%) Fast (60%) 906 Medium (20%) 302 Slow (20%) 302 Hardwood (50%) Fast (60%) 906 Medium (20%) 302 Slow (20%) 302 Total 3,020

120


Sequestration Summary

Year


(MTCO2e in 2020) Year


(MTCO2e in 2020) 2005 8 2013 168 2006 18 2014 202 2007 30 2015 238 2008 46 2016 278 2009 64 2017 321 2010 85 2018 367 2011 110 2019 415 2012 137 2020 415

Costs

Price ($/100 trees) Trees Order Unit Initial Cost

80 3,020 31 $2,480.00 Price x order unit = initial cost Initial Cost: $2,480.00Annual Cost: $0.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 415 MTCO2e References 1. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Carbon Sequestration

Workbook ver. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/techassist.html> 2. <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/nurseries/pricelist.html>

121

Heating and Cooling Education Program

Description of Measure Developing an outreach program to educate residents on efficient heating and cooling practices. This program will be developed and managed by a City employee who will educate residents on setting their thermostats to a lower temperature during the winter, and setting the thermostat to a higher temperature during the summer. This will reduce residential energy consumption.

Data and Assumptions General 1. Participation rate: 10% 2. AC units affected: 25% 3. Heating units affected: 100% 4. Reducing heating temperature by 2° F produce 0.00855 MTCO2e/yr of GHG emissions

reduction* 5. Increasing AC temperature by 2° F produce 0.00196 MTCO2e/yr of GHG emissions

reduction* Costs

1. Price of electricity: $0.095/kWh* 2. Price of natural gas: $0.583/100 scf* 3. These seminars would require 10% of a full-time staff member's time annually 4. Employee's salary: $45,000 5. Employee's benefits and administration costs are an additional 60% of salary

122



Residential

Units Participation Units

Affected


(MTCO2e in 2020) Heating 47,218 4,722 4,722 41Cooling 47,218 4,722 1,180 2Total 43 Electricity Residential units x 100% x 0.00855 MTCO2e/yr = GHG reduction from space heating in 2020 Natural Gas Residential units x 25% x 0.00196 MTCO2e/yr = GHG reduction from air conditioning in 2020 Costs Electricity

Electricity Reduced per Unit

(kWh/yr)

Heating Units

Affected Annual Cost

Savings 141.6 4,722 $3,897.98

Annual MTCO2e reduction / 0.0604 MTCO2e/mcf x 1000 scf/mcf = saved natural gas/unit Natural gas reduction per unit x # of heating units x $0.583/100 scf = annual cost saving from natural gas Natural Gas

Natural Gas Reduced per Unit

(scf/yr)

Heating Units

Affected Annual Cost

Savings 2.24 1,180 $251.20

123


Annual MTCO2e reduction / 0.008766 MTCO2e/kWh = electricity reduction/unit Electricity reduction/unit x # of affected unit x 0.095 $/kWh = annual cost saving from electricity Annual Costs

Employee Annual Salary

Cost Including

Benefits and Admin.

Total Annual Costs

$45,000 $72,000 $7,200 Initial Cost: $0.00Annual Cost: $7,200.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 43 MTCO2e References 1. Energy Conservation Center <http://www.eccj.or.jp/dict/liv1.html> 2. Energy Office, City of Ann Arbor

124

Climate Change Education Program

Description By developing a climate change education curriculum for the Ann Arbor public schools, children can learn not only about the science behind climate change, but also, how they can help reduce their impact. This program would be taught to 4th through 12th graders. Although this program does not appear have a significant impact in quantifiable terms, clearly there is a long term benefit to educating children on the relationship between energy use and climate change.

Data and Assumptions General 1. Total number of 4th through 12th graders in Ann Arbor: 11,640* 2. Participation rate: 30% of students 3. Per capita electricity use in Ann Arbor: 2,666 kWh/yr* 4. Students will decrease their electricity demand by 10% Calculations General

Participants

Energy Savings per Student

(kWh)

Energy Reduced

(kWh)


(MTCO2 in 2020) 3,492 266.6 930,967.20 816.09

Total number of students x 30% participation = participants Per capita electricity use x 10% = kWh saved/participant kWh saved/person x participants = total kWh saved Total kWh saved x 0.0008766 MTCO2e/kWh = GHG emissions reduction in 2020

125

Climate Change Education Program

Initial Cost: N/AAnnual Cost: N/AAnnual Cost Savings: N/APayback (years): N/A

Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 816 MTCO2e References 1. Ann Arbor Public Schools Homepage <http://aaps.k12.mi.us>

126

Ene

rgy

Con

serv

atio

n M

easu

res

G

reen

Bui

ldin

g D

esig

n Se

min

ars

D

escr

iptio

n of

Mea

sure

Dev

elop

ing

a bi

-ann

ual c

ours

e fo

r bui

lder

s, co

ntra

ctor

s, an

d de

velo

pers

on

ener

gy e

ffic

ient

bui

ldin

g de

sign

and

con

stru

ctio

n ca

n en

cour

age

cont

ract

ors t

o de

velo

p te

chni

ques

to re

duce

exi

stin

g st

ruct

ure

ener

gy d

eman

ds.

This

cour

se w

ould

also

enc

oura

ge

build

ers a

nd d

evel

oper

s to

mee

t req

uire

men

ts sp

ecifi

ed in

the

ener

gy e

ffic

ient

bui

ldin

g co

des.

Dat

a an

d A

ssum

ptio

ns

Gen

eral

1. T

his p

rogr

am w

ould

affe

ct re

nova

tions

, add

ition

s, re

pairs

acr

oss a

ll se

ctor

s 2.

5 o

f the

286

com

mer

cial

reno

vatio

ns a

re in

dust

rial (

the

City

bui

ldin

g de

pt. d

oes n

ot tr

ack

indu

stria

l dat

a)

3. 5

mun

icip

al re

nova

tions

occ

urre

d in

200

0 (th

e C

ity b

uild

ing

dept

. doe

s not

trac

k m

unic

ipal

dat

a)

4. 2

U o

f M u

nits

are

reno

vate

d (u

nits

x 2

.2%

x 2

5%)

5. D

ue to

this

prog

ram

, ren

ovat

ions

in a

hom

e or

resi

denc

e w

ill d

ecre

ase

elec

tric

ity a

nd n

atur

al g

as c

onsu

mpt

ion

by 5

% fo

r tha

t un

it

127

Gre

en B

uild

ing

Des

ign

Sem

inar

s

Cos

ts

1. O

rgan

izin

g an

d pr

omot

ing

thes

e se

min

ars w

ould

requ

ire 1

0% o

f a fu

ll-tim

e st

aff m

embe

r's ti

me

annu

ally

2.

Em

ploy

ee's

sala

ry: $

45,0

00

3. E

mpl

oyee

's be

nefit

s and

adm

inist

ratio

n co

sts a

re a

n ad

ditio

nal 6

0% o

f sal

ary

4. E

lect

ricity

cos

ts fo

r the

mun

icip

ality

: $0.

095/

kWh*

5.

Nat

ural

gas

cos

ts fo

r the

mun

icip

ality

: $8.

07/m

cf*

Cal

cula

tions

G

ener

al

Sect

or

Ren

ovat

ion

Perm

its

Uni

ts

Tot

al

Ele

ctri

city

(k

Wh)

Ele

ctri

city

per

U

nit

(kW

h)

Ele

ctri

city

C

onsu

mpt

ion

Ren

ovat

ed

(kW

h)

Red

uctio

n fr

om

Prog

ram

(k

Wh)

GH

G

Em

issi

ons

Red

uced

(M

TCO

2e in

20

20 )

Res

iden

tial

2,64

8 47

,218

376,

061,

740

7,96

4.37

21

,089

,658

.34

1,05

4,48

2.92

924

Com

mer

cial

28

1 8,

192

422,

318,

925

51,5

52.6

0 14

,486

,281

.48

724,

314.

0763

5In

dust

rial

5 13

247

9,68

0,48

63,

633,

943.

08

18,1

69,7

15.3

890

8,48

5.77

796

Mun

icip

al

5 15

065

,634

,719

437,

564.

79

2,18

7,82

3.97

109,

391.

2096

U o

f M

2 43

545

7,18

7,83

51,

051,

006.

52

2,30

8,79

8.57

115,

439.

9310

1T

otal

2,

553

Ele

ctri

city

Tot

al e

lect

rici

ty /

unit

s =

elec

tric

ity/

unit

Ele

ctri

city

/uni

t x o

f re

nova

tion

perm

its =

ele

ctri

city

con

sum

ptio

n of

ren

ovat

ed u

nits

E

lect

rici

ty c

onsu

mpt

ion

of r

enov

ated

uni

ts x

5%

= e

lect

rici

ty r

educ

tion

from

pro

gram

Elec

trici

ty re

duct

ion

from

pro

gram

x 0

.000

8766

MTC

O2e

/kW

h =

GH

G e

mis

sions

redu

ced

in 2

020

128

G

reen

Bui

ldin

g D

esig

n Se

min

ars

Sect

or

Ren

ovat

ion

Perm

its

Uni

ts

Tot

al

Ele

ctri

city

(m

cf)

Ele

ctri

city

per

U

nit

(mcf

)

Nat

ural

Gas

C

onsu

mpt

ion

Ren

ovat

ed

(mcf

)

Red

uctio

n fr

om

Prog

ram

(m

cf)

GH

G

Em

issi

ons

Red

uced

(M

TCO

2e in

20

20)

Res

iden

tial

2,64

8 47

,218

4,23

3,37

589

.66

237,

408.

9811

,870

.45

717

Com

mer

cial

28

1 8,

192

3,32

5,79

640

5.98

11

4,08

0.65

5,70

4.03

345

Indu

stria

l 5

132

60,2

7245

6.61

2,

283.

0311

4.15

7M

unic

ipal

5

150

92,6

7161

7.81

3,

089.

0315

4.45

9U

of M

2

435

885,

270

2,03

5.10

4,

070.

2120

3.51

12T

otal

1,

090

Nat

ural

Gas

Tot

al n

atur

al g

as /

unit

s =

natu

ral g

as/u

nit

N

atur

al g

as/u

nit x

ren

ovat

ion

perm

its =

nat

ural

gas

con

sum

ptio

n of

ren

ovat

ed u

nits

N

atur

al g

as c

onsu

mpt

ion

of r

enov

ated

uni

ts x

5%

= n

atur

al g

as r

educ

tion

from

pro

gram

Elec

trici

ty re

duct

ion

from

pro

gram

x 0

.060

4 M

TCO

2e/m

cf =

GH

G e

miss

ions

redu

ced

in 2

020

C

osts

Em

ploy

ee

Ann

ual

Sala

ry

Cos

t In

clud

ing

Ben

efits

and

A

dmin

. E

mpl

oyee

T

ime

Tot

al

Ann

ual

Cos

ts

$45,

000

$72,

000

10%

$7,2

00

129

G

reen

Bui

ldin

g D

esig

n Se

min

ars

E

nerg

y R

educ

ed

(kW

h/yr

) C

ost

($/k

Wh)

Tot

al C

ost

Savi

ngs

($/y

r)

Ene

rgy

Red

uced

(m

cf/y

r)

Cos

t ($

/mcf

)

Tot

al C

ost

Savi

ngs

($/y

r)

10

9,39

1 $0

.095

$1

0,39

2.16

15

4 $8

.07

$1,2

46.4

2

Ener

gy re

duce

d x

cost

= to

tal c

ost s

avin

gs

In

itial

Cos

t:

$0

.00

Ann

ual C

ost:

$7

,200

.00

Ann

ual C

ost S

avin

gs:

$11,

638.

59Pa

ybac

k (y

ears

):

N/A

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Red

uctio

n 20

20:

3,

643

MT

CO

2e

R

efer

ence

s

1. C

ity o

f Ann

Arb

or B

uild

ing

Perm

it D

epar

tmen

t 2.

Ene

rgy

Off

ice,

City

of A

nn A

rbor

3.

Bro

oklin

e M

assa

chus

etts

, Loc

al A

ctio

n Pl

an o

n C

limat

e C

hang

e, F

ebru

ary

2002

130

W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n

Des

crip

tion

of M

easu

re

D

evel

opin

g a

com

preh

ensi

ve p

rogr

am to

enc

oura

ge a

nd fa

cilit

ate

the

inst

alla

tion

of w

ater

-con

serv

ing

fixtu

res a

nd a

pplia

nces

in a

ll se

ctor

s of A

nn A

rbor

will

dec

reas

e gr

eenh

ouse

gas

em

issio

ns b

y re

duci

ng th

e am

ount

of w

ater

trea

ted

at th

e W

ater

Tre

atm

ent P

lant

(W

TP) a

nd W

aste

Wat

er T

reat

men

t Pla

nt (W

WTP

). T

his

mea

sure

will

also

redu

ce th

e en

ergy

dem

and

requ

ired

to h

eat h

ot w

ater

ac

ross

all

sect

ors.

Dat

a an

d A

ssum

ptio

ns

G

ener

al

1. C

umul

ativ

e re

duct

ion

in w

ater

use

: 10%

2.

Por

tion

of to

tal w

ater

use

that

is h

ot w

ater

: 30%

3.

Ave

rage

tem

pera

ture

of h

ot w

ater

: 120

ºF

4. A

vera

ge te

mpe

ratu

re o

f col

d w

ater

: 50º

F 5.

Ave

rage

ann

ual e

lect

ricity

con

sum

ptio

n at

WW

TP: 1

3,71

7,55

1 kW

h*

6. A

vera

ge a

nnua

l ele

ctric

ity c

onsu

mpt

ion

at W

TP: 7

,731

,911

kW

h*

7. A

vera

ge d

aily

qua

ntity

of t

reat

ed w

ater

at t

he W

WTP

: 19.

1 m

illio

n ga

llons

/day

* 8.

Ave

rage

dai

ly q

uant

ity o

f tre

ated

wat

er a

t the

WTP

: 16.

8 m

illio

n ga

llons

/day

* 9.

Fue

l to

heat

wat

er: n

atur

al g

as

131

W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n

C

osts

1. A

vera

ge a

nnua

l ele

ctric

bill

for W

WTP

: $76

3,08

8.56

* 2.

Ave

rage

ann

ual e

lect

ric b

ill fo

r WTP

: $45

5,29

9.23

* 3.

Run

ning

this

prog

ram

wou

ld re

quire

1 fu

ll-tim

e st

aff

4. E

mpl

oyee

's sa

lary

: $45

,000

5.

Em

ploy

ee's

bene

fits a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

cost

s are

an

addi

tiona

l 60%

on

top

of th

is am

ount

6.

Thi

s pro

gram

will

occ

upy

10%

of a

full-

time

empl

oyee

's tim

e

C

alcu

latio

ns

G

ener

al

E

lect

rici

ty

Tre

ated

E

lect

rici

ty

Fac

ility

(k

Wh/

yr)

(gal

lons

/yr)

(k

Wh/

gall

on)

Wat

er T

reat

men

t Pla

nt

7,73

1,91

1.16

6,12

9,00

0,00

0 0.

0012

6152

9

W

aste

Wat

er T

reat

men

t Pla

nt

13,7

17,5

51.2

06,

973,

000,

000

0.00

1967

238

Faci

lity

kWh

/ gal

lons

trea

ted

= #

of k

Wh/

gallo

n

Q

uant

ity

Hea

ted

Wat

er

Ene

rgy

R

educ

tion

Mod

e (g

allo

ns/y

r)

(gal

lons

/yr)

T

emp.

Ris

e (°

F)

(MM

Btu

/yr)

Few

er g

allo

ns h

eate

d 6,

129,

000,

000.

0018

3,87

0,00

0 70

.00

106,

736

132

W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n

Q

uant

ity =

tota

l gal

lons

trea

ted

Gal

lons

x te

mpe

ratu

re ri

se x

8.2

928

btu/

yr =

ene

rgy

to h

eat w

ater

Ann

ual g

allo

ns tr

eate

d x

redu

ctio

n ra

te =

qua

ntity

of w

ater

Ann

ual g

allo

ns o

f tre

ated

wat

er a

t the

WTP

x 3

0% =

hea

ted

wat

er

Te

mpe

ratu

re ri

se =

tem

p end

- te

mp s

tart

Ene

rgy

Nat

ural

Gas

E

mis

sion

s G

HG

Em

issi

ons R

educ

ed

R

educ

tion

Mod

e (M

MBt

u/yr

) (M

TCO

2e/M

MBt

u)

(MTC

O2e

in 2

020)

Few

er g

allo

ns h

eate

d 10

6,73

60.

0219

1 2,

339

En

ergy

x 0

.058

81 M

TCO

2e/M

MB

tu =

GH

G e

mis

sions

redu

ctio

n in

202

0

Red

uctio

n M

ode

Qua

ntity

(g

allo

ns/y

r)

Red

uced

(g

allo

ns/y

r)

Ene

rgy

(kW

h/ga

llon)

GH

G

Em

issi

ons

Red

ucti

on

(MTC

O2e

in 2

020)

Fe

wer

gal

lons

trea

ted

at W

TP

6,12

9,00

0,00

0.00

612,

900,

000

0.00

1261

529

678

Few

er g

allo

ns tr

eate

d at

WW

TP

6,97

3,00

0,00

0.00

697,

300,

000

0.00

1967

238

1,20

2

Tr

eate

d w

ater

at W

WTP

+ tr

eate

d w

ater

at W

TP =

qua

ntity

Gal

lons

redu

ced

x kW

h/ga

llon

x 0.

0008

766

MTC

O2e

/kW

h =

GH

G e

mis

sions

redu

ctio

n in

202

0

133

W

ater

Con

serv

atio

n

Cos

ts

Red

uced

U

nit C

ost

Savi

ngs

Faci

lity

(gal

lons

/yr)

($

/gal

lon)

($

)

W

ater

Tre

atm

ent P

lant

61

2,90

0,00

0.00

$0.0

0007

4 $4

5,52

9.92

Was

te W

ater

Tre

atm

ent P

lant

69

7,30

0,00

0.00

$0.0

0010

9 $7

6,30

8.86

Ann

ual g

allo

ns tr

eate

d / a

nnua

l cos

t to

treat

= u

nit c

ost/g

allo

n

Em

ploy

ee's

Ann

ual S

alar

y

Cos

t Inc

ludi

ng

Ben

efits

and

A

dmin

. E

mpl

oyee

Tim

e T

otal

Ann

ual

Cos

ts

$45,

000

$72,

000

10%

$7

,200

.00

Initi

al C

ost:

$0

.00

Ann

ual C

ost:

$7

,200

.00

Ann

ual C

ost S

avin

gs:

$121

,838

.78

Payb

ack

(yea

rs):

0

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Red

uctio

n 20

20:

4,

219

MT

CO

2e

R

efer

ence

s

1. C

ity o

f Ann

Arb

or e

lect

ricity

and

nat

ural

gas

cos

t and

con

sum

ptio

n so

ftwar

e - F

aser

2.

Sup

erin

tend

ent o

f the

Was

te W

ater

Tre

atm

ent P

lant

3.

Sup

erin

tend

ent o

f the

Wat

er T

reat

men

t Pla

nt

134

E

nerg

y E

ffic

ienc

y R

enta

l Uni

ts

Des

crip

tion

of M

easu

re

D

ue to

the

larg

e nu

mbe

r of r

enta

l uni

ts in

Ann

Arb

or, l

andl

ords

are

wel

l pos

ition

ed to

hel

p re

duce

thei

r ten

ants

' ene

rgy

dem

ands

by

inst

allin

g En

ergy

Sta

r eff

icie

nt a

pplia

nces

. Th

is pr

ogra

m w

ill d

ecre

ase

the

ener

gy d

eman

ds o

f app

lianc

e in

rent

al u

nits

.

D

ata

and

Ass

umpt

ions

Gen

eral

1. R

enta

l uni

ts c

onsu

me

33%

of r

esid

entia

l ene

rgy

2. P

artic

ipat

ion

rate

: 15%

3.

Ene

rgy

redu

ctio

n ta

rget

: 33%

Cal

cula

tions

Gen

eral

Ene

rgy

Use

(200

0)

Res

iden

tial

Ene

rgy

Dem

and

Ren

tal U

nits

E

nerg

y D

eman

d

Am

ount

of

Ene

rgy

Part

icip

atin

g

Tot

al

Ene

rgy

Con

serv

ed

GH

G E

mis

sion

s R

educ

ed

(MTC

O2 i

n 20

20)

Nat

ural

Gas

(mcf

) 45

,681

,278

.00

15,2

27,0

92.6

72,

284,

063.

9068

5,21

9.17

40,2

98

Elec

trici

ty (k

Wh)

30

0,51

3,06

5.00

100,

171,

021.

7015

,025

,653

.25

4,50

7,69

5.98

3,95

1

T

otal

44,2

49

135

Ene

rgy

Eff

icie

ncy

Ren

tal U

nits

Nat

ural

Gas

Res

iden

tial n

atur

al g

as d

eman

d x

33%

= to

tal r

enta

l uni

t nat

ural

gas

dem

and

Tota

l ren

tal u

nit n

atur

al g

as d

eman

d x

parti

cipa

tion

rate

= to

tal n

atur

al g

as p

artic

ipat

ing

To

tal n

atur

al g

as p

artic

ipat

ing

x en

ergy

redu

ctio

n ta

rget

= to

tal n

atur

al g

as c

onse

rved

Elec

tric

ity

Res

iden

tial e

lect

ricity

dem

and

x 33

% =

tota

l ren

tal u

nit e

lect

ricity

dem

and

Tota

l ren

tal u

nit e

lect

ricity

dem

and

x pa

rtici

patio

n =

tota

l ele

ctric

ity p

artic

ipat

ing

To

tal e

lect

ricity

par

ticip

atin

g x

ener

gy re

duct

ion

targ

et =

tota

l ele

ctric

ity c

onse

rved

Initi

al C

ost:

$0.0

0 A

nnua

l Cos

t:

$0

.00

Ann

ual C

ost S

avin

gs:

$0.0

0 Pa

ybac

k (y

ears

):

0

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Red

uctio

n 20

20:

44

,249

MT

CO

2e

136

0% Interest and Rebate Program For Residential Sector Appliances

Description of Measure This program will initiate the establishment of 0% interest loans and City-sponsored energy efficient appliance rebates to purchase replacement appliances in the residential sector. Rebates can be designed around the reimbursement of the differential purchase cost between the average efficient vs. non-efficient product. Rebates should be used for the purchase of small cost differential items. 0% interest loans are available to purchase more costly items with larger differential costs.

Data and Assumptions General

1. Residential energy consumed by appliances: 49.50%* 2. Participation Rate: 10% 3. Participating Units: 4,721 4. Average energy reduction is based on the portion of home energy attributed to appliances 5. Target increase in appliance efficiency: 10% Costs 1. Avg. cost differential between non-energy efficient and energy efficient appliances: $100.00 Calculations General

Residential Sector Energy

(kWh/yr)

Appliance Energy (kWh/yr)

Participation Rate

Efficiency Improvement

Emissions Factor

(MTCO2e/kWh)


(MTCO2e in 2002)

300,513,065 148,753,967 10% 10% 0.0008766 1,304

137


Residential sector units x participation rate = participating units % residential sector electricity for appliances x residential sector electricity = appliance energy Appliance energy x % increase in efficiency x participation rate = sector energy savings

Sector energy savings x 0.0008766 MTCO2e/kWh = GHG reduced in 2020

Costs Average value of rebates x participating units = total value of rebates Initial Cost: $472,100.00Annual Cost: $0.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 1,304 MTCO2e References

1. Energy Information Administration, 1993 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, Household Energy and Consumption Expenditures, 1993, Table 3.1.

138

E

nerg

y E

ffic

ient

Bui

ldin

g C

odes

Des

crip

tion

of M

easu

re

Im

prov

ing

ener

gy s

tand

ards

for n

ew c

omm

erci

al a

nd re

side

ntia

l con

stru

ctio

n to

mee

t or e

xcee

d th

e m

inim

um e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

thre

shol

ds se

t by

the

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Ene

rgy

wou

ld re

duce

ele

ctric

ity a

nd n

atur

al g

as c

onsu

mpt

ion

in th

ese

new

uni

ts.

The

curr

ent

ener

gy c

ode,

Mic

higa

n U

nifo

rm E

nerg

y C

ode

Part

10 R

ules

, is

less

strin

gent

than

Mic

higa

n's 1

992

code

s, th

eref

ore

leav

ing

muc

h ro

om fo

r im

prov

emen

t. T

his c

ode

is cu

rren

tly m

anda

tory

stat

ewid

e.

Dat

a an

d A

ssum

ptio

ns

Gen

eral

1. T

here

wer

e 17

5 co

mm

erci

al a

nd re

siden

tial b

uild

ing

perm

its in

Ann

Arb

or fo

r new

con

stru

ctio

n in

200

1 (e

xclu

ding

reno

vatio

ns a

nd a

dditi

ons)

* 2.

Ave

rage

siz

e of

a n

ewly

con

stru

cted

indu

stria

l bui

ldin

g: 1

00,0

00 sq

. ft.*

3.

Ave

rage

siz

e of

a n

ewly

con

stru

cted

com

mer

cial

bui

ldin

g: 5

0,00

0 sq

. ft.*

4.

Ave

rage

siz

e of

a n

ewly

con

stru

cted

mun

icip

al b

uild

ing:

50,

000

sq. f

t.*

5. A

vera

ge s

ize

of a

new

ly c

onst

ruct

ed s

ingl

e fa

mily

hom

e: 2

,200

sq. f

t.*

6. A

vera

ge s

ize

of a

new

ly c

onst

ruct

ed tw

o-fa

mily

hom

e: 2

,500

sq. f

t.*

7. A

vera

ge s

ize

of a

new

ly c

onst

ruct

ed a

pt. b

uild

ing:

100

,000

sq. f

t. (1

00 x

1,0

00 sq

. ft.

units

)*

8. A

vera

ge s

ize

of a

new

ly c

onst

ruct

ed to

wnh

ouse

: 1,5

00 sq

. ft.*

9.

U

of M

cur

rent

ly h

as 2

6,91

2,08

7 sq

. ft.

of b

uild

ing

area

.*

10. U

of M

bui

ldin

g ar

ea g

rew

by

20.2

% b

etw

een

1990

-200

0, o

r 2.0

2%/y

r.*

139

Ene

rgy

Eff

icie

nt B

uild

ing

Cod

es

11. U

of M

add

ed 5

43,6

24.1

6 sq

.ft. i

n 20

00, 7

5% o

f thi

s was

new

con

stru

ctio

n (4

07,7

18.1

2 sq

. ft.)

* 12

. Thi

s pro

gram

wou

ld in

fluen

ce e

lect

ricity

con

sum

ptio

n on

ly

13. T

hrou

gh th

is pr

ogra

m, t

he e

nerg

y sa

ving

s per

squa

re fo

ot =

4.3

3 kW

h/yr

(an

aver

age

from

3 o

ther

stud

ies

Bro

oklin

e, F

ort C

ollin

s, an

d To

ront

o) fo

r all

new

ly c

onst

ruct

ed b

uild

ings

* 14

. The

num

ber o

f com

mer

cial

and

resi

dent

ial u

nits

add

ed e

ach

year

will

rem

ain

the

sam

e as

in 2

001

15. O

f the

21

com

mer

cial

bui

ldin

gs c

onst

ruct

ed in

200

1, 1

0% w

ere

indu

stria

l (th

e C

ity b

uild

ing

dept

. doe

s not

trac

k in

dust

rial d

ata

spec

ifica

lly)

16. O

ne m

unic

ipal

bui

ldin

g w

as c

onst

ruct

ed in

200

1 (th

e C

ity b

uild

ing

dept

. doe

s not

trac

k m

unic

ipal

dat

a)

Cos

ts

1.

The

draf

ting

of th

is re

quire

d or

dina

nce

wou

ld re

quire

25%

of a

full-

time

staf

f mem

ber's

tim

e fo

r 1 y

ear

2.

Empl

oyee

's sa

lary

: $45

,000

3.

Em

ploy

ee's

bene

fits a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

cost

s are

an

addi

tiona

l 60%

of s

alar

y 4.

El

ectri

city

cos

ts fo

r the

mun

icip

ality

: $0.

095/

kWh*

140

Ene

rgy

Eff

icie

nt B

uild

ing

Cod

es

Cal

cula

tions

Gen

eral

Sect

or a

nd

Typ

e Pe

rmits

(200

1)A

vg. A

rea

(Sq.

Ft.)

T

otal

Are

a (S

q. F

t.)

Savi

ngs P

er

Sq. F

t.

(kW

h/yr

) T

otal

Sav

ings

(k

Wh/

yr)

GH

G E

mis

sion

s R

educ

ed

(MTC

O2e

in 2

020)

Res

iden

tial

Sing

le F

amily

722,

200

158,

400

4.33

685,

872

601

Two

Fam

ily34

2,50

085

,000

4.33

368,

050

323

Apt

. Bld

gs.

510

0,00

050

0,00

04.

332,

165,

000

1,89

8To

wnh

ouse

s43

1,50

064

,500

4.33

279,

285

245

Sect

or T

otal

3,06

7C

omm

erci

al

1950

,000

950,

000

4.33

4,11

3,50

03,

606

Sect

or T

otal

3,60

6In

dust

rial

210

0,00

020

0,00

04.

3386

6,00

075

9Se

ctor

Tot

al

75

9M

unic

ipal

1

50,0

0050

,000

4.33

216,

500

190

Sect

or T

otal

190

U o

f M

407,

718.

124.

331,

765,

419

1,54

8Se

ctor

Tot

al

1,

548

TO

TA

L

176

2,

415,

618

1,

082,

500

9,16

9

Perm

its x

ave

rage

squa

re fe

et =

tota

l squ

are

feet

To

tal s

quar

e fe

et x

savi

ngs p

er sq

uare

foot

/yr (

kWh)

= to

tal s

avin

gs/y

r (kW

h)

Tota

l sav

ings

per

squa

re fo

ot/y

r (kW

h) x

0.0

0087

66 M

TCO

2e/k

Wh

= G

HG

em

issio

ns re

duce

d in

202

0

141

Ene

rgy

Eff

icie

nt B

uild

ing

Cod

es

C

osts

Em

ploy

ee's

A

nnua

l Sal

ary

Cos

t Inc

ludi

ng

Ben

efits

and

A

dmin

. Fr

actio

n of

Ful

l T

ime

Tot

al A

nnua

l C

osts

$45,

000

$72,

000

25%

$1

8,00

0

E

nerg

y R

educ

ed

(kW

h/yr

) C

ost

($/k

Wh)

T

otal

C

ost S

avin

gs

216,

500

$0.0

95

$20,

567.

50

Tota

l kW

h sa

ved/

yr x

$0.

095/

kWh

= to

tal c

ost s

avin

gs

Initi

al C

ost:

$1

8,00

0.00

A

nnua

l Cos

t:

N/A

A

nnua

l Cos

t Sav

ings

:

$20,

567.

50

Payb

ack

(yea

rs):

0.88

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Red

uctio

n 20

20:

9,16

9 M

TC

O2e

Ref

eren

ces

1. C

ity o

f Ann

Arb

or B

uild

ing

Perm

it D

epar

tmen

t 2.

Dep

artm

ent o

f Ene

rgy<

http

://w

ww

.ene

rgyc

odes

.gov

/impl

emen

t/sta

te_c

odes

/sta

te_s

tatu

s.cfm

?sta

te_A

B=M

I>

3. B

rook

line

Mas

sach

uset

ts, L

ocal

Act

ion

Plan

on

Clim

ate

Cha

nge,

Feb

ruar

y 20

02

142

University of Michigan Residential Housing Utility and Rent Separation

Description of Measure This program encourages the U of M to change their practice of including utility costs with monthly rent in an attempt to increase energy conscious habits among its residents. Currently, all utilities are included in the monthly rent for the University's family housing. If implemented, energy use within these units will decrease due to awareness of utility costs. If personal finances are influenced, many residents will alter their energy consuming behaviors.


1. Residential rental units in Ann Arbor: 25,847* 2. Number of U of M rental units: 1,493* 3. U of M rental units use the ratio electricity and natural gas as Ann Arbor residential

rental units. 4. Participation rate: 100% 5. 66.6% of units are influenced to conserve 6. Average conservation: 10% reduction in natural gas and electricity/unit Calculations

Residential

Units Residential Rental Unit

U of M Rental Units

Reduction From Program


(MTCO2e in 2020)

Units 47,218 25,847 1,493 N/A N/AElectricity (kWh) 300,513,065 164,500,004 9,502,012 632,834 555Natural gas (mcf) 4,394,496 2,405,535 138,951 9,254 559

143

University of Michigan Residential Housing Utility and Rent Separation Electricity (Residential rental units / total residential unit) x total electricity in residential = electricity consumption in U of M residential rental unit Total electricity in U of M residential rental unit x units influenced x 10% reduction = electricity reduction from program Electricity reduction from program x 0.0008766 MTCO2e/kWh = annual program reduction MTCO2e in 2020

Natural Gas (Residential rental units / total residential units) x total residential natural gas = natural gas consumption in residential rental unit (U of M residential rental units / residential units) x total rental unit natural gas = natural gas consumption in U of M residential rental unit Total natural gas in U of M residential rental unit x units influenced x 10% reduction = natural gas reduction from program Natural gas reduction from program x 0.0604 MTCO2e/mcf = Annual program reduction MTCO2e in 2020 Initial Cost: $0.00Annual Cost: $0.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 1,114 MTCO2e

144

Compact Fluorescent Bulb Program

Description of Measure Partnering with the manufacturers of compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) and local retail stores to create a program to distribute discount coupons for CFLs to Ann Arbor residents will encourage residents who are hesitant about trying CFLs an opportunity to do so with minimal investment. CFLs are a more energy efficient bulb technology yet are substantially more expensive that incandescent bulbs. However, the cost is recouped over the life of the bulb in savings on electricity consumption. Lighting represents approximately 6% of residential sector energy consumption. CFLs can reduce lighting energy demand by up to 50%. Data and Assumptions General 1. Participation rate: 50% of all coupon recipients 2. 5,000 coupons/yr to residents 3. One coupon: 50% discount 4. One 60 watt incandescent = one 17 watt CFL* 5. Energy and emissions reductions are based on the averages conserved by switching from

an incandescent to a CFL 6. Program continues annually Costs

1. Annual cost is based on $5.00/bulb. If the City enters into a partnership with a bulb manufacturer and the electric utility, annual costs to the City can be significantly reduced.

145

Compact Fluorescent Bulb Program


Participants Emissions Factor

(MTCO2e/bulb)


(MTCO2e in 2020) 2,500 0.51 1,275

Residential units x participation rate = participants # of bulbs x 0.51 MTCO2e/bulb = MTCO2e reduced in 2020 # of bulbs replaced = # participants Costs

Bulbs Price ($/bulb) Total Annual

Cost 2,500 $5.00 $12,500.00

Participants x price of bulb = total cost Initial Cost: $0.00Annual Cost: $12,500.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 1,275 MTCO2e

146


Description of Measure Hiring an employee to work on a permanent, full-time basis with residents, local businesses, industry, and the municipality will enhance energy efficiency. The employee will make site visits to all targeted sectors, evaluate current energy use, and make recommendations to improve energy efficiency in the unit evaluated.


1. Employee will effectively reduce 1% of total 2020 electricity and natural gas consumption in residential, commercial, industrial, and municipal sectors

2. Employee will effectively reduce 2% of total U of M 2020 electricity and natural gas consumption by that year

Costs

1. Running this program would require 1 full-time staff person 2. Employee's salary: $45,000 3. Employee's benefits and administration costs are an additional 60% of salary 4. Electricity costs for the municipality: $0.095/kWh* 5. Natural gas costs for the municipality: $8.07/mcf*

147



Sector

Total Electricity 2020 (kWh)

Program Reduction

(kWh/yr)


(MTCO2e in 2020) Residential 376,061,740 3,760,617.40 3,297 Commercial 422,318,925 4,223,189.25 3,702 Industrial 479,680,486 4,796,804.86 4,205 Municipal 65,634,719 656,347.19 575 U of M 601,114,431 12,022,288.62 10,539 Total 22,318

Sector

Total Natural Gas 2020

(mcf)

Program Reduction

(mcf/yr)


(MTCO2e in 2020) Residential 4,233,375 42,333.75 2,557 Commercial 3,325,796 33,257.96 2,009 Industrial 60,272 602.72 36 Municipal 92,671 926.71 56 U of M 1,113,490 22,269.80 1,345 Total 6,003 Electricity Total electricity in 2020 (kWh) x 0.01 = annual program reduction (kWh) Annual program reduction x 0.0008766 MTCO2e/kWh = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Natural Gas Total natural gas in 2020 (mcf) x 0.01 = annual program reduction (mcf) Annual program reduction (mcf) x 0.0604 MTCO2e/mcf = GHG emissions reduced in 2020

148


Costs


Cost Including

Benefits and Admin.

Fraction of Full Time

Total Annual Costs

$45,000 $72,000 100% $72,000

Electricity Reduced (kWh/yr)

Cost ($/kWh)

Total Cost Savings

Natural Gas Reduced

(mcf/yr) Cost

($/mcf) Total Cost

Savings 656,347.19 $0.095 $62,352.98 926.71 $8.07 $7,478.55

Total kWh saved/yr x $0.095/kWh = total cost savings Total mcf reduced/yr x cost/mcf = total cost savings Initial Cost: $0.00Annual Cost: $72,000.00Annual Cost Savings: $69,831.53Payback (years): N/A

Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 28,321 MTCO2e

149

E

nerg

y E

ffic

ient

Win

dow

Rep

lace

men

t

Des

crip

tion

of M

easu

re

Enco

urag

ing

the

repl

acem

ent o

f old

win

dow

s with

mor

e en

ergy

eff

icie

nt m

odel

s in

the

resi

dent

ial,

com

mer

cial

, ind

ustr

ial,

U

of M

, and

mun

icip

al se

ctor

s dec

reas

es th

e am

ount

of e

nerg

y co

nsum

ed in

that

uni

t. A

city

em

ploy

ee w

ill b

e re

spon

sibl

e fo

r pr

ogra

m d

evel

opm

ent a

nd m

anag

emen

t.

Dat

a an

d A

ssum

ptio

ns

Gen

eral

1. 2

0% o

f all

win

dow

s in

eac

h se

ctor

are

ava

ilabl

e fo

r rep

lace

men

t (th

is is

appl

ied

to a

ll w

indo

ws

in 2

0% o

f uni

ts fo

r sim

plic

ity)

2. 5

% o

f ava

ilabl

e un

its p

artic

ipat

e in

win

dow

repl

acem

ent p

rogr

am a

nd re

plac

e al

l win

dow

s 3.

Par

ticip

atin

g un

its w

ill a

chie

ve a

15%

redu

ctio

n in

tota

l ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

C

osts

1. R

unni

ng th

is pr

ogra

m w

ould

requ

ire 1

0% o

f a fu

ll-tim

e st

aff m

embe

r's ti

me

annu

ally

2.

Em

ploy

ee's

sala

ry: $

45,0

00

3. E

mpl

oyee

's be

nefit

s and

adm

inist

ratio

n co

sts a

re a

n ad

ditio

nal 6

0% o

f sal

ary

4. E

lect

ricity

cos

ts fo

r the

mun

icip

ality

: $0.

095/

kWh*

5.

Nat

ural

gas

cos

ts fo

r the

mun

icip

ality

: $8.

07/m

cf

150

E

nerg

y E

ffic

ient

Win

dow

Rep

lace

men

t

Cal

cula

tions

G

ener

al

Sect

or

Uni

ts

Ava

ilabl

e U

nits

Pa

rtic

ipat

ing

Uni

ts

Tot

al E

lect

rici

ty

2000

(k

Wh)

Ele

ctri

city

pe

r U

nit

(kW

h/yr

) E

lect

rici

ty

(kW

h/yr

)

Ele

ctri

city

R

educ

tion

(kW

h/yr

)

GH

G

Em

issi

ons

Red

uced

(M

TCO

2e in

202

0)R

esid

entia

l 47

,218

9,

443.

6047

2.18

300,

513,

065

6,36

4.38

3,00

5,13

0.65

450,

769.

6039

5C

omm

erci

al

8,19

2 1,

638.

4081

.92

297,

568,

942

36,3

24.3

32,

975,

689.

4244

6,35

3.41

391

Indu

stria

l 13

2 26

.40

1.32

398,

826,

647

3,02

1,41

3.99

3,98

8,26

6.47

598,

239.

9752

4M

unic

ipal

12

8 25

.60

1.28

46,6

81,7

7236

4,70

1.34

466,

817.

7270

,022

.66

61U

of M

43

5 87

.00

4.35

457,

187,

835

1,05

1,00

6.52

4,57

1,87

8.35

685,

781.

7560

1T

otal

1,97

3

Elec

tric

ity

Tota

l uni

ts x

20%

= a

vaila

ble

units

A

vaila

ble

units

x 5

% =

par

ticip

atin

g un

its/y

r

Tota

l ele

ctric

ity /

tota

l uni

ts =

ele

ctric

ity/u

nit/y

r

Elec

trici

ty/u

nit/y

r x p

artic

ipat

ing

units

= e

lect

ricity

from

par

ticip

atin

g un

its/y

r

El

ectri

city

from

par

ticip

atin

g un

it/yr

x 1

5% =

ele

ctric

ity re

duct

ion

Ann

ual e

lect

ricity

redu

ctio

n x

0.00

0876

6 M

TCO

2e/k

Wh

= G

HG

em

issio

ns re

duce

d in

202

0

151

E

nerg

y E

ffic

ient

Win

dow

Rep

lace

men

t

Sect

or

Uni

ts

Ava

ilabl

e U

nits

Pa

rtic

ipat

ing

Uni

ts

Tot

al N

atur

al

Gas

200

0 (k

Wh)

Nat

ural

Gas

pe

r U

nit

(kW

h/yr

) N

atur

al G

as(k

Wh/

yr)

Nat

ural

G

as

Red

uctio

n(k

Wh/

yr)

GH

G

Em

issi

ons

Red

uced

(M

TCO

2e in

202

0)R

esid

entia

l 47

,218

9,

443.

6047

2.18

4,39

4,49

693

.07

43,9

44.9

66,

591.

7439

8C

omm

erci

al

8,19

2 1,

638.

4081

.92

2,64

1,23

232

2.42

26,4

12.3

23,

961.

8523

9In

dust

rial

132

26.4

01.

3252

,054

394.

3552

0.54

78.0

85

Mun

icip

al

128

25.6

01.

2873

,596

574.

9773

5.96

110.

397

U o

f M

435

87.0

04.

3588

5,27

02,

035.

108,

852.

701,

327.

9180

Tot

al

72

9

Nat

ural

Gas

To

tal u

nits

x 2

0% =

ava

ilabl

e un

its

Ava

ilabl

e un

its x

50%

= p

artic

ipat

ing

units

/yr

To

tal n

atur

al g

as /

tota

l uni

ts =

nat

ural

gas

/uni

t/yr

N

atur

al g

as/u

nit/y

r x p

artic

ipat

ing

units

= n

atur

al g

as fr

om p

artic

ipat

ing

unit/

yr

N

atur

al g

as fr

om p

artic

ipat

ing

unit/

yr x

0.1

5 =

annu

al n

atur

al g

as re

duct

ion

Ann

ual n

atur

al g

as re

duct

ion

x 0.

0604

MTC

O2e

/mcf

= G

HG

em

issio

ns re

duce

d in

202

0

Cos

ts

Em

ploy

ee

Ann

ual S

alar

y

Cos

t Inc

ludi

ng

Ben

efits

and

A

dmin

. Fr

actio

n of

Ful

l T

ime

Tot

al A

nnua

l C

osts

$45,

000

$72,

000

10%

$7,2

00

152

Ene

rgy

Red

uced

(k

Wh/

yr)

Cos

t ($

/kW

h)

Tot

al C

ost

Savi

ngs

E

nerg

y R

educ

ed

(mcf

/yr)

C

ost

($/m

cf)

Tot

al C

ost

Savi

ngs

70,0

22.6

6$0

.095

$10,

392.

16

110.

39$8

.07

$890

.88

Tota

l kW

h sa

ved/

yr x

$0.

095/

kWh

= to

tal c

ost s

avin

gs

To

tal m

cf re

duce

d/yr

x c

ost/m

cf =

tota

l cos

t sav

ings

In

itial

Cos

t:

N/ A

Ann

ual C

ost:

$7,2

00.0

0A

nnua

l Cos

t Sav

ings

:

$11,

283.

00Pa

ybac

k (y

ears

):

N

/A

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Red

uctio

n 20

20:

2,70

2 M

TC

O2e

R

efer

ence

s

1.

Bro

oklin

e M

assa

chus

etts

, Loc

al A

ctio

n Pl

an o

n C

limat

e C

hang

e, F

ebru

ary

2002

153

W

WT

P A

naer

obic

Dig

este

r G

as P

ower

D

escr

iptio

n of

Mea

sure

Th

e W

aste

Wat

er T

reat

men

t Pla

nt in

Ann

Arb

or tr

eats

app

roxi

mat

ely

19 m

illio

n ga

llons

of w

aste

wat

er p

er d

ay.

By

inst

allin

g an

an

aero

bic

dige

ster

met

hane

gas

can

be

extra

cted

from

the

was

te a

nd u

sed

to fu

el a

fuel

cel

l. T

he fu

el c

ell c

an th

en in

turn

be

used

to

heat

the

treat

men

t pro

cess

es, p

rovi

de b

acku

p po

wer

, or p

ower

eng

ines

in th

e tre

atm

ent p

lant

, thu

s red

ucin

g th

e de

man

d fo

r co

nven

tiona

lly g

ener

ated

ele

ctric

ity.

D

ata

and

Ass

umpt

ions

Gen

eral

1. G

allo

ns o

f was

te w

ater

/day

: 19

mill

ion*

2.

mcf

of b

ioga

s/da

y: 2

50*

3. 2

50 m

cf =

250

MM

Btu

* 4.

1 M

MB

tu =

0.0

7 M

Wh/

MM

Btu

* 5.

Fue

l sub

stitu

tion

base

d on

DTE

ave

rage

fuel

mix

C

osts

1. T

he C

ity p

ays $

0.05

525/

kWh*

2.

Ini

tial c

osts

com

para

ble

to th

ose

of th

e fa

cilit

y in

Por

tland

, OR

: $1,

300,

000*

154

W

WT

P A

naer

obic

Dig

este

r G

as P

ower

Cal

cula

tions

Gen

eral

B

ioga

s (c

ft/da

y)

Bio

gas

(MM

Btu/

time)

Ele

ctri

city

(M

Wh/

time)

E

nerg

y Sa

ving

s M

TC

O2e

Rec

aptu

re

(MTC

O2e

) Fu

el S

ubst

itutio

n (M

TCO

2e)

GH

G E

mis

sion

s R

educ

ed

(MTC

O2e

in 2

020)

D

ay

250,

000

250

17.5

0 96

6.88

10

9.54

109.

54

0.63

811

0 Y

ear

91,3

12,5

00.0

091

,312

.50

6,39

1.88

353,

151.

0940

,010

.21

40,0

10.2

123

3.03

40,2

43

MM

Btu

/day

* 1

000

cft/M

MB

tu =

bio

gas c

ft/da

y

M

MB

tu/d

ay *

0.0

7 M

Wh/

MM

Btu

= e

lect

ricity

MW

h/da

y

Bio

gas x

0.0

0002

1 to

ns/c

ft x

0.90

718

MT/

ton

x 23

= M

TCO

2e

M

TCO

2e =

reca

ptur

e

(Ele

ctric

ity M

Wh

x 0.

0876

6 M

TCO

2e/M

Wh)

- (M

MB

tu x

0.0

5881

MTC

O2e

/MM

Btu

) = F

uel s

ubst

itutio

n

Fuel

sub

stitu

tion

+ R

ecap

ture

= G

HG

em

issio

ns re

duce

d in

202

0

Cos

ts

Ene

rgy

Savi

ngs

Payb

ack

(yea

rs)

Yea

r $3

53,1

51.0

93.

68

Elec

trici

ty M

Wh/

day

x $5

5.25

/MW

h =

ener

gy s

avin

gs

Initi

al c

ost /

ene

rgy

savi

ngs =

pay

back

155

WW

TP

Ana

erob

ic D

iges

ter

Gas

Pow

er

Initi

al C

ost:

$1

,300

,000

.00

Ann

ual C

ost:

N

/AA

nnua

l Cos

t Sav

ings

:

$353

,151

.09

Payb

ack:

3.

68

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Red

uctio

n 20

20:

40

,243

MT

CO

2e

R

efer

ence

s

1. U

.S. E

nviro

nmen

tal P

rote

ctio

n A

genc

y, O

ffice

of W

aste

wate

r Man

agem

ent

2. C

ity o

f Ann

Arb

or, W

aste

Wat

er T

reat

men

t Pla

nt

156

Solar Powered Street Lights

Description of Measure

Retrofitting or replacing streetlamps with solar powered models can be achieved even though Michigan is not an ideal location to generate solar power. Solar panels can be sized to provide enough electricity to power the streetlights on Ann Arbor’s roadways. Streetlights operate for 12 hours per day (on average) costing the City over $100,000 annually. Free solar energy presents an opportunity to reduce emissions and annual electricity costs.


1. 50 % of streetlights to be converted to solar power Costs

1. Electricity price = $0.095/kWh* 2. Price of solar powered street light: $12,000/kW* Calculations General

Street Light Electricity

Consumption (kWh)

Electricity Reduced (kWh/yr)


(MTCO2e in 2020) 4,691,589.4 2,345,794.70 20,563

Street light electricity consumption x 50%x 0.008766 MTCO2e/yr = GHG emission reduced in 2020

157

Solar Powered Street Lights

Costs

Street Light Capacity

(kW)

Electricity Reduced

(kW) Purchasing

Cost 535.6 267.8 $3,213,417

Street light electricity consumption x 50% / 8,760 kWh/yr = street light capacity Street light capacity x price of street light = total purchasing cost Installation Costs

Total Street Lights

Affected Street Lights

Workers for Installation

Worker Time

(hrs/light) Wage ($/hour)

Installation Cost

5,410 2705 2 3 50.00 $811,500 Affected street lights x workers x worker time x wage = installation cost Annual Cost Saving

Street Light Electricity

Consumption (kWh)

Annual Cost Saving

2,345,794.7 $222,850 Initial Cost: $4,024,917.00Annual Cost: $0.00Annual Cost Savings: $222,850.00Payback (years): 18.1 Greenhouse Gas Reductions 2020: 20,563 MTCO2e References

1. Electric America 2003 2. Solar Outdoor Lighting, Inc. <http://www.solarlighting.com>

158


Description of Measure

The City of Ann Arbor already requires a specific amount of the electricity sold to the City be provided from renewable energy sources. In today's restructured electricity markets, such a requirement by the City would spawn competition, thus driving down the price of renewable energy. A 50% renewable energy standard would set the City apart and make a clear statement that they are committed to encouraging the growth of renewable energy markets.


1. Electricity provided by zero emissions sources: 50% 2. Electricity provided by DTE at the present fuel mix: 50% 3. Increase in renewable electricity per year (2005-2020): 3.3% 4. Electricity consumption in 2020: 1,759,553,750 kWh*

159



Year

Renewable Electricity

(kWh)

GHG Emission Reduction

(MTCO2e in 2020) 2005 54,986,054.69 48,201 2006 109,972,109.38 96,402 2007 164,958,164.06 144,602 2008 219,944,218.75 192,803 2009 274,930,273.44 241,004 2010 329,916,328.13 289,205 2011 384,902,382.81 337,405 2012 439,888,437.50 385,606 2013 494,874,492.19 433,807 2014 549,860,546.88 482,008 2015 604,846,601.56 530,209 2016 659,832,656.25 578,409 2017 714,818,710.94 626,610 2018 769,804,765.63 674,811 2019 824,790,820.31 723,012 2020 879,776,875.00 771,212 Annual Growth 54,986,054.69 48,201

Electricity consumption 2020 x 50% = renewable electricity in 2020 Renewable electricity 2020 / 16 years = avg. increase renewable electricity/yr Avg. increase renewable electricity/yr x 0.0008766 MTCO2e/yr = GHG emissions reduction in 2020 Initial Cost: N/AAnnual Cost: N/AAnnual Cost Savings: N/APayback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 771,212 MTCO2e

160

Transportation Measures


Description of Measure Adopting a citywide ordinance to eliminate vehicle idling will reduce associated emissions and fuel consumption. The City should consider adopting an ordinance to restrict the length of time vehicles idle. Certain exemptions should be considered to include: traffic conditions, emergency vehicles, and weather conditions.

Assumptions General 1. This program will affect all vehicle classes 3. 50% of passenger cars and light duty trucks will idle for 10 minutes less per day 4. 50% of heavy duty vehicles will idle for 1.5 hours less per day 5. Passenger cars and light trucks with 6 or less cylinders emit 1,440 grams/hr of CO2e 6. Passenger cars and light trucks with more than 6 cylinders emit 5,760 grams/hr of CO2e 7. All classes of heavy duty vehicles emit 8,200 grams/hr of CO2e 8. Light duty passenger cars and trucks in Ann Arbor: 75,770 9. Heavy duty vehicles (including buses) in Ann Arbor: 2,215 10. 20% of pickups (2,058) have more than 6 cylinders or more


Vehicle Type Idle Time

(hrs/day)

Vehicles


(MTCO2e in 2020) Light Duty (6 or less cylinders) 0.17 36,856 3,295 Light Duty ( more than 6 cylinders) 0.17 1,029 92 Heavy Duty 1.50 1,108 874

161

Total 4,261

Anti-Idling Ordinance Light duty (6 cylinders or less) x idle time x vehicles = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Light duty (more 6 cylinders) x idle time x vehicles = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Heavy duty (more 6 cylinders) x idle time x vehicles = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Initial Cost: N/AAnnual Cost: N/AAnnual Cost Savings: N/AAnnual Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 4,261 MTCO2e References

1. Idling emissions data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Argonne National Laboratory 3. Environment Canada

162

Traffic Flow Study

Description of Measure Conducting a citywide traffic flow study will minimize traffic flow inefficiencies and reduce traffic idling time. This study will reduce overall VMT related GHG emissions. Data and Assumptions General 1. This program will affect passenger cars, light trucks, and heavy duty vehicles (buses,

tractor trailer trucks, construction vehicles) 2. This program will affect petroleum-based vehicle fuels 3. 80% of all Ann Arbor cars are driven daily 4. This study will prevent each car from having to stop at 3 extra red lights/day 5. The average red light is timed at 2 minutes* 6. 6 minutes of idling time are reduced per day for each car 7. Passenger cars and light trucks with 6 or less cylinders emit 1,440 grams/hr of CO2e* 8. Passenger cars and light trucks with more than 6 cylinders emit 5,760 grams/hr of CO2e* 9. All classes of heavy duty vehicles emit 8,200 grams/hr of CO2e* 10. There are 77,000 light duty passenger cars and trucks in Ann Arbor* 11. There are 2,700 heavy duty vehicles (including buses) in Ann Arbor* 12. 20% of pickups (2,058) have more than 6 cylinders or more Costs 1. Running this program would require 10% of a full-time staff member's time for 1 year 2. Employee's salary: $45,000 3. Employee's benefits and administration costs are an additional 60% of salary

163

Traffic Flow Study


Vehicle Type Vehicles Vehicles

Driven/Day

Idling Time/Day

(minutes)

Idling Time/Day

(hours)


(MTCO2e in 2020)Light Duty (6 or less cylinders) 74,942 59,954 359,722 5,995 3,153Light Duty (more than 6 cylinders) 2,058 1,646 9,878 165 346Heavy Duty 2,700 2,160 12,960 216 647Total 79,700 63,760.00 382,560 6,376 4,147 Vehicles x 0.8 = vehicles driven/day Vehicles driven/day x 6 = total idling/day (minutes) Total idling/day (minutes) / 60 = total idling/day (hours) [Total idling/day (hours) x grams of CO2 emitted/hr / 1,000,000] x 365.25 days = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Costs


Cost Including Benefits and Admin.

Fraction of Full Time

Total Annual Cost

$45,000 $72,000 10% $7,200 Initial Cost: $7,200.00Annual Cost: $0.00Annual Cost Savings: N/APayback (years): N/A

Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 4,147 MTCO2e References

1. Idling emissions data: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2. Argonne National Laboratory 3. Environment Canada

164

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Rebate Program

Description of Measure Offering tax credits or purchase incentives/rebate programs for hybrid electric vehicles equal to $2,000.00 will encourage its residents to adopt this technology, thus reducing air emissions associated with automobile exhaust. Hybrid electric vehicles represent the most fuel efficient and least polluting automotive transportation technology currently available. Data and Assumptions General

1. Participation rate: 2% 2. Number of vehicles in Ann Arbor in 2002: 85,637* 3. National fuel economy: 24.1 mpg* 4. Average combined fuel economy of currently available hybrid

electric vehicles: 53.8* 5. Annual VMT/vehicle: 11,165* Costs 1. Rebate value: $2,000 Calculations General

Vehicle City

(mpg) Highway

(mpg) Average

(mpg) Honda Civic 46 51 48.5 Toyota Insight 61 68 64.5 Toyota Prius 52 45 48.5 Combined Average Fuel Economy 53.8

165

Vehicle Fuel

Economy(mpg)

Fuel Consumed (Gallons/yr)


(MTCO2e in 2020)

Hybrid 53.8 355,495.3 3,189 Non-Hybrid 24.1 793,595.2 7,119 Total vehicles in Ann Arbor x participation rate = Hybrid electric vehicles purchased

Annual VMT / average mpg = gallons consumed/year Gallons consumed/year x 0.00897 MTCO2e = GHG emissions reduced in 2020

Costs $2,000.00 x # of participating units = total value of rebates

Initial Cost: $3,426,000.00Ongoing Annual Cost: N/AAnnual Cost Savings: N/APayback (years): N/A Annual Greenhouse Gas Reductions: 3,930 MTCO2e References

1. Currently Available hybrid electric vehicles: Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Insight

2. VMT for Ann Arbor vehicles is based on the number of vehicles in Ann Arbor for 2002 and VMT for that year

166

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Parking Incentive Program

Description of Measure In order to encourage people to purchase less pollution intensive vehicles, the City can offer free parking to owners of hybrid electric vehicles within the City of Ann Arbor. Owners of hybrid electric vehicles will be able to register with the City to receive a free parking sticker, enabling them to park at metered spaces or in parking structures. Data and Assumptions General

1. Number of vehicles in Ann Arbor in 2002: 85,637* 2. Participation Rate: 0.5% 3. National fuel economy: 24.1 mpg* 4. Average combined fuel economy of currently available hybrid electric vehicles: 53.8* 5. Annual VMT per vehicle: 11,165* Costs 1. Daily parking fee: $18.00* Calculations General

Vehicle

City (mpg)

Highway (mpg)

Average (mpg)

Honda Civic 46 51 48.5 Toyota Insight 61 68 64.5 Toyota Prius 52 45 48.5 Combined Average Fuel Economy 53.8

167


Vehicle Fuel Economy

(mpg) Consumed (Gallons/yr)


(MTCO2e in 2020) Hybrid 53.8 88,821.9 797 Non-Hybrid 24.1 198,283.0 1,779 Total vehicles in x participation rate = hybrid vehicles purchased [Annual VMT / average mpg] x hybrid vehicles purchased = gallons consumed

Gallons consumed x 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallon = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Costs $18.00 x # of participating units = total value of parking fees Initial Cost: $7,707.33Annual Cost: N/AAnnual Cost Savings: N/APayback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 982 MTCO2e References

1. Currently Available hybrid electric vehicles: Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Insight 2. VMT for Ann Arbor vehicles is based on the number of vehicles in Ann Arbor for 2002

and VMT for that year

168

Alternative Transportation to Work Day Program

Description of Measure The City can encourage Ann Arbor residents to take alternative transportation to work one day a week from May - September. By encouraging residents to walk or ride their bike one day a week to work, the City can reduce VMT in the downtown area.


1. Days/yr people take alternative transportation to work: 20 2. Cars commuting to work/yr: 42,433* 3. Participation rate: 10% 4. Average in-town commute distance: 5.3 miles 5. National fuel economy: 24.1 mpg* Costs 1. Running this program would require 10% of a full-time staff member's time annually 2. Employee's salary: $45,000 3. Employee's benefits and administration costs are an additional 60% of salary Calculations General

Cars Commuting

/yr Participants Participation

(days/yr)

AverageCommute

(miles)

VMT Reduced

(miles)

Total Gas Reduced (gallons)


(MTCO2e in 2020)42,433 4,243 20 5.3 449,790 18,663 167

Cars commuting/yr x participation rate x # of days/yr x commute distance = VMT reduced [VMT reduced / national fuel economy] = total gasoline reduced Total gasoline reduced x 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallon = GHG emissions reduced in 2020

169

Alternative Transportation to Work Day Program Costs


Cost Including Benefits

and Admin. Fraction of Full

Time Total Annual

Costs $45,000 $72,000 10% $7,200

Initial Cost: $0.00Annual Cost: $7,200.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 167 MTCO2e

170

Fuel Switching and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Program

Description of Measure Adopting a City and University policy requiring that all newly purchased sedans be hybrid electric vehicles and that all diesel fuel purchased be switched to a blend of 20% biodiesel will serve to set an example for the entire city. As the largest fleet owners in the City, the municipal government and the University of Michigan will showcase the cleanest vehicle technology. In the process, both fleets will help reduce the associated automotive tailpipe emissions, and realize significant cost savings in the form of reduced fuel consumption.

Data and Assumptions General 1. Municipal diesel needs/yr: 192,000 gallons of B20* 2. University of Michigan diesel needs/yr: 321,824 gallons of diesel* 3. Ann Arbor Transportation Authority needs/yr: 330,082 gallons of diesel* 4. National fuel economy for cars: 27.5 mpg* 5. Average fuel economy for city buses: 3.79 mpg* 6. Average fuel economy for hybrid vehicles: 53.8 mpg* 7. Average fuel economy of diesel light and heavy duty vehicles: 14.9 (trucks and buses)8 8. Average annual VMT for municipal fleet vehicles: 9,000 miles* 9. Average annual VMT of University of Michigan vehicles: 7,740 miles* 10. Conversion factors: 2.128 bhp-h/miles (non-buses), 4.679 bhp-h/mile (transit buses),

496.83 g of CO2e reduced per bhp-h* 11. The municipality has 131 gasoline sedans that can be replaced with HEVs* 12. The University of Michigan has 47 gasoline sedans than can be replaced with HEVs* Costs

1. The cost differential between CD and B20 is $1.25/gallon* 2. Both the City and the University of Michigan pay $1.50/gallon for gasoline* 3. The cost differential between hybrid electric vehicles and conventional vehicles purchased

by the City is $2,000*

171

Fuel Switching and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Program Calculations General

Vehicle

City (mpg)

Highway (mpg)

Average (mpg)

Honda Civic 46 51 48.5 Toyota Insight 61 68 64.5 Toyota Prius 52 45 48.5 Combined Average Fuel Economy 53.8 Hybrid Vehicles

Organization Vehicles Total Miles

GHG EmissionsReduced

(MTCO2e in 2020)Municipality 131 1,179,000 188University of Michigan 47 363,780 58 Biodiesel

Organization Biodiesel Purchased

(gallons/yr) GHG Reduction(MTCO2e in 2020)

Municipality 192,000 3,025Ann Arbor Transit Authority 330,082 2,908University of Michigan 312,824 4,928 Vehicles in Ann Arbor x participation rate = hybrid vehicles purchased Annual VMT / average mpg x hybrid electric vehicles purchased = gallons consumed/yr

Gallons consumed/year x 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallon = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Vehicles x annual VMT = total miles driven (VMT / national fuel economy x 0.00897 MTCO2e) - (VMT / hybrid mpg x 0.00897 MTCO2e) = Hybrid electric GHG reductions in 2020 Gallons of B20 consumed x 0.00881 MTCO2e/gallon = biodiesel GHG reductions (buses) in 2020 Gallons of B20 consumed x 0.00106 MTCO2e/gallon = biodiesel GHG reductions (non-buses) in 2020

172


Costs Gallons of B20 needed by the city x $1.25 = total additional costs for B20 (Total VMT / national mpg) - (total VMT / hybrid mpg) = annual fuel savings for hybrid electrics Annual fuel savings x $1.50/gallon = cost savings for hybrid electrics Municipally purchased hybrid electric vehicles x cost differential = hybrid vehicle cost differential Initial Cost: $262,000.00Annual Cost: $240,000.00Annual Cost Savings: $31,458.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 11,107 MTCO2e References

1. Currently Available hybrid electric vehicles: Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Insight 2. VMT for Ann Arbor vehicles is based on the number of vehicles in Ann Arbor for 2002

and the VMT for that year 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mobile 6 Heavy Duty Vehicle Emissions

173

City

Em

ploy

ee T

elec

omm

utin

g

D

escr

iptio

n of

Mea

sure

Offe

ring

perm

anen

t, fu

ll-tim

e em

ploy

ees

in re

leva

nt p

ositi

ons t

he o

ptio

n of

tele

com

mut

ing,

rath

er th

an tr

avel

ing

to th

e of

fice

1 da

y pe

r w

eek

of th

e w

ork

year

will

redu

ce o

vera

ll co

mm

uter

mile

s driv

en a

nnua

lly b

y C

ity e

mpl

oyee

s, th

eref

ore

redu

cing

VM

T re

late

d G

HG

em

issio

ns.

A C

ity e

mpl

oyee

will

be

resp

onsi

ble

for p

rogr

am e

duca

tion

and

prom

otio

n.

D

ata

and

Ass

umpt

ions

G

ener

al

1. F

ull-t

ime,

per

man

ent C

ity e

mpl

oyee

s: 8

74*

2. E

mpl

oyee

s, on

ave

rage

, rec

eive

3 w

eeks

of p

aid

vaca

tion*

3.

Em

ploy

ees,

on a

vera

ge, r

ecei

ve 1

4 pa

id h

olid

ays/

pers

onal

day

s*

4. T

otal

ann

ual w

ork

wee

ks p

er y

ear:

47*

5. E

mpl

oyee

s par

ticip

ate

in p

rogr

am: 1

0%

6. P

artic

ipat

ing

empl

oyee

s will

tele

com

mut

e 1

day/

wor

k w

eek:

47

non-

com

mut

ing

days

/yr

7. 7

5% o

f City

em

ploy

ees

live

outs

ide

Ann

Arb

or, 2

5% li

ve w

ithin

City

lim

its

8. A

vera

ge le

ngth

of c

omm

ute

for i

n-to

wn

empl

oyee

s: 5

.3 m

iles

9. A

vera

ge le

ngth

of c

omm

ute

for o

ut-o

f-tow

n em

ploy

ees:

26

mile

s 10

. Nat

iona

l fue

l eco

nom

y: 2

4.1

mpg

*

174

C

ity E

mpl

oyee

Tel

ecom

mut

ing

C

osts

1.

Run

ning

this

prog

ram

wou

ld re

quire

10%

of a

full-

time

staf

f mem

ber's

tim

e an

nual

ly

2. E

mpl

oyee

's sa

lary

: $45

,000

3.

Em

ploy

ee's

bene

fits a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

cost

s are

an

addi

tiona

l 60%

of s

alar

y

Cal

cula

tions

G

ener

al

Part

icip

atin

g E

mpl

oyee

s

Tot

al N

on-

com

mut

ing

Day

s/yr

In T

own

Em

ploy

ee N

on-

com

mut

ing

Day

s

Out

-of-

Tow

n E

mpl

oyee

Non

-co

mm

utin

g D

ays

In-T

own

Em

ploy

ee

VM

T

Out

-of-

Tow

n E

mpl

oyee

V

MT

Tot

al

VM

T

Red

uced

G

asol

ine

(gal

lons

)

GH

G

Em

issi

ons

Red

uced

(M

TCO

2e in

20

20)

874,

089

1,02

2.25

3,06

6.75

5,41

7.93

79,7

35.5

085

,153

.43

3,53

3.34

32

Empl

oyee

s x

10%

par

ticip

atio

n ra

te =

par

ticip

atin

g em

ploy

ees

Parti

cipa

ting

empl

oyee

s x n

on-c

omm

utin

g da

ys/y

r = to

tal n

on-c

omm

utin

g da

ys/y

r To

tal n

on-c

omm

utin

g da

ys/y

r x 2

5% =

in-to

wn

empl

oyee

non

-com

mut

ing

days

/yr

Tota

l non

-com

mut

ing

days

/yr x

75%

= o

ut-o

f-tow

n em

ploy

ee n

on-c

omm

utin

g da

ys/y

r In

-tow

n em

ploy

ee d

ays o

ff x

5.3

mile

s = in

-tow

n em

ploy

ee V

MT/

yr

Out

-of-

tow

n em

ploy

ee d

ays o

ff x

26 m

iles =

out

-of-t

own

empl

oyee

VM

T/yr

In

-tow

n V

MT/

yr +

out

of t

own

VM

T/yr

= to

tal V

MT

redu

ced

Tota

l VM

T re

duce

d / 2

4.1

mpg

= g

allo

ns o

f gas

olin

e

Gal

lons

of g

asol

ine

redu

ced

x 0.

0089

7 M

TCO

2e/g

allo

n =

GH

G e

mis

sions

redu

ced

in 2

020

175

C

ity E

mpl

oyee

Tel

ecom

mut

ing

C

osts

Em

ploy

ee A

nnua

l Sa

lary

Cos

t Inc

ludi

ng

Ben

efits

and

A

dmin

. Fr

actio

n of

Ful

l T

ime

Tot

al A

nnua

l C

osts

$45,

000

$72,

000

10%

$7,2

00

In

itial

Cos

t:

N/A

Ann

ual C

ost:

$7

,200

.00

Ann

ual C

ost S

avin

gs:

N

/APa

ybac

k (y

ears

):

N/A

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Red

uctio

n 20

20:

32 M

TC

O2e

Ref

eren

ces

1.

City

of A

nn A

rbor

Hum

an R

esou

rces

Dep

artm

ent

2. B

rook

line

Mas

sach

uset

ts, L

ocal

Act

ion

Plan

on

Clim

ate

Cha

nge,

Feb

ruar

y 20

02

176

U

M S

tude

nt G

o! P

asse

s

D

escr

iptio

n of

Mea

sure

B

y of

ferin

g G

o! P

asse

s to

U o

f M st

uden

ts th

e C

ity c

an d

ecre

ase

the

VM

T by

stud

ents

who

com

mut

e to

and

from

scho

ol.

This

prog

ram

will

also

alle

viat

e pa

rkin

g de

man

d an

d tra

ffic

con

gest

ion

in a

nd a

roun

d th

e ca

mpu

s. T

he C

ity c

ould

offe

r the

Go!

Pas

s for

$5

.00/

stud

ent/y

r as

it do

es w

ith C

ity e

mpl

oyee

s. T

his c

ost c

ould

be

abso

rbed

thro

ugh

stud

ent t

uitio

n.

D

ata

and

Ass

umpt

ion

Gen

eral

1.

Tot

al n

umbe

r of s

tude

nts a

t the

U o

f M: 3

8,24

8*

2. 1

0% o

f stu

dent

s will

bec

ome

new

AA

TA ri

ders

3. A

vera

ge ro

und-

trip

com

mut

e: 5

.3 m

iles

4.

Nat

iona

l fue

l eco

nom

y: 2

4.1

mpg

*

177

UM

Stu

dent

Go!

Pas

ses

Cal

cula

tions

G

ener

al

Pa

rtic

ipan

ts

VM

T

Red

uced

(V

MT/

day)

Gal

lons

R

educ

ed

(gal

lons

/day

)

GH

G E

mis

sion

s R

educ

ed

(MTC

O2e

/day

)

GH

G E

mis

sion

s R

educ

tion

(MTC

O2e

in 2

020)

38

25

20,2

72.5

0 84

1.18

7.54

5407

676

2,75

6

Stud

ents

x 1

0% p

artic

ipat

ion

= p

artic

ipan

ts

Pa

rtici

pant

s x a

vera

ge c

omm

ute

= V

MT/

day

V

MT

redu

ced

/ nat

iona

l fue

l eco

nom

y =

gal

lons

/day

Gal

lons

redu

ced

x 0.

0089

7 M

TCO

2e/g

allo

n/da

y =

GH

G e

mis

sions

redu

ced/

day

G

HG

em

issio

ns re

duce

d/da

y x

270

days

/sch

ool y

ear

= G

HG

em

issio

ns re

duce

d in

202

0

In

itial

Cos

t:

N

/AA

nnua

l Cos

t:

N

/AA

nnua

l Cos

t Sav

ings

:

N

/APa

ybac

k (y

ears

):

N/A

G

reen

hous

e G

as R

educ

tion

2020

:

2,75

6 M

TC

O2e

R

efer

ence

s

1.

U.S

. Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

Ligh

t Dut

y Au

tom

otiv

e Te

chno

logy

and

Fue

l Eco

nom

y Tr

ends

197

5-20

01

178


Description of Measure This program will include: adding or expanding bike racks on all AATA and U of M buses, expanding bike lanes, and expanding the police bike patrol force. This measure is meant to encourage and provide further infrastructure for bike use in the City and decrease dependence on personal vehicles for transportation. Overall, this measure will reduce total VMT in the City.


1. VMT reduction: 1%/yr 2. National fuel economy = 24.1 mpg* 3. Annual gas reduction for police patrolling: 5% Costs 1. Price of gasoline: $1.50/gallon* Calculations General

Year Annual VMT

VMT Reduced (miles/yr)

Gasoline Reduced (gallons/yr)


(MTCO2e in 2020) 2005 1,007,364,807 10,073,648 417,994 3,749 2006 1,025,031,467 10,250,315 425,324 3,815 2007 1,043,007,957 10,430,080 432,783 3,882 2008 1,061,299,709 10,612,997 440,373 3,950 2009 1,079,912,252 10,799,123 448,096 4,019 2010 1,100,166,547 11,001,665 456,501 4,095 2011 1,118,592,246 11,185,922 464,146 4,163 2012 1,137,326,541 11,373,265 471,920 4,233

179


Year Annual VMT




(MTCO2e/yr) 2013 1,156,374,599 11,563,746 479,823 4,304 2014 1,175,741,677 11,757,417 487,860 4,376 2015 1,195,433,116 11,954,331 496,030 4,449 2016 1,215,454,349 12,154,543 504,338 4,524 2017 1,235,810,900 12,358,109 512,785 4,600 2018 1,256,508,385 12,565,084 521,373 4,677 2019 1,277,552,513 12,775,525 530,105 4,755 2020 1,298,690,258 12,986,903 538,876 4,834

Annual total VMT x 1% = total VMT reduced VMT reduced / 24.1 mpg = annual gas reduced Annual gas reduced x 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallons = GHG emission reduced in 2020

Costs

AATA Buses Bike Rack Price

($/unit) Police Bike Installation Bike Price Initial Cost

75 $549.00 10 $1,800.00 $59,175.00

[AATA buses x bike rack price] + [bikes for police x bike price] = initial cost


Gasoline Reduction From

Police Bikes (gallons/yr)

Gasoline Price

($/gallon)

Annual Cost

Saving 417,994 20,900 $1.50 $31,349.53

Annual gasoline reduced x 5% = gasoline reduction from police bikes Gasoline reduction from police bikes x gasoline price = annual savings

180


Initial Cost: $59,175.00Annual Cost: $0.00Annual Cost Savings: $31,349.53Payback (years): 1.89 Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 4,834 MTCO2e

References 1. Sportsworks <http://www.bicycleracks.com/sbfaq.asp>

181

Smart Growth Initiative Program

Description of Measure Developing a Smart Growth Initiative to encourage mixed land use in combination with a distance development surcharge on new developments based on distance from the urban center will reduce VMT in the City. Encouraging mixed land use allows for the combination of residential and commercial units in a given geographic area, therefore allowing residents to frequent commercial establishments without having to travel by car. In addition, the City will assess a development distance surcharge on builders based on the development's distance from the City's urban center. Data and Assumptions General

1. Average miles driven: 30.59/miles/automobile/day* 2. Average vehicles/new resident: 1 3. Reduction in VMT/car/day: 10% 4. Total VMT reduced: 3.06 miles/car/day 5. Total reduced VMT/car/day = 3.06 miles 6. National fuel economy: 24.1 mpg* 7. Growth is assumed to be on the outskirts of the City of Ann Arbor

182



Year Population Population Difference




(MTCO2e in 2020) 2005 115,456 289 323,005 13,403 120 2006 115,745 289 323,005 13,403 120 2007 116,034 290 324,123 13,449 121 2008 116,324 291 325,241 13,495 121 2009 116,615 431 481,714 19,988 179 2010 117,046 433 483,949 20,081 180 2011 117,479 435 486,184 20,174 181 2012 117,914 436 487,302 20,220 181 2013 118,350 438 489,537 20,313 182 2014 118,788 440 491,773 20,406 183 2015 119,228 441 492,890 20,452 183 2016 119,669 443 495,126 20,545 184 2017 120,112 444 496,243 20,591 185 2018 120,556 446 498,479 20,684 186 2019 121,002 424 473,890 19,663 176 2020 121,426 426 476,125 19,756 177

[Population difference x 3.06 miles/car/day] x 365.25 days/yr = annual VMT reduced Annual VMT reduced / 24.1mpg = gasoline reduced Annual gas reduced x 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallons = GHG emissions reduced in 2020 Initial Cost: $0.00Annual Cost: $0.00Annual Cost Savings: $0.00Payback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 177 MTCO2e

183

C

ity E

mpl

oyee

Fle

x-T

ime

Des

crip

tion

of M

easu

re

En

cour

agin

g al

l per

man

ent,

full-

time

empl

oyee

s to

adop

t a fl

ex-t

ime

wor

k sc

hedu

le.

A C

ity e

mpl

oyee

will

be

resp

onsi

ble

for

prog

ram

edu

catio

n an

d pr

omot

ion.

Thi

s pro

gram

will

offe

r em

ploy

ees t

he o

ptio

n of

wor

king

4 -

10-h

our d

ays p

er w

eek

and

will

re

duce

ove

rall

com

mut

ing

mile

s driv

en a

nnua

lly b

y C

ity e

mpl

oyee

s, th

eref

ore

redu

cing

VM

T re

late

d G

HG

em

issio

ns.

D

ata

and

Ass

umpt

ions

Gen

eral

1. P

erm

anen

t, fu

ll-tim

e C

ity e

mpl

oyee

s: 8

74*

2. E

mpl

oyee

s, on

ave

rage

, rec

eive

3 w

eeks

of p

aid

vaca

tion*

3.

Em

ploy

ees,

on a

vera

ge, r

ecei

ve 1

4 pa

id h

olid

ays/

pers

onal

day

s*

4. T

otal

ann

ual w

ork

wee

ks p

er y

ear:

47*

5. F

lex

sche

dule

: 4 -

10-h

our w

ork

days

, 3 d

ays o

ff pe

r wee

k 6.

Em

ploy

ee p

artic

ipat

ion

in th

e pr

ogra

m: 1

0%

7. 7

5% o

f City

em

ploy

ees

live

outs

ide

Ann

Arb

or, 2

5% li

ve w

ithin

City

lim

its

8. A

vera

ge le

ngth

of c

omm

ute

for i

n-to

wn

empl

oyee

s: 5

.3 m

iles

9. A

vera

ge le

ngth

of c

omm

ute

for o

ut-o

f-tow

n em

ploy

ees:

26

mile

s 10

. Nat

iona

l fue

l eco

nom

y: 2

4.1

mpg

*

184

C

ity E

mpl

oyee

Fle

x-T

ime

Cos

ts

1.

Run

ning

this

prog

ram

wou

ld re

quire

10%

of a

full-

time

staf

f mem

ber's

tim

e an

nual

ly

2. E

mpl

oyee

's sa

lary

: $45

,000

3.

Em

ploy

ee's

bene

fits a

nd a

dmin

istra

tion

cost

s are

an

addi

tiona

l 60%

of s

alar

y

D

ata

and

Cal

cula

tions

G

ener

al

Part

icip

atin

g E

mpl

oyee

s

Day

s O

ff pe

r Y

ear

In-T

own

Em

ploy

ee

Day

s Off

Out

-of-

Tow

n E

mpl

oyee

D

ays O

ff

In-T

own

Em

ploy

ee

VM

T

Out

-of-

Tow

n E

mpl

oyee

V

MT

Tot

al

VM

T

Red

uced

Gas

olin

e (g

allo

ns)

GH

G E

mis

sion

s R

educ

ed

(MTC

O2e

in 2

020)

874,

089

1,02

2.25

3,06

6.75

5,41

7.93

79,7

35.5

085

,153

.43

3,53

3.34

32

Empl

oyee

s x

10%

par

ticip

atio

n ra

te =

par

ticip

atin

g em

ploy

ees

Parti

cipa

ting

empl

oyee

s x d

ays o

ff/yr

= to

tal d

ays o

ff/yr

To

tal d

ays o

ff/yr

x 2

5% =

in-to

wn

empl

oyee

day

s of

f/yr

Tota

l day

s off/

yr x

75%

= o

ut-o

f-tow

n em

ploy

ee d

ays o

ff/yr

In

-tow

n em

ploy

ee d

ays o

ff x

5.3

mile

s = in

-tow

n em

ploy

ee V

MT/

yr

O

ut-o

f-tow

n em

ploy

ee d

ays o

ff x

26 m

iles =

out

-of-t

own

empl

oyee

VM

T/yr

In-to

wn

VM

T/yr

+ o

ut-o

f-tow

n V

MT/

yr =

tota

l VM

T re

duce

d

To

tal V

MT

redu

ced

/ 24.

1 m

pg =

gal

lons

of g

asol

ine

redu

ced

Gal

lons

of g

asol

ine

redu

ced

x 0

.008

97 M

TCO

2e/g

allo

n =

GH

G e

mis

sions

redu

ced

in 2

020

185

C

ity E

mpl

oyee

Fle

x-T

ime

C

osts

Em

ploy

ee

Ann

ual S

alar

y C

ost I

nclu

ding

B

enef

its a

nd A

dmin

Frac

tion

of F

ull

Tim

e T

otal

Ann

ual

Cos

ts

$4

5,00

0$7

2,00

010

%$7

,200

In

itial

Cos

t:

$0

.00

Ann

ual C

ost:

$7,2

00A

nnua

l Cos

t Sav

ings

:

N/A

Payb

ack

(yea

rs):

N/A

G

reen

hous

e G

as R

educ

tion

2020

:

32

MT

CO

2e

Ref

eren

ces

1. C

ity o

f Ann

Arb

or H

uman

Res

ourc

es D

epar

tmen

t 2.

Bro

oklin

e M

assa

chus

etts

, Loc

al A

ctio

n Pl

an o

n C

limat

e C

hang

e, F

ebru

ary

2002

186

Solid Waste Management Measure


Description of Measure In order to further reduce landfilled waste, the City will establish 75% waste reduction mandates, to be met by the year 2020. Waste reduction includes recycling, composting, reuse, and source reduction. All City sectors will be required to achieve this mandate. Examples of programs that could help the City meet the mandate include: - Adopting a Pay-As-You-Throw Policy (establish collection rates based on volume of waste discarded by customer) - Expand yard waste collection to include compostable food waste - Add a downtown recycling drop-off site to increase recycling among businesses and residents located near the City center (also will reduce VMT in the City) - Switching from recycling bins to carts to increase volume and collection efficiencies - Provide home composting and grass recycling training and seminars for residents


1. The City will achieve a 75% waste reduction rate by 2020 2. 33.5% of this will be achieved through recycling 3. 26.5% will be achieved through composting 4. 15% will be achieved from reuse and source reduction 5. Material makeup of recycling stream will be the same as in 2001

Calculations General Total Waste Generated 2020

(tons) Waste Recycled

(tons) Waste Composted

(tons) Source Reduced

(tons) 70,729.05 23,694.23 18,743.20 10,609.36

187

Waste Reduction Mandate Total waste generation x 33.5% = waste recycled (tons) Total waste generation x 26.5% = composted (tons) Total waste generation x 15.0% = waste source reduced (tons) Waste Recycling

Materials

Total Waste Recycled % Makeup

(23,694.23 tons)

GHG Emissions per Ton Material

Recycled (MTCO2e)


(MTCO2e in 2020) ONP #8258 46.33% -3.48 -38,203OCC259 16.58% -2.6 -10,215Mixed Paper 7.57% -2.47 -4,431Office Paper 3.91% -2.48 -2,300Glass - Flint 1.92% -0.28 -127Glass - Green 1.27% -0.28 -84Glass - Amber 0.43% -0.28 -29Glass - Mixed 9.56% -0.28 -634Plastic - PET260 1.74% -1.55 -639Plastic - HDPE261 Natural 1.77% -1.4 -587Plastic - HDPE262 Pigmented 1.01% -1.4 -334Aluminum 0.80% -15.07 -2,862Ferrous Metals 3.18% -1.79 -1,350Aseptic Packaging 0.07% 0.00Scrap Metal 0.24% -6.5 -368Residue 3.62% 0.00TOTAL Annual Reduction -62,163Current Reduction (2001) -42,087Actual Future Reduction (2020) 20,076 [Tons recycled x % makeup] x [emissions/ton of recycled material] = GHG emissions 2020 Future savings - current savings = actual GHG emissions reduction

258 Old newspaper #8 is the highest quality of recovered newspaper. 259 Old corrugated cardboard. 260 Polyethylene terephthalate. 261 High density polyethylene. 262 Ibid.

188


Composting

GHG Emissions per Ton Material

Recycled (MTCO2e)


(MTCO2e in 2020) GHG Reduction -0.2 -3,749 Current Reduction (2001) -0.2 -2536 Actual Future Reduction (2020) -0.2 1,212 Tons of compost x emissions/ton of composted material = GHG emissions in 2020 Future savings - current savings = actual GHG emissions reduction in 2020 Source Reduction

Tons Total MTCO2e


(MTCO2 in 2020) Source Reduction 10,609.36 19,554.79 2,933 Total MTCO2e 2020 x 15% = GHG emissions 2020 Initial Cost: N/AAnnual Cost: N/AAnnual Cost Savings: N/APayback (years): N/A Greenhouse Gas Reduction 2020: 24,222 MTCO2e Note Cost is dependent upon program(s) implemented References 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, WARM Software

189

Mat

rix

of R

ecom

men

ded

Mea

sure

s N

ame

of M

easu

re

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Com

mun

ity O

utre

ach

and

Edu

catio

n

Gre

en Y

outh

Cor

ps P

rogr

am

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a su

mm

er

empl

oym

ent p

rogr

am to

hire

te

ens t

o w

ork

on C

ity

beau

tific

atio

n an

d tre

e pl

antin

g pr

ojec

ts.

550

$3,2

00.0

0 $8

6,65

0.00

$0

.00

N/A

Tree

Dis

tribu

tion

and

Plan

ting

Partn

ersh

ip

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith

loca

l gro

wer

s to

distr

ibut

e na

tive

trees

to th

e co

mm

unity

41

5 $2

,480

.00

$0.0

0 $0

.00

N/A

Hea

ting/

Coo

ling

Educ

atio

n Pr

ogra

m

X

Dev

elop

an

outre

ach

prog

ram

to

edu

cate

resi

dent

s on

effic

ient

hea

ting

and

cool

ing

prac

tices

43

$0.0

0 $7

,200

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Clim

ate

Chan

ge E

duca

tion

Prog

ram

X

En

cour

age

a cl

imat

e ch

ange

cu

rric

ulum

in p

ublic

scho

ols

816

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Gre

en B

uild

ing

Des

ign

Sem

inar

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a c

ours

e fo

r bui

lder

s, co

ntra

ctor

s, an

d de

velo

pers

on

ener

gy e

ffici

ent b

uild

ing

desi

gn to

enc

oura

ge

deve

lope

rs to

seek

Lea

ders

hip

in E

nerg

y an

d En

viro

nmen

tal

Des

ign

(LEE

D) c

ertif

icat

ion

for n

ew c

onst

ruct

ion

3643

$0

.00

$7,2

00.0

0 $1

1,63

8.59

N

/A

190

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Ene

rgy

Con

serv

atio

n

Wat

er C

onse

rvat

ion

X

X

X

X

X

Dev

elop

a c

ity-w

ide

prog

ram

to

enc

oura

ge/fa

cilit

ate

the

inst

alla

tion

of w

ater

-co

nser

ving

fixt

ures

, and

ap

plia

nces

4,21

9 $0

.00

$7,2

00.0

0 $1

21,8

38.7

8 0

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

in R

enta

l U

nits

X

X

Dev

elop

an

ince

ntiv

e-ba

sed

prog

ram

to e

ncou

rage

la

ndlo

rds t

o in

stall

ener

gy

effic

ient

hea

ting

and

air

cond

ition

ing

syst

ems,

hot

wat

er h

eate

rs a

nd a

pplia

nces

in

thei

r uni

ts

44,2

49

$0.0

0 $0

.00

$0.0

0 0

0% In

tere

st an

d Re

bate

Pr

ogra

m F

or R

esid

entia

l Se

ctor

App

lianc

es

X

X

X

Cre

ate

a ta

x or

reba

te-b

ased

in

cent

ive

prog

ram

to

reim

burs

e th

e co

st d

iffer

entia

l fo

r the

repl

acem

ent o

f non

-en

ergy

effi

cien

t app

lianc

es

with

Ene

rgyS

tar m

odel

s and

de

velo

p a

zero

inte

rest

loan

pr

ogra

m to

ena

ble

resi

dent

s to

borr

ow fu

ndin

g to

fina

nce

high

co

st e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

proj

ects

.

1,30

4 $4

72,1

00.0

0 $0

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Ener

gy E

ffici

ent B

uild

ing

Cod

es

X

X

X

X

X

Impr

ove

build

ing

code

's en

ergy

effi

cien

cy st

anda

rds f

or

new

con

stru

ctio

n 9,

169

$18,

000.

00

N/A

$2

0,56

7.50

0.

88

191

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mic

higa

n Re

side

ntia

l Hou

sing

Util

ity

and

Rent

Sep

arat

ion

X

Enco

urag

e th

e U

of M

to

chan

ge th

eir p

ract

ice

of

incl

udin

g ut

ility

cos

ts w

ith

mon

thly

rent

to in

crea

se

ener

gy-c

onsc

ious

hab

its

1,11

4 $0

.00

$0.0

0 $0

.00

N/A

Com

pact

Flu

ores

cent

Bul

b Pr

ogra

m

X

Partn

er w

ith C

FL

man

ufac

ture

s to

crea

te a

pr

ogra

m w

here

cou

pons

for

the

purc

hase

of C

FLs a

re

distr

ibut

ed to

Ann

Arb

or

resi

dent

s

1,27

5 $0

.00

$12,

500.

00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Ener

gy E

ffici

ency

Offi

cer

X

X

X

X

X

Hire

a C

ity e

mpl

oyee

to w

ork

with

the

mun

icip

ality

, U o

f M,

resi

dent

s, bu

sines

s and

in

dustr

y to

enh

ance

ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y

28,3

21

$0.0

0 $7

2,00

0.00

$6

2,83

1.53

N

/A

Ener

gy E

ffici

ent W

indo

w

Repl

acem

ent

X

X

X

X

X

Enco

urag

e th

e re

plac

emen

t of

old

win

dow

s w

ith m

ore

ener

gy

effic

ient

mod

els i

n al

l sec

tors

2,

702

N/A

$7

,200

.00

$11,

283.

00

N/A

WW

TP A

naer

obic

Dig

este

r G

as P

ower

X

X

X

X

X

Ana

erob

ic d

iges

tion/

ga

sific

atio

n of

was

te w

ater

tre

atm

ent p

lant

resi

due

to

prov

ide

met

hane

for a

fuel

cel

l

40,2

43

$1,3

00,0

00.0

0 N

/A

$353

,151

.09

3.68

Sola

r Pow

ered

Stre

et L

ight

s

X

Re

trofit

or r

epla

ce st

reet

lam

ps

with

sola

r pow

ered

mod

els

20,5

63

$4,0

24,9

17.0

0 $0

.00

$222

,850

.00

18.1

Rene

wab

le P

ortfo

lio

Stan

dard

X

X

X

X

X

Requ

ire a

ll el

ectri

city

sold

w

ithin

the

City

of A

nn A

rbor

of

com

e fr

om 5

0% re

new

able

so

urce

s

771,2

12

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

192

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ant

i-idl

ing

Ord

inan

ce

X

X

X

X

X

Ado

pt a

city

wid

e or

dina

nce

bann

ing

all v

ehic

le id

ling

long

er th

an a

spec

ified

leng

th

of ti

me

4,26

1 N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

Traf

fic F

low

Stu

dy

X

X

X

X

X

Con

duct

a c

ity-w

ide

traffi

c flo

w st

udy

to m

axim

ize

effic

ienc

ies

4,14

7 $7

,200

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

N/A

Hyb

rid E

lect

ric V

ehic

le

Reba

te P

rogr

am

X

X

X

X

O

ffer t

ax c

redi

ts or

pur

chas

e in

cent

ives

/reba

te p

rogr

ams f

or

hybr

id e

lect

ric v

ehic

les

3,93

0 $3

,426

,000

.00

N/A

N

/A

N/A

Hyb

rid E

lect

ric V

ehic

le

Park

ing

Ince

ntiv

e Pr

ogra

m

X

Prov

ide

free

par

king

in th

e ci

ty

for h

ybrid

ele

ctric

veh

icle

s 98

2 $7

,707

.33

N/A

N

/A

N/A

Alte

rnat

ive

Tran

spor

tatio

n to

Wor

k D

ay P

rogr

am

X

Prom

ote

Ann

Arb

or re

side

nts'

use

of a

ltern

ativ

e tra

nspo

rtatio

n on

e da

y a

wee

k fr

om M

ay -

Sept

embe

r.

167

$0.0

0 $7

,200

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

Fuel

Sw

itchi

ng a

nd H

ybrid

El

ectri

c V

ehic

le P

urch

ase

Prog

ram

X

X

Ado

pt a

pol

icy

by th

e C

ity o

f A

nn A

rbor

and

the

Uni

vers

ity

of M

ichi

gan

that

all

new

ly

purc

hase

d se

dans

are

hyb

rid

elec

tric

vehi

cles

; all

dies

el fu

el

purc

hase

d sh

ould

be

switc

hed

to a

ble

nd o

f 20%

bio

dies

el.

11,1

07

$262

,000

.00

$240

,000

.00

$31,

458.

00

N/A

City

Em

ploy

ee

Tele

com

mut

ing

X

En

able

City

em

ploy

ees t

o te

leco

mm

ute

a sp

ecifi

c nu

mbe

r of

day

s per

wee

k 32

N

/A

$7,2

00.0

0 N

/A

N/A

193

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

UM

Stu

dent

Go!

Pas

ses

X

Expa

nd fr

ee b

us p

ass p

rogr

am

to a

ll U

of M

stud

ents

(bot

h gr

adua

te a

nd u

nder

grad

uate

) 2,

756

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Bike

Enc

oura

gem

ent

Prog

ram

X

X

A c

olla

bora

tive

effo

rt be

twee

n th

e C

ity a

nd th

e U

of M

to

annu

ally

giv

e aw

ay fr

ee b

ikes

th

at a

re re

cove

red;

exp

and

bike

lane

s; in

crea

se b

ike

rack

ca

paci

ty o

n bu

ses (

U o

f M a

nd

City

); an

d au

gmen

t pol

ice

bike

pa

trols

4,83

4 $5

9,17

5.00

$0

.00

$31,

349.

53

1.89

Smar

t Gro

wth

Initi

ativ

e Pr

ogra

m

X

Ass

ess d

ista

nce

surc

harg

e on

ne

w d

evel

opm

ents

to m

aint

ain

or re

duce

VM

T/pe

r Ann

Arb

or

resi

dent

ove

r tim

e

177

$0.0

0 $0

.00

$0.0

0 N

/A

City

Em

ploy

ee F

lex-

Tim

e

X

O

ffer f

lex-

time

wor

k sc

hedu

le

for c

ity e

mpl

oyee

s 32

$0

.00

$7,2

00.0

0 N

/A

N/A

Solid

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

Was

te R

educ

tion

Man

date

s X

X

X

X

X

Re

duce

was

te a

cros

s all

sect

ors b

y 75

% b

y th

e ye

ar

2020

24

,222

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

194

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Oth

er

Exis

ting

Stat

e an

d Fe

dera

l Pr

ogra

ms

X

X

X

X

X

Parti

cipa

te in

one

or m

ore

of

the

follo

win

g pr

ogra

ms:

a.

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

Urb

an H

eat I

slan

d Re

duct

ion

Initi

ativ

e:

Enco

urag

es th

e us

e of

hig

hly

refle

ctiv

e m

ater

ials

for r

oofin

gb.

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

Ener

gySt

ar B

uild

ings

: H

elp

smal

l bus

ines

ses

purc

hase

ene

rgy

effic

ient

of

fice

prod

ucts

c.

Env

ironm

enta

l Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

Wat

er A

llian

ces f

or

Volu

ntar

y Ef

ficie

ncy

(WAV

E):

Prov

ides

uni

vers

ities

dev

elop

co

st-e

ffec

tive

wat

er

cons

erva

tion

prog

ram

s d.

DO

E En

ergy

Smar

t Sch

ools

: Pr

ovid

es sc

hool

retro

fit a

nd

cons

erva

tion

educ

atio

n as

sist

ance

e.

DO

E M

unic

ipal

Ene

rgy

Man

agem

ent P

rogr

am

(MEM

P): A

ssis

t urb

an a

reas

to

achi

eve

ener

gy e

ffici

ency

195

Nam

e of

Mea

sure

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

U of M

Municipal

Des

crip

tion


Initial Cost

Annual Ongoing Cost

Annual Savings

Payback (Years)

Supp

ort f

or L

ight

Rai

l Tr

ansit

Sys

tem

X

Ann

Arb

or's

May

or a

nd C

ity

Cou

ncil

shou

ld d

raft

a st

atem

ent o

f sup

port

for a

ligh

t ra

il tra

nsit

syst

em c

onne

ctin

g La

nsin

g, A

nn A

rbor

, Met

ro

Airp

ort a

nd D

etro

it

Cor

pora

te A

vera

ge F

uel

Econ

omy

(CA

FE)

Rais

ing

CA

FE st

anda

rds w

ill

incr

ease

the

natio

nal f

uel

econ

omy

of th

e U

.S. f

leet

. A

hi

gher

fuel

eco

nom

y w

ill

redu

ce th

e am

ount

of

petro

leum

-bas

ed fu

els

cons

umed

196

Table 48: Analysis of Cost per Metric Ton of CO2e Reduced

Name of Measure 2005

($/MTCO2e) 2006- 2020 ($/MTCO2e)

Community Outreach and Education Green Youth Program 163.36 157.55 Tree Distribution and Planting Partnership 5.98 5.98 Heating/Cooling Education Program 167.44 167.44 Climate Change Education Program NA NA Green Building Design Seminar 1.98 1.98 Energy Conservation Water Conservation 1.71 1.71 Energy Efficiency in Rental Units NA NA 0% Interest and Rebate Program For Residential Sector Appliances

362.04 362.04

Energy Efficient Building Codes 1.96 1.96 U of M Residential Housing Utility and Rent Separation

Na NA

Compact Fluorescent Bulb Program 9.80 9.80 Energy Efficiency Officer 2.54 2.54 Energy Efficient Window Replacement

2.66 2.66

WWTP Anaerobic Digester Gas Power

32.30 32.30

Solar Powered Street Lights 195.74 195.74 Renewable Portfolio Standard NA NA Transportation Anti-Idling Ordinance NA NA Traffic Flow Study 1.74 1.74 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Rebate Program

871.76 871.76


7.85 7.85

Alternative Transportation to Work Day Program

43.11 43.11


45.20 21.61

City Employee Telecommuting 225.00 225.00 UM Student Go! Passes NA NA Bike Encouragement Program 12.24 12.24 Smart Growth Initiative Program NA NA City Employee Flex Time 225.00 225.00 Solid Waste Management Waste Reduction Mandates NA NA

197

DISCUSSION If implemented in full over the course of 16 years, all of the Team’s recommended emissions reduction measures presented in the Progressive Scenario would amount to a total reduction of 986,485 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2020. This would lower Ann Arbor’s GHG emissions to 1,892,256 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, or 3.1% below 1990 levels. This target is considerably less than the original reduction target of 7% below 1990 emissions. Based on the measures recommended this is the most feasible GHG emissions reduction if the City implements all programs in full by 2020 as shown in Figure 29.

Figure 29: Current vs. Progressive Scenario

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Year

MT

CO

2e

C urrent Scena rio

Prog ressive Scena rio

Figures 30, 31, 32 and 33 display the GHG reductions attributed to each of the Team’s programs or policy recommendations. Of the program types recommended, the Energy Conservation programs reduce the largest proportion of GHG emissions (see Table 58); the reductions from these programs alone account for nearly 925,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2020. The Team’s recommended Transportation measures reduce GHG emissions by 32,424 metric tons of CO2 equivalents in the year 2020, followed by Solid Waste Management at 24,222 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, and Community Education and Outreach programs at 5,466 metric tons of CO2 equivalents.


198

Table 49: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions by Program

GHGs Reduced (MTCO2e)

GHG Emission Program 2010 2015 2020 Community Outreach and Education Heating and Cooling Education Program 16 29 43 Tree Distribution and Planting Partnership 85 238 415 Green Youth Corps Program 113 316 550 Climate Change Education Program 306 561 816 Green Design Seminars 1,366 2,504 3,643 Total 1,886 3,649 5,466 Energy Conservation

University of Michigan Residential Housing Utility and Rent Separation

418 766 1,114

Compact Fluorescent Bulb Program 478 877 1,275


489 896 1,304

Energy Efficient Window Replacement 1,013 1,858 2,702 Water Conservation 1,582 2,900 4,219 Energy Efficient Building Codes 3,438 6,304 9,169 Solar Powered Street Lights 7,711 14,137 20,563 Energy Efficiency Officer 10,620 19,470 28,321 WWTP Anaerobic Digester Gas Power 15,091 27,667 40,243 Energy Efficiency Rental Units 16,593 30,421 44,249 Renewable Portfolio Standard 289,205 530,209 771,212 Total 346,639 635,505 924,371 Transportation City Employee Telecommuting 12 22 32 City Employee Flex-Time 12 22 32 Alternative Transportation to Work Day Program 63 115 167 Smart Growth Initiative Program 180 183 177 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Parking Incentive Program 368 675 982 UM Student Go! Passes 1,033 1,895 2,756 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Rebate Program 1,474 2,702 3,930 Traffic Flow Study 1,555 2,851 4,147 Anti-Idling Ordinance 1,598 2,930 4,261 Bike Encouragement Program 4,095 4,449 4,834


4,165 7,636 11,107

Total 14,555 23,479 32,424 Solid Waste Management Waste Reduction Mandate 9,083 16,652 24,221 Total 9,083 16,652 24,221 Aggregate Total 372,164 679,286 986,485

199

Within the Community Outreach and Education programs, the Green Design Seminars are expected to have the greatest impact on reducing the City’s GHG emissions followed by the Climate Change Education Program, the Green Youth Corps, the Tree Distribution and Planting Partnerships, and the Heating and Cooling Education Program as shown in Figure 30.

Figure 30: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Community Outreach and Education

Even though the GHG reductions from these programs in total are not large when compared to the other program types, successful education programs can have broader, more substantial, long-term impacts on human behavior. The Team found it particularly difficult to predict the reductions attributed to these education programs and, therefore, attempted to make safe assumptions in order to not overestimate their benefits. This, in turn, may have caused the Team to underestimate the potential GHG reductions from these programs.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

MT

CO

2e

2010 2015 2020

Year

Community Outreach and Education

Heating and Cooling EducationProgramTree Distribution and PlantingPartnership Green Youth Corps Program

Climate Change Education ProgramGreen Design Seminars

200

Figure 31: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Energy Conservation

Within the Energy Conservation programs (and all programs in general), the Renewable Portfolio Standards clearly has the greatest GHG emissions reduction impact by switching to renewable, non-carbon based energy sources. Programs responsible for moderate reductions in GHG emissions include: Energy Efficiency in Rental Units, the WWTP Anaerobic Digester Gas Power, the Energy Efficiency Officer, and the Solar Powered Street Lights programs. All other Energy Conservation programs achieve lesser reductions by 2020.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

MT

CO

2e

2010 2015 2020

Year

Energy Conservation University of MichiganResidential Housing Utility andRent SeparationCompact Fluorescent BulbProgram

0% Interest and RebateProgram for Residential SectorAppliancesEnergy Efficient WindowReplacement

Water Conservation

Energy Efficient Building Codes

Solar Powered Streetlights


WWTP Anaerobic DigesterGas Power

Energy Efficiency Rental Units


201

Figure 32: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Transportation

The aggregation of transportation measures reduces GHGs at a moderate level in 2020, with the Fuel Switching and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Purchase Programs having the greatest impact in this category.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

MT

CO

2e

2010 2015 2020

Transportation City Employee Flex-Time

City Employee Telecommuting

Alternative Transportation toWork Day Program


Hybrid Electric Vehicle ParkingIncentive Program

UM Student Go! Passes

Program

Traffic Flow Study



Fuel Switching and HybridElectric Vehicle PurchaseProgram

202

Figure 33: Progressive Scenario GHG Emissions Reductions: Solid Waste Management

Lastly, based on a 75% waste reduction strategy, solid waste related GHG emissions would be limited drastically.263 In fact, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WARM Model, this program, in effect, would sequester CO2 (the emissions reductions from waste reduction surpass the emissions generated from landfilling the material) as demonstrated in Figure 34. This occurs primarily in the WARM Model because the software assumes that recycled materials are made into 100% recycled products (no virgin materials are included) in order to account for the savings in upstream emissions. The software also does not account for emissions generated from transporting recyclable materials from Material Recovery Facilities to manufacturing facilities. In addition, the CO2 emissions originally estimated for landfilling solid waste are low because the sequestration potential of the material in the landfill is included in the software’s coefficients. Either way, the Team strongly believes that the WARM software both underestimates GHG emissions from solid waste management and overestimates the emissions reductions from recycling. The Team used WARM, because it is the standard software used for these types of applications.

263 The 75% waste diversion goal was based on similarly aggressive targets recently set in California. Since Ann Arbor currently diverts more than 40% of its waste without having initiated food waste programs, a strong commercial recycling program, or upgrading recycling collection services to offer larger recycling bins to residents, the Team feels that this is an achievable goal.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

MT

CO

2e

2010 2015 2020

Year

Solid Waste


203

Figure 34: GHG Emissions from MSW Management Including Progressive Scenario

Overall, the Team’s measures targeted all sectors as shown in Tables 50 and 51. The tables display the total reduction for each sector’s GHG emissions in the years 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020, and the percent below (or above) 1990 emissions levels by that sector in that year.

Table 50: GHG Emissions Reduced for Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Transportation Sectors (Progressive Scenario)

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Year

MTCO2e

% Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 19902005 17,121 8.1% 13,119 30.7% 10,428 13.1% 5,583 28.4% 2010 99,869 -6.1% 80,421 8.9% 61,939 2.1% 14,555 36.1% 2015 178,503 -19.2% 150,494 -9.0% 112,932 -7.9% 23,479 43.8% 2020 253,496 -31.9% 223,012 -23.9% 163,841 -17.9% 32,424 50.0%

Table 51: GHG Emissions Reduced for Municipal, University of Michigan, and Municipal Solid Waste Sectors (Progressive Scenario)

Municipal U of M MSW Total Year

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 1990

MTCO2e % Reduction

Below 19902005 2,705 -2.3% 14,699 39.2% 1,514 -31.3% 65,169 21.5% 2010 16,489 -21.7% 89,808 26.7% 9,083 -60.7% 372,164 13.4% 2015 30,670 -41.6% 166,555 13.1% 16,652 -89.7% 679,285 5.4% 2020 45,184 -62.5% 244,305 -1.4% 24,222 -118.8% 986,485 -3.1%

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

MT

CO

2e

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Year

MSW

204

Figures 35 and 36 illustrate each sector’s GHG emissions under the Current and Progressive Scenario in the year 2020. The size of each pie graph indicates the quantity of total GHG emissions in that year under the respective scenario. Clearly the most significant change is the growing percentage contribution to total emissions from the transportation sector. While total GHG emissions in this sector are lower in 2020 under the Progressive Scenario when compared with projected Current Scenario GHG emissions for the same year, the Team predicts that a third of total GHG emissions will be generated by this sector when all proposed measures reach full implementation.

Figure 35: Current Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 2020

Figure 36: Progressive Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in 2020

Total Current Scenario GHG Emissions:2,878,740 MTCO2e

585,357 MTCO2e

20%

571,087 MTCO2e20%

655,930 MTCO2e 23%

63,133 MTCO2e2%

559,550 MTCO2e19%

19,555 MTCO2e1%

424,128 MTCO2e15%

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Transportation

Municipal

U of M

MSW

331,861 MTCO2e17%

348,075 MTCO2e18%

260,287 MTCO2e14%623,506 MTCO2e

33%

17,949 MTCO2e1%

315,245 MTCO2e 17%

-4,667 MTCO2e0%

Total Progressive Scenario Emissions:1,892,256 MTCO2e

Commercial

Residential

Industrial

Transportation

Municipal

U of M

MSW

205

Table 52: 2020 Progressive Scenario Percent Change Compared with Current Scenario GHG Emissions Levels in the Same Year

Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Municipal U of M MSW Total (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) ((MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e) (MTCO2e)

43% 39% 39% 5% 72% 44% 124% 34% As indicated by Table 52, three of the seven sectors appear to have significant changes in emissions levels. As addressed earlier, municipal solid waste becomes a net GHG emissions sink under the Progressive Scenario. As a result, MSW sector emissions decrease by 124% below 2020 Current Scenario GHG emissions. Municipal sector emissions decrease by 72% below 2020 Current Scenario projections; relying heavily on GHG reductions from the Renewable Portfolio Standard. While the transportation sector’s GHG emissions decrease under the Progressive Scenario, measures that target this sector barely outpace growth in the quantity of vehicles on the road and VMT. The transportation sector does not benefit from the significant GHG reductions achieved through the Renewable Portfolio Standard mitigation measure. This measure accounts for the majority of all GHG emissions reductions in the residential, commercial, industrial, municipal and U of M sectors. Although the largest reductions in GHG emissions (in terms of metric tons of CO2 equivalents) are achieved in the residential, U of M, and commercial sectors, it is important to note that solid waste management and the municipal government achieve the greatest percent reduction relative to each sector’s 1990 emissions. The total GHG emissions for each sector, including the Progressive Scenario, are displayed in Figure 37.

Figure 37: GHG Emissions by Sector Including Progressive Scenario, 1990-2020

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

MT

CO

2e

1990 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Year

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

Transportation

Municipal

U of M

206

Although clearly, under the Progressive Scenario, GHG emissions were reduced in all sectors, the Team recognizes that some sector’s emissions could be targeted more aggressively. For example, although the Team generated methods and programs to reduce the University of Michigan’s natural gas and electricity consumption, the Team could not adequately address all areas for improvement. Since U of M functions independently within the City, the Team believes the University would benefit from conducting its own study to generate a viable, yet aggressive, GHG emissions reduction target and action plan. In addition, as made apparent in Figure 37, the Team’s recommended measures limited the transportation sector’s growth, but failed to actually make significant reductions to this sector’s emissions. The City should consider further efforts to effectively reduce this sector’s GHG emissions. Considering that the majority of Ann Arbor is built, there exists tremendous opportunity to reduce GHG emissions by retrofitting existing structures so they consume less energy. Overall, the transportation, commercial, and residential, and U of M sectors would benefit from increased programs and policies to reduce GHG emissions. An analysis of the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) Reference Scenario for GHG emissions in the U.S. suggests per capita growth will increase approximately 7%.264 Figure 38 illustrates this growth and compares it with the projected per capita emissions levels for the City of Ann Arbor.

Figure 38: Ann Arbor GHG Reduction Strategy vs. AEO2002 Reference Case

Further efforts to reduce GHG emissions will be necessary if the City intends to continue a downward sloping emissions curve beyond the year 2020. Beginning in 2021, emissions reductions will remain constant while the actual emissions will continue to grow, albeit slightly. This trend can be assumed to continue unless further mitigation efforts are developed by federal, state, or local governments.

264 Energy Information Administration, Reference Case Forecast <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf>

0.00

25.00

2000 2010 2015 2020

Years

Ann Arbor GHG ReductionStrategyAEO2002Reference CasePe

r C

apita

M

TC

O2e

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

207

CONCLUSION Re-inventing the wheel has long been a phrase to describe the unnecessarily redundant methods with which we often construct new models and strategies. Climate change science is evolving and our understanding of the long-term effects is still distant. The importance of approaching such an issue with a certain degree of synergy cannot be over-stated and in order to achieve this goal it is crucial that the communities seeking to reduce their greenhouse gases rely on one another for input and feedback. Although all communities differ to some degree in character and geography it is highly valuable to ascertain specific assumptions and draw particular parallels from communities that garner at least some of the same character and geography as Ann Arbor. Having access to actual Local Action Plans developed by other cities for the CCP (and other programs) allows for a firm understanding of what techniques, programs, and projects are currently under implementation, offering plan writers a set of plausible measures to begin strategy development. Furthermore, it is extremely helpful to speak with plan writers and gain their perspective. By understanding the various problems and roadblocks that they have encountered, many unnecessary problems and difficulties can be avoided. Drawing together all member cities under the premise of shared resources is certainly one of the major accomplishments of ICLEI under the CCP campaign. In order to achieve the long term goals set out in modern climate change policy, that is reducing emissions and maintaining that level far into the future, it is vital that governments and policy-makers understand that energy efficiency is not the answer, only a temporary solution. Evaluating Ann Arbor’s baseline data and existing measures clearly articulates this simple truth. Implementing energy efficiency may reduce the consumption of specific appliances or other infrastructure, but such measures are incapable of realizing the greater need to reduce overall energy use. Achieving the goal of reducing our need for energy is truly a vital and dynamic challenge that lies ahead. History suggests that changing one’s culture and behavior is far beyond the scope of everyday policy-making. How can we achieve this objective that seems distant and unobtainable? It can be attained through education. At first glance, community outreach programs appear to have negligible impact on a greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy. However, the long-term consequences of changing people’s perception are best described by changes in their patterns. It is not so lofty to believe that in the very near future climate change science and policy will be commonplace in primary education curricula, after all, as Jack Gibbons once stated: “Climate change is the surrogate of all other environmental issues.” However, we do not need to rely on generations still too young to understand the science that is threatening them; we can achieve equilibrium on a more expeditious timeline. Presently, we are highly dependent, both socially and economically, on fossil fuels – the primary source of greenhouse gases. Less carbon-intensive energy sources and carriers exist, offering society an option to reduce impact now rather than assuming the next generation will be less complacent. Although many forms of renewable energy are considered prohibitively expensive in today’s markets, this trend is devolving, and continues to do so with the emergence of new technology and the restructuring of energy markets. Clearly there exists a great void, one that will require an expansive bridge in order to enable our society and

208

markets to relinquish dependency on fossil fuel based energy systems. The transformation does not have to be abrupt, and can be made without negatively impacting our economy. Programs such as renewable energy portfolio standards and landfill gas recovery systems provide good examples of using the existing language of economics and market sensitivity to articulate just how feasible it is to power our lives with renewable energy systems. The final Milestone in the CCP campaign requires each member city to “…monitor and verify the results of implementation.”265 In order to effectively achieve this final goal, thus meeting all requirements of the CCP campaign, the City needs to initiate vigilante data management and tracking techniques. By thoroughly collecting and cataloguing data on energy and GHG emissions the City will be empowered to adjust and implement programs as the need arises. Since the measures recommended do not address the original reduction target specified by this Project, two alternative implementation paths were developed that allow the City to achieve greater reductions by employing a more accelerated timeline.

Figure 39: Three Implementation Pathways for the City of Ann Arbor

265 ICLEI, “CCP Participants” <http://www3.iclei.org/co2/ccpmems.htm>.

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Year

MT

CO

2e

Current Scenario


Progressive 2018

Progressive 2015


209

By implementing all of the measures recommended, the City will effectively reduce the amount of GHGs emitted in Ann Arbor and meet the goals required of them by the CCP campaign. Figure 39, above, indicates three timelines by which the City can choose to initiate the recommended measures, therefore offering three separate reduction targets. The first implementation path achieves a moderate reduction of a 3% reduction below the 1990 emissions baseline in 2020. This is the implementation path used to calculate the actual reductions of each recommended mitigation measure. This timeline is highly feasible, but not necessarily considered aggressive compared with other community action plans. Ann Arbor’s emissions level in 2020 will be 1,892,256 metric tons of CO2 equivalents, which is approximately 59,602 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the 1990 emissions level and 986,485 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the Current Scenario.

Figure 40: Implementation Path Emissions

Table 53: Implementation Paths and Associated GHG Emissions Reductions

Year

Current Scenario Emissions (MTCO2e)


(MTCO2e)

Reduction Below 1990

(%)

Reduction Below 1990 (MTCO2e)

Reduction Below Current Scenario

(MTCO2e)

1990 1,951,858 - - - -

2015 2,736,788 1,794,387 8.1 157,471 942,401

2018 2,827,911 1,859,527 4.7 92,331 968,384

2020 2,878,741 1,892,256 3.1 59,602 986,485 By implementing the recommended measures on a slightly more aggressive timeline the City can achieve an emissions reduction of nearly 5% below 1990 levels by 2018. This implementation path will result in a reduction of 92,331 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the 1990 levels and 968,384 metric tons of CO2 equivalents less than the Current Scenario. The third implementation path would be considered moderately progressive in comparison with the 7% reduction that would have been required of the U.S. under the Kyoto

1,740,000

1,760,000

1,780,000

1,800,000

1,820,000

1,840,000

1,860,000

1,880,000

1,900,000

2015 2018 2020


MTCO2e

210

Protocol. It will result in an 8% reduction below 1990 emissions level by 2015, reducing 157,471 metric tons of CO2 equivalents below the 1990 level and 942,401 metric tons of CO2 equivalents below the Current Scenario. Initiating this implementation path would be considered more progressive relative to other communities and enable Ann Arbor to distinguish themselves as a leader in reducing local impacts on climate change. Integrative decision-making is vital in successfully implementing a strategy that cuts across as many sectors and fields as a greenhouse gas emissions reduction plan. In order to achieve any of the targets described above, the City will need the participation and cooperation of several, if not all City departments, engaging stakeholders and interested parties who may not have been previously affiliated with one another. Seeking the recommendation and council of other communities, those already in the process of implementing their action plans, may prove highly valuable. In the end, by implementing a strong, progressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy, the City can set itself apart in the arena of local environmental initiatives, bidding other communities to follow suit and leading by example.

211

BIBLIOGRAPHY Alternative Fuels Data Center. Alternative Fuels Station Locator and Overview Map.

Available from <http://afdcmap.nrel.gov/Website/Stations/viewer.htm> [Accessed on February 14, 2003].

Alternative Fuels Data Center. Properties of Fuels. Available from

<http://afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/fueltable.pdf> [Accessed January 31, 2003]. Angus, Briony. 2002. Town of Brookline, Massachusetts, Climate Change Program.

Personal Communication [November 4, 2002]. Argonne National Lab. 2002. Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in

Transportation Graphic User Interface (GREETGUI) v1.6 Software Model. May 25, 2001. Available from <http://greet.anl.gov/download.html>. [Accessed November 25, 2002].

Bairley, Paul. 2003. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Parks and Recreation Department –

Forestry Division. Personal Communication [March13, 2003]. Bell, Ryan. 2002. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – Cities for

Climate Protection. Personal Communication. Benchmarking Air Emissions of the 100 Largest Electric Generation Owners in the U.S. –

2000. March 2002. This Reports is the product of a collaborative effort between The National Resource Defense Council, Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, and Public service Enterprise Group. Available from <http://www.ceres.org/reports/ missue_reports.htm>. [Accessed on December 12, 2002].

Bodansky, Daniel PIK Report #12 The History and Legal Structure of the Global Climate

Change Regime May 29, 1997. BP.com, Environmental/Social: Climate Change: Our Performance

Available from <http://www.bpamoco.com/environ_social/environment/climate_change/index> [Accessed February 3, 2003].

BP.com: Environmental/Social: Climate Change: Working in Partnership Available from

<http://www.bp.com/environ_social/environment/climate_change/our_position/>. [Accessed February 3, 2003].

Burlington Climate Action Taskforce, City of Burlington, Vermont. The Climate Action

Plan: A Plan to Save Energy and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Public Review Draft. April 2000.

212

California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board. Electric Vehicles and Energy Use: Frequently Asked Questions. Available from <www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/evenergy.pdf>.[Accessed January 9, 2002].

Center for Science and Environment, Climate Change Briefing Paper: The Kyoto Protocol

Available from <http://www.cseindia.org/html/eyou/climate/briefing_kyoto1.htm> [Accessed November 11, 2002].

City of Ann Arbor Energy Office. Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the City of Ann Arbor. July

3, 2002. City of Ann Arbor Energy Office, Landfill Gas to Energy Project Facts. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Waste Reduction and Diversion Report for Period of Fund

Year 1989/90 – Fund Year 1993/94. August 1994. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Solid Waste Department Annual Report, Fund Year 1999/00.

October 19, 2000. City of Portland and Multnomah County, Oregon. Local Action Plan: Global Warming.

April 2001. City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Natural Resources Department. Local Action Plan to Reduce

Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November 1999. City of Medford, Massachusetts. Climate Action Plan. October 2001. Cohen, Sam, Cybele Chang, Jonathan Koomey Ph.D. City of Berkley Resource Conservation

and Global Warming Abatement Plan. January 1998. Prepared by Energy Solutions. The Committee on the Environment and of the Conference of New England Governors and

Eastern Canadian Premiers. Climate Action Plan. August 2001. Committee on the Science of Climate Change: Division on Earth and Life Sciences, National

Research Council. 2001. Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Convention on Biological Diversity, Decisions from the Meetings of the Conference of the

Parties. Available from <http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.asp?lg=0&m=cop-01> [Accessed November 11, 2002].

Coultas, Brandt 2003. Ann Arbor Area Chamber of Commerce, Get Downtown Program

Coordinator. Personal Communication [March 21, 2003].

213

Energy Information Administration. 1998 Manufacturing Energy: Table 2.4 Manufacturing Inputs for Heat, Power, and Electricity Generation by End Use, 1998. Form EIA-846. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs> [Accessed January 24, 2003].

Energy Information Administration. A Look at Commercial Buildings in 1995:

Characteristics of Energy Consumption and Energy Expenditures: Table EU-2 Commercial Building Energy Intensities by Building Characteristic, 1995. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs> [Accessed January 24, 2003].

Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2003. Available from

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html> [Accessed April 24, 2003]. Energy Information Administration. Energy Consumption Series: Residential Lighting Use

and Potential Savings. DOE/EIA-0555(96)/2. September 1996. E-Z-Go Cargo Carrier 4 wheel Electric Industrial 875E 36V Specifications Sheet. Available

from < http://www.ezgo.textron.com/pdf-specs/Industrial/875e.pdf>. [Accessed February 14, 2003].

Ferland, Henry. [2003]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and

Emergency Response. Personal Communication [January, 2003]. Fuller, Kent and Harvey Shear, Ph.D. The Great Lakes: An Environmental Atlas and

Resource Book, Third Edition 1995. Jointly Produced by Government of Canada and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Great Lakes National Program Office. Environmental Protection Agency 905-B-95-001.

General Motors Corporation. Website. Available from < http://www.gmev.com/>. [Accessed

on February 14, 2003]. General Motors Corporation. EV1 NIMH Specifications. Available from

<http://www.gmev.com/specs/specs_specs_top.htm>. [Accessed on February 14, 2003].

Goodman, Sandra. 2002. E3Ventures, Inc. Personal Communication [November 20, 2002]. Gordon, Suzy. 2002. Fort Collins, Colorado, Natural Resources Department. Personal

Communication. [October 28, 2002]. Heat Island Group, Learning about Urban Heat Islands Available from

<http://eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/LEARN/>. [Accessed January 30, 2003]. Historical Climate Data: Station 200230 Ann Arbor University of Michigan, MI. Growing

Season Summary 1971-2000. Available from <http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edy/grow/mi/ 200230_gsum.html>. [Accessed on October 6, 2002].

214

Historical Climate Data: Station 200230 Ann Arbor University of Michigan, MI. Precipitation Summary 1971-2000. Available from <http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edy/precip/mi/ 200230_psum.html>. [Accessed on October 6, 2002].

Historical Climate Data: Station 200230 Ann Arbor University of Michigan, MI. Snowfall

Summary 1971-2000. Available from <http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edy/snow/mi/ 200230_ssum.html>. [Accessed on October 6, 2002].

Historical Climate Data: Station 200230 Ann Arbor University of Michigan, MI.

Temperature Summary 1971-2000. Available from <http://mcc.sws.uiuc.edy/temp/mi/ 200230_tsum.html>. [Accessed on October 6, 2002].

Honda Motor Company. Honda Civic Fact Sheet Brochure. Available from

<http://www.hondacars.com/images/banners/2003/civic_hybrid/civic_hybrid_factsheet.pdf>. [Accessed on February 2, 2003].

Honda Motor Company. Honda Insight Fact Sheet Brochure. Available from

<http://www.hondacars.com/images/banners/2003/insight/insight_factsheet.pdf>. [Accessed on February 2, 2003].

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance, Wealth to Waste Homepage. Available from

<http://www.ilsr.org/recycling>. [Accessed January 30, 2003]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Home, About IPCC Available from

<http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm>. [Accessed November 11, 2002]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report.

Available from <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm>. [Accessed December 11, 2002].

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report –

Summary for Policy-Makers. Available from <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm>. [Accessed December 11, 2002].

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2001: Technical Summary.

Available from <http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/reports.htm>. [Accessed December 11, 2002].

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, CCP Participants Available

from<http://www3.International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.org/co2/ccpmems.htm>. [Accessed January 17, 2003].

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Cities for Climate Protection

Campaign: An International Framework for Local Action. May 2002.

215

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, Cities for Climate Protection Campaign Update No. 3 Looking Back to the Future: ICLEI’s Urban CO2 Reduction Projection. Winter 1996-1997.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, The Role of Local Governments in

Implementing the UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. Cities for Climate Protection: An

International Campaign to Reduce Urban Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. February 15, 1993.

International Environmental Reference Guide, Rio Declaration on Environment and

Development Available from<http://environment.harvard.edu/guides/intenvpol/ indexes/treaties/RIO.html>. [Accessed November 9, 2002].

The International Institute for Sustainable Development, Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Vol. 12

No. 1. February 6, 1995. Johnson, David. 2002. E3Ventures, Inc. Personal Communications. [November 18, 2002]. Jordan, Renee. University of Michigan, Transportation Services Department. Personal

Communication. [December 18, 2002]. Keeling, C.D., R.B. Bacastow, A.F. Carter, S.C. Piper, T.P. Whorf, M. Heimann, W.G.

Mook, and H. Roeloffzen. Aspects of Climate Variability in the Pacific and the Western Americas.Geophysical Monograph. 1989.

Konkle, David, Memorandum to Berlin, Neal G. and Amin, James regarding the creation of

a Municipal Energy Fund for FY 1998-1999 and beyond. December 16,1997. Konkle, David, Ann Arbor Energy Office – Money Matters. Konkle, David. 2002 – 2003. Energy Coordinator, City of Ann Arbor, MI. Personal

Communications. [February 2002 – April 2003]. Leikam, Ginny. 2003. Intern, Environmental Coordination Services – City of Ann Arbor,

MI. Personal Communications. [January 27, 2003]. Melaina, Marc Greenhouse Gas Inventory for the City of Ann Arbor. January 22, 2003. Meyers, Philip A. September 2002. Impacts of Climate Change on the great Lakes Basin:

Perspectives From the Past and Prospects for the Future. Available from <http://www.miseagrant.org/symposium/papers.html>. [Accessed on December 12, 2002].

216

Mongan, Edwin L. The Journey to Sustainable Growth: Dupont’s Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal. January.9 2001.

Moorhead, David. 2003. Maintenance Supervisor, Waste Water Treatment Plant, Ann

Arbor, MI. Personal Communication. [March 12, 2003]. National Assessment Synthesis Team, U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2001. Climate

Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. Available from http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/midwest.htm>. [Accessed December 12, 2002].

National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel Production and Quality Fact Sheet March 11, 2002.

Available from <http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/prod_quality.pdf>. [Accessed February 16, 2003].

National Energy Technology Laboratory. Battery-Powered Electric and Hybrid Electric

Vehicle Projects to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Resource Guide for Program Development. Prepared by Science Applications International Corporation, Climate Change Services. July 2002.

National Lighting Product Information Program, Light Research Center, Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute. Lighting Answers: Alternatives to Halogen Torchieres. Volume 5 Issue 1, May 2000.


Polytechnic Institute. Lighting Answers: T5 Fluorescent Systems. Volume 6 Issue 1, July 2002.


Polytechnic Institute. Specifer Reports: Screwbase Compact Fluorescent Lamp Products – Energy efficient Alternatives to Incandescent Lamps. Volume 7 Number 1, June 1999.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Fact Sheet: Ford F-250 Dedicated CNG Pickup.

NREL/FS-540-26519. June 1999. Available from <http://www.ott.doe.gov/ out/field_ops/nvs/pdfs/f250.pdf>. [Accessed on January 31 2003].

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Fact Sheet: Dodge B2500 Dedicated CNG Van.

NREL/FS-540-27848. May 2000. Available from <http://www.ott.doe.gov/out/ field_ops/nvs/pdfs/b2500.pdf>. [Accessed on January 31 2003].

Naud, Matthew. 2002-2003. Environmental Coordinator and Emergency Response Manager

– City of Ann Arbor, MI. Personal Communication. [February 2002 – April 2003].

217

New York State, Office of the Governor. Governor Pataki Proposes "Green" Car Tax Break: New Legislation Encourages Purchase of Environmentally Friendly "Hybrid" Vehicles. Press Release June 14, 2002.

Ney, Richard A., Jerald L. Schnoor, Norman S.J. Foster, David J. Forkenbrock, Center for

Global and Regional Environmental Research Public Policy Center, University of Iowa. Final Report: Greenhouse Gas Phase III – Carbon Storage Quantification and Methodology Demonstration. June 30, 2001.

New England Governors/Eastern Canandian Premiers. Climate Change Action Plan.

Prepared by the Committee on the Environment and the Northeast International Committee on Energy. August 2001.

Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and

Change. October 2000. A Report for the Great Lakes Regional Assessment Group. Available from <http://www.geo.msu.edu/glra/assessment/ assessment.html#chapters>. [Accessed on December 12, 2002].

Raab, Jonathan. 2002. Raab Associates, Ltd. Personal Communication [October 29, 2002]. Rabe, Barry. 2003. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change Greenhouse & Statehouse:

The Evolvinh State Government Role in Climate Change. Rees, Ronald. 2003. City of Ann Arbor - Wastewater Treatment Plant, Assistant

Superintendent. Personal Communication [March 20, 2003]. Roman, Matthew. 2003. Personal Communications [February 24, 2003]. Sanford, Larry. 2003. City of Ann Arbor – Water Treatment Plant, Assistant Superintendent.

Personal Communication [March 20, 2003]. Sheehan, John, Vince Camobreco, James Duffield, Michael Graboski, and Housein Shapouri.

Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. NREL/SR-580-24089 May 1998.

Simpkins, Dulcey. 2002-2003. City of Ann Arbor – Energy Office Graduate Intern. Personal

Communication. [February 2002 – April 2003]. Smith, Lucinda. 2002. Fort Collins, Colorado, Natural Resources Department. Personal

Communication. [September 27, 2002]. Somers, Jayne. City of Madison, Engineering Division. February 2000. City of Madison:

Climate Protection Plan – Draft Version. State of Delaware. Delaware Climate Action Plan. Prepared by Center for Energy and

Environmental Policy, University of Delaware. January 2000.

218

State of Hawaii. Hawaii Climate Action Plan. November 1998. State of Iowa. Iowa Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. Prepared by Richard A. Ney, Jerald L.

Schnoor, Norman S.J. Foster, David J. Forkenbrock, Center for Global and Regional Environmental Research Public Policy Center, University of Iowa. December 1996.

State of Kentucky. Climate Change Mitigation Strategies for Kentucky: Policy Options for

Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through the Year 2020 AD. Prepared by Hugh T. Spencer, Sc.D. under a contract with The Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet. June 30, 1998.

State of Maine. Maine Climate Change Action Plan: Responding to Global Climate Change

and Achieving Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in Maine – Roles for Industry, Business, Government and Citizens. Prepared by The Maine State Planning Office, University of Maine, and the Maine Climate Change Task Force. 2000.

State of Rhode Island. Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan. Prepared by Raab

Associates, Ltd. and Tellus Institute. July 15, 2002. Stone, Nancy. 2002, 2003. City of Ann Arbor, Solid Waste Department. Personal

Communication. [December 2002, January 2003]. Suozzo, Margaret American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy A Market

Transformation Opportunity Assessment for LED Traffic Signals. April 1998. Thin, Air. All Chairman of the All Knowing Council for Environmental Action. Personal

Communication. [December 2002 through April 2003] Torrie Smith and Associates. 2002. GlenEagle Air Emissions Strategy Software Beta

Release v 0.2 [Internet] September 2002. Available from <http://torriesmith.com>. [Accessed October 9, 2002].

Town of Brookline, Massachusetts. Local Action Plan on Climate Change. February 2002. Toyota. Of America Toyota Prius Specifications Sheet. Available from

<http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/prius/specs/prius_specs.html>. [Accessed February 2, 2003].

Toyota of America. Website. Available from <http://www.toyota.com>. [Accessed on

February 14, 2003]. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Climate Change Information Kit

Available from <http://unfccc.int/resources/iuckit/fact20.html>. [Accessed November 9, 2002].

219

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Convention and Kyoto Protocol Available from <http://unfccc.int/resource/convkp.html>. [Accessed March 6, 2003].

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Guide to the Climate Change

Negotiation Process Available from <http://unfccc.int/resource/process/components/ response/landmarks.htm>. [Accessed January 18, 2003].

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, The Kyoto Protocol. Available

from <http://unfccc.int/resource/guideconvkp-p.pdf>. [Accessed March 6, 2003]. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol Status of

Ratification 23 February 2003. Available from <http://unfccc.int/resource/kpstats.pdf>. [Accessed March 6, 2003].

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Clean

Cities Alternative Fuel Information Series, Technical Assistance Fact Sheets. Biodiesel Offers Fleets a Better Alternative to Petroleum Diesel. NREL/FS-540-30136. May 2001. Available from < http://www.afdc.doe.gov/pdfs/Biodiesel_fs.pdf>. [Accesses February 16, 2003].

U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Population Estimates by State 2000 - 2002. Available from <

http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/ST-EST2002-01.php>. [Accessed March 1, 2003].

U.S. Census Bureau. Intercensal Estimates of Total Resident Population by State 1980 to

1990. Available from <http://eire.census.gov/popest/archives/state/stts/st8090ts.txt>. [Accessed March 1, 2003].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Reducing GHG

Emissions Available from <http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/ uniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BWJUP/$file/wh_c&b.pdf?>. [Accessed November 30, 2002].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Factors, Global Warming Potentials, Unit

Conversions, Emissions, and Related Facts November 23, 1999. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Emissions

Facts: Impacts of Truck Idling on Air Emissions and Fuel Consumption. EPA420-F-03-002. February 2003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Energy Star Qualified Traffic Signals as of

November 28, 2002. Available from <http://yosemite.epa.gov/estar/consumer.nsf/content/traffic_ signal.htm>. [Accessed January 22, 2003].

220

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric Programs. Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database v2.0 [Internet] September 2001. Available from <http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/egrid/index.html>. [Accessed November 22, 2002].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Climate

Change and Michigan. Environmental Protection Agency-230-F-97-008v. September 1997.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Measuring

Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments. Environmental Protection Agency-530-R-97-011. September 1999.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Municipal

Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures. Environmental Protection Agency-530-R-02-001. June 2002. Available from <http://www.epa.gov/garbage/report-00/report-00.pdf>. [Accessed on January 6, 2003].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.

Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. Environmental Protection Agency-530-R-02-006. May 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality,

Assessment and Standards Division. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions. Environmental Protection Agency-420-R-02-001. October 2002. Available on <http://www.epa.gov/recycle.measure/download.htm#conversion>. [Accessed on January 6, 2003].


Assessment and Standards Division. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from Highway Heavy-Duty Engines. EPA420-R-00-010. July 2000.


Assessment and Standards Division. Update Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Conversion Factors for MOBILE6: Analysis of BSFCs and Calculation of Heavy-Duty Engine Emission Conversion Factors. EPA420-P-98-015. May 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Voluntary

Diesel Retrofit Program. Idling Reduction. Available from <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/idling.htm> [Accessed March 20, 2003].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December 7th, 2001. Biodiesel Emissions Database.

Version 1. Available from <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/biodsl.htm>. [Accessed December 11, 2002].

221

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Turning a Liability into an Asset: A Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project Development Handbook. September 1996.

U.S. Department of State. U.S. Climate Action Report, 2002. Washington D.C. May 2002. Yienger, Jim. 2002. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives – Cities for

Climate Protection. Personal Communication. Wang, Michael, C. Saricks, and D. Santini. Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle

Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. ANL/ESD-38. January 1999.

Wang, Michael. Development and Use of GREET 1.6 Fuel-Cycle Model for Transportation

Fuels and Vehicle Technologies. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. ANL/ESD/TM-163. June 2001.

Wang, Michael. Greet 1.5 – Transportation Fuel-Cycle Model Volume 2: Appendices of

Data and Results. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. ANL/ESD-39, vol 2. August 1999.

Weeks, Dan. 2003. City of Ann Arbor, Human Resources Department. Personal

Communication March 6, 2003. Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle

Systems – North American Analysis. Vol. 1. June 2001. Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle

Systems – North American Analysis. Vol. 2. June 2001. Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle

Systems – North American Analysis. Vol. 3. June 2001. White, Christopher. 2003, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Manager of Service

Development. Personal Communication March 19, 2003. Winebrake, James, Dongquan He, and Michael Wang. Fuel-Cycle Emissions for

Conventional Fuels and Alternative Fuel Vehicles: An Assessment of Air Toxics. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. ANL/ESD-44. August 2000.

222

223

ACRONYMS

AATA Ann Arbor Transportation Authority AC Alternating current AEO Annual Energy Outlook AF Alternate fuel AFV Alternative fuel vehicle B100 100% biodiesel B80 A mixture of 80% biodiesel and 20% conventional diesel B20 A mixture of 20% biodiesel and 80% conventional diesel BD Biodiesel BEV Battery-electric vehicles bhp-h Brake horsepower-hour Btu British thermal units C Carbon CARFG California reformulated gasoline CCT Correlated color temperature CCP Cities for Climate Protection CD Conventional diesel CDM Clean development mechanism CFL Compact fluorescent cft Cubic feet CG Conventional gasoline CGE Consultative Group of Experts CH4 Methane CIDI Compression ignition direct injection CNG Compressed natural gas CO Carbon monoxide CO2 Carbon dioxide CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalents COP Conference of the Parties COP-1 (Berlin) COP-2 (Geneva) COP-3 (Kyoto) COP-4 (Buenos Aires) COP-5 (Bonn) COP-6 (The Hague) COP-7 (Marrakech) COP-8 (New Delhi) CPP Central Power Plant CRI Color rendering index DC Direct current DTE Detroit Edison EIA Energy Information Administration EV Electric vehicle

224

ACRONYMS

FRFG Federal reformulated gasoline g Grams GHG Greenhouse gas HDPE High density polyethylene HEV Hybrid electric vehicle HPS High pressure sodium ICE Internal combustion engine ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives INC/FCCC Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention

on Climate Change IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change JI Joint implementation KHz Kilohertz kWh Kilowatt hour LDPE Low density polyethylene LDT1 Light duty trucks weighing less than 6,000 lbs LDT2 Light duty trucks weighing between 6,001 and 8,500 lbs LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LPG Liquefied petroleum gas LPS Low pressure sodium LSD Low sulfur diesel Mcf Million cubic feet mcf Thousand cubic feet MMBtu Metric million Btu MPG Mile per gallon MSW Municipal solid waste MT Metric tons MTCO2e Metric tons of CO2 equivalent MWh Megawatt hour NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEG/ECP New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers N2O Nitrous oxide NG Natural gas NGO Nongovernmental organization NOx Nitrogen oxides O2 Oxygen O3 Ozone OCC Old corrugated cardboard ONP Old newspaper PET Polyethylene terephthalate PFC Perfluorocarbons PIS Passive infrared sensor PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less ppb Parts per billion

225

ACRONYMS

PV Photovoltaic scf Standard cubic feet TBtu Tera Btu TMT Tera metric tons U of M University of Michigan, Ann Arbor UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VAC Voltage alternating current VMT Vehicle miles traveled VOC Volatile organic compound WMO World Meteorological Organization WTW Well to wheels WWF World Wildlife Federation

226

227

APPENDICES APPENDIX A: RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR PARTICIPATION IN

THE CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN" MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and Council Fr: Energy Commission, Heidi Herrell Date: October 20, 1997 Subject: Resolution regarding City of Ann Arbor participation in the “Cities for Climate Protection Campaign” The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives is a worldwide organization of local governments dedicated to building local government capacity for environmental protection and sustainable development activities. The campaign provides participating jurisdictions with technical assistance, training and financial support to help improve energy efficiency and reduce fossil fuel consumption. Over 45 U.S. local governments have joined with 130 cities around the world to reduce their community’s greenhouse gas emissions and reap the benefits of quieter streets, more efficient buildings, reduced fuel and utility costs, and cleaner air. A great deal of information is available on the ICLEI web page -http://www.iclei.org The Energy Commission voted unanimously at the September 11 meeting to present this opportunity to join the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign to the Ann Arbor City Council. The Energy Commission is volunteering to perform the duties of; * coordinating a greenhouse gas emission study and forecast to determine the source

and approximate quantities of green house gas emissions within Ann Arbor's jurisdiction,

* establishing a realistic and meaningful greenhouse gas reduction target, and * developing a strategy for meeting the Ann Arbor green house gas reduction target. The goals of the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign fit very well with the Ann Arbor Energy Plan, the Energy Commission Mission Statement, and programs already underway by the City. Although many of the actions and measures related to this program would be pursued anyway by the Energy Commission, it is felt that this is an excellent opportunity to partner with other Cities around the world, to take advantage of the benefits the organization offers, and to make an international statement on our City’s commitment to energy and the environment.

228

Prepared by: David Konkle, Energy Coordinator

Approved by: Heidi Herrell, City Councilperson RESOLUTION REGARDING CITY OF ANN ARBOR PARTICIPATION IN THE “CITIES FOR CLIMATE PROTECTION CAMPAIGN” Whereas, Based on scientific evidence that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (ghg) released into the atmosphere will have a profound effect on the Earth's climate, the United States joined with 160 countries and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which calls on industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000; Whereas, Energy consumption, specifically the burning of fossil fuels, e.g. coal, oil and gas, accounts for more than 85% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; Whereas, Local governments greatly influence their community's energy usage by exercising key powers over land use, transportation, building construction, waste management, and , in many cases, energy supply and management; Whereas, Local government actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency provide multiple local benefits by decreasing air pollution, creating jobs, reducing energy expenditures, and saving money for the City government, its businesses and its citizens; Whereas, The City of Ann Arbor has an Energy Plan in place, and an active energy program which will significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Ann Arbor through programs such as: * Environmental Protection Agency Green Lights program to reduce facility energy

use, * DOE Clean Cities program to increase alternative fuel vehicles use in Ann Arbor * Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project * City Hall Performance Contracting Project * The Ann Arbor Energy Fund; and Whereas, The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, sponsored by the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has invited the City of Ann Arbor to become a partner in the Campaign; RESOLVED, That the City of Ann Arbor pledges to join with jurisdictions from all over the world in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and as a participant in the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign, Ann Arbor pledges to:

1. Take a leadership role in increasing energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from municipal operations;

229

2. Develop a local action plan to be implemented over a three year period which describes the steps our community will take to reduce both greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions; the action plan includes:

* The Ann Arbor Energy Commission will, in cooperation with local utilities and commercial, residential and educational agencies, coordinate a greenhouse gas emission study and forecast to determine the source and approximate quantities of green house gas emissions within Ann Arbor's jurisdiction;

* The Energy Commission will utilize the results of the study to establish a

realistic and meaningful greenhouse gas reduction target;

* The Energy Commission will work with the local utilities to develop a strategy for meeting the Ann Arbor green house gas reduction target, e.g. an inventory of existing energy conservation, energy efficiency and transportation programs and menu of new measures or policies that when implemented will achieve the ghg reduction target.

Submitted by: Heidi Herrell for the Energy Commission Date: October 20, 1997

230

231

NGOs ScientificCommunity

IPOs

UNEPWMO

IPCC

INC /FCCC

UNFCCC

COP-1

Kyoto Protocol

Berlin Mandate

AGBM

CGE

The Rio Declaration

COP-2 COP-3 COP-4 COP-5 COP-6 COP-7 COP-8

APPENDIX B: CLIMATE CHANGE REGIME FAMILY TREE

232

233

APPENDIX C: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF GREENHOUSE GASES Global Warming Potentials Table C-1 lists all the known GHGs, their chemical formulas, their atmospheric lifetime (how long each is gas expected to reside in the atmosphere before breaking down), and the global warming potential of each gas given three different time horizons. In regard to the different time horizons, it is common practice to use the GWP of GHGs for a 100 year time horizon266 Different GHGs have different GWPs. To compare the relative contribution of different GHGs with different GWPs, GHGs need to be converted into common units. There are two acceptable units: carbon equivalents and carbon dioxide equivalents. The Team chose to report emissions in terms of CO2 equivalents because they are the units used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. All GHGs are converted, using their respective GWPs. For example, in the year 2000, the United States emitted 29,262 gigagrams267 of CH4. In that same year, the U.S. emitted 1,372 and 5,840,039 gigagrams of N2O and CO2 respectively.268 To compare the global warming contribution of the three gases, one must take into account each gas’s GWP, and convert all gases to CO2 equivalent emissions. Using the information provided in Table C-1, the GWP of CH4 is 23 (given a 100 year time horizon). The GWP of N2O is 296, and the GWP of CO2 is one (given the same time horizon). When converted to CO2 equivalent emissions, CH4 emissions are equal to 651,294 gigagrams of CO2 equivalents. N2O emissions are equal to 406,112 gigagrams of CO2 equivalent emissions. The GWP for CO2 is one, therefore CO2 equivalent emissions for CO2 are the same number.

266 IPCC 2001. 267 gigagram = 109 grams. 268 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2000 p. 1-15.

234

Table C-1: Global Warming Potentials and Lifetime of Greenhouse Gases

Global Warming Potential (Time Horizon in Years) Gas Lifetime

(years) 20 yrs 100 yrs 500 yrs

Carbon dioxide CO2 1 1 1 Methanea CH4 12.0b 62 23 7 Nitrous oxide N2O 114b 275 296 156 Hydrofluorocarbons HFC-23 CHF3 260 9400 12000 10000 HFC-32 CH2F2 5 1800 550 170 HFC-41 CH3F 2.6 330 97 30 HFC-125 CHF2CF3 29 5900 3400 1100 HFC-134 CHF2CHF2 9.6 3200 100 330 HFC-134a CH2 FCF3 13.8 3300 1300 400 HFC-143 CHF2 CH2F3 4 1100 330 100 HFC-143a CF3CH3 52 5500 4300 1600 HFC-152 CH2FCH2F 0.5 140 43 13 HFC-152a CH3CHF2 1.4 410 120 37 HFC-161 CH3CH2F 0.3 40 12 4 HFC-227ea CF3CHFCF3 33 5600 3500 1100 HFC-236cb CH2FCF2CF3 13.2 3300 1300 390 HFC-236ea CHF2CHFCF3 10 3600 1200 390 HFC-236fa CF3CH2CF3 220 7500 9400 7100 HFC-245ca CH2FCF2CHF2 5.9 2100 640 200 HFC-245fa CHF2CH2CF3 7.2 3000 950 300 HFC-365mfc CF3CH2CF2CH3 9.9 2600 890 280 HFC-43-10mee CF3CHFCHFCF2CF3 15 3700 500 470 Fully Fluorinated Species SF6 3200 15100 22200 32400 CF4 50000 3900 5700 8900 C2F6 10000 8000 11900 18000 C3F8 2600 5900 8600 12400 C4F10 2600 5900 8600 12400 c-C4F8 3200 6800 10000 14500 C5F12 4100 6000 8900 13200 C6F14 3200 6100 9000 13200 Ethers and Halogenated Ethers CH3OCH3 0.015 1 1 <<1 HFE-125 CF3OCHF2 150 12900 4900 9200 HFE-134 CHF2OCHF2 26.2 10500 6100 2000 HFE-143a CH3OCF3 4.4 2500 750 230 HCFE-235da2 CF3CHClOCHF2 2.6 1100 340 110 HFE-245fa2 CF3CH2OCHF2 4.4 1900 570 180 HFE-254cb2 CHF2CF2OCH30 22 99 30 9 HFE-7100 C4F9OCH3 5 1300 390 120 HFE-7200 C4F9OC2H5 0.77 190 55 17 H-Galden 1040x CHF2OCF2OC2F4OCHF2 6.3 5900 1800 560 HG-10 CHF2OCF2OCHF2 12.1 7500 2700 850 HG-01 CHF2OCF2CF2OCHF2 6.2 4700 1500 450

a The methane GWPs include an indirect contribution from stratospheric H2O and O3 production.

b The value for methane and nitrous oxide are adjustment times, which incorporated the indirect effects of emissions of each gas on its own lifetime.

Source: IPCC 2001 --- Technical Report Summary

235

CH4: 23 x 29,262 gigagrams of CH4 = 651,294 gigagrams of CO2 equivalent emissions

N2O: 296 x 1,372 gigagrams of N2O = 406,112 gigagrams of CO2 equivalent emissions

CO2: 1 x 5,840,039 gigagrams of CO2 = 5,840,039 gigagrams of CO2 equivalent emissions

Even though some GHGs have very large GWPs, a very small amount of the GHG is actually emitted. The small emission quantity reduces a GHG’s contribution to overall climate change. CO2 in the most important of all GHGs, not because of its GWP, but because the quantity of annual emissions dwarfs all other CO2 equivalent emissions.

The Greenhouse Gases The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified a variety of gases as having radiative forcing, or heat influencing effects. Positive radiative forcings tend to cause temperatures to increase while negative radiative forcings tend to cause temperatures to decrease. The gases with radiative forcing properties include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), ozone (O3), the families of halo and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), non-methane, and aerosols.269 Many of these GHGs persist in the atmosphere long after they are emitted. Once emitted one is committed to decades, even centuries, of CO2 equivalent emissions unless techniques are developed to remove a portion of GHGs from the atmosphere.

Water Vapor: The most abundant, of the GHGs present in the atmosphere is water vapor. Because it is the most abundant GHG, it has the most dominant influence on climate change. Water vapor is not well mixed in the atmosphere with concentrations from 0 to 2 percent.270 Atmospheric water vapor moves quickly though the hydrologic cycle, changing phases (solid, liquid, gas) and residing in the atmosphere in several different phases. It is not thought that anthropogenic activities have direct influence on levels of atmospheric water vapor over time. But changes in climate are thought to have indirect effects on atmospheric water vapor concentrations. Increases in other GHGs could lead to increases in temperature and result in increased rates of evaporation, increased water uptake and increased transpiration of water by plants. It is also possible that increased concentrations of atmospheric water vapor may lead to increased cloud cover resulting in a negative temperature forcing.

Carbon Dioxide:

As a part of the global carbon cycle, carbon exists on Earth in many different states and regions, moving from one storage region to another. In the atmosphere, carbon is usually in its most chemically stable form, CO2. Similar to water vapor, CO2 is a relatively weak GHG 269 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2000 p. 1.2 -1.6. 270 IPCC 1996.

236

in terms of its heat-trapping potential, but given its relatively high concentrations, it has a significant impact on global temperature. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by 31% from pre-industrial levels. 271 While ice core sampling in both Greenland and the Antarctic confirm the planetary CO2 concentrations have equaled present day levels, the rate at which the present increase from pre-industrial levels occurred is a cause for concern. The current rise in atmospheric levels of CO2 has occurred as a result of anthropogenic activities, according to the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).272 Human caused CO2 emissions originate predominately from the combustion of fossil fuels. Other major modes of emission are iron and steel production, cement manufacture, atmospheric methane oxidation,273 and waste combustion. Current trends of atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rooted in anthropogenic activities. Concurrent decreases in both stable and radioactive carbon isotopes and decreased levels of atmospheric oxygen have accompanied the rise in CO2 levels. When carbon-based fuels are combusted, the carbon within is oxidized. The carbon bonds to atmospheric O2, decreasing concentrations of O2 and increasing levels of CO2.

274 CO2 contributes the most significant impact due to the magnitude of present day emissions. Taking into account the different heat-trapping properties of the various GHGs, CO2 accounts for 83.4% of all CO2 equivalent GHG emissions in 2000. By comparison, CH4 accounts for only 8.8% in the same year. Methane: Methane (CH4) has both natural and anthropogenic emission sources. It is a byproduct of anaerobic decomposition (decomposition without oxygen). The leading natural sources of CH4 are wetlands (swamps, bogs, marshes, etc). Human activities have contributed the largest increases in CH4 emissions. CH4 is emitted in many farming and agricultural activities including rice cultivation, cattle ranching, as well as the production and distribution of natural gas and petroleum. From the years 1990-2000 the largest source of CH4 in the United States were landfills, with enteric fermentation and natural gas systems second and third respectively.275 Although it has a relatively short atmospheric lifetime, approximately 12 years (see Table C-2 for a comparison of GHG atmospheric lifetimes), CH4 has 23 times the positive radiative forcing capabilities when compared with CO2. CH4 concentrations have risen from a pre-industrial concentration of 700 ppb to 1745 ppb in 1998 due almost completely to human activities.276

Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous Oxide (N20) is another GHG with both natural and anthropogenic sources, but by far, human activities are the leading cause for emissions. Activities that emit N20 include human sewage waste management, manure management, biomass combustion and nylon production, 271 IPCC 2001. 272 Ibid. 273 Methane oxidation is covered later in this section. 274 Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. p. 10. 275 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2000. p. 1-14, Table 1.8. 276 IPCC Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, Table 1.

237

with agricultural soil management (fertilizers) as the leading emissions source. N20 has a global warming potential (GWP) 296 times that of CO2. N20 is a potent, long-lived GHG contributing approximately to 6% of all CO2 equivalent emissions in the United States.277 As a driver for climate change, present day atmospheric concentrations of N20 have not been exceeded in the last thousand years. N20 concentrations continue to rise and, in fact, grew 0.25% per year between 1980 and 1998. In 1998, N20 concentrations had increased by 16% above 1750 levels.278 Ozone: The radiative forcing properties of ozone (O3) vary depending on where in the atmosphere it is found. O3 is found both in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), where it is the primary constituent in photochemical smog, and the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) where it absorbs ultraviolet radiation

277 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2000. p. 1-5. 278 IPCC Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p 42.

Table C-2: Examples of Greenhouse Gases that are Affected by Human Activities

Atmospheric Variables CO2 PPM

CH4 PPM

N20 PPM

SF6a

PPT CF6

a

PPT Pre-industrial atmospheric concentration 278 0.7 0.27 0 40 Atmospheric concentration (1998) 365 1.745 0.314 4.2 80 Rate of concentration changeb 1.5c 0.007c 0.0008 0.24 1.0 Atmospheric Lifetime 50-200d 12e 114e 3,200 >50,000 Source: IPCC 2001 a Concentrations in parts per trillion (ppt) and rate of concentration change in ppt/year b Rate is calculated over the period 1990 to 1999. c Rate has fluctuated between 0.9 and 2.8 ppm per year for CO2 and between 0 and 0.013 ppm per year for CH4 over the period 1990 to 1999. d No single lifetime can be defined for CO2 because of the different rates of uptake by different removal processes. e This lifetime has been defined as an "adjustment time" that takes into account the indirect effect of the gas on its own residence time.

238

Table C-3: How Ground-Level Ozone Affects Air Quality

Ground level Ozone Concentration (ppm)

(8-hour average, unless noted)

Air Quality IndexValues

Air Quality Descriptor

0.0 to 0.064 0 to 50 Good 0.065 to 0.084 51 to 100 Moderate

0.085 to 0.104 101 to 150 Unhealthy for

Sensitive Groups

0.105 to 0.124 151 to 200 Unhealthy 0.125 (8-hr.) to 0.404 (1-hr.) 201 to 300 Very Unhealthy

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <http://www.epa.gov/airnow/health/smog1.html#1>

Figure C-1: Ozone is Both Good and Bad

Ground –Level Ozone Stratospheric Ozone Too much here... Cars, trucks, power plants and factories all emit air pollution that forms ground-level ozone or photochemical smog.

Too little there... Many popular consumer products like air conditioners and refrigerators involve CFCs or halons during either manufacture or use. These chemicals damage the earth's protective ozone layer.

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency <http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/gooduphigh/>

239

The loss of stratospheric O3, from anthropogenic emissions of ozone depleting substances provides a negative forcing effect. As a driver for climate change, stratospheric O3 loss may increase the amount of UV radiation passing through the stratosphere and into the troposphere. It is unclear exactly how this will affect climate. Troposphere O3 is formed through the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) with nitrogen oxides (NOx). The combination of increased O3 in the troposphere and decreased O3 in the stratosphere causes the third largest positive radiative forcing, behind CO2 and CH4.279 High concentrations of O3 tend to be found downwind of large cities where daily traffic produces a constant source of O3.280 Halocarbons, Perfluorocarbons and Sulfur Hexafluoride Halocarbons, Perfluorocarbons and Sulfur Hexafluoride are all ODSs and are banned under the Montreal Protocol; halons were phased out by 1994 and CFCs by 1996. These substances contain powerful GHGs, but their radiative forcing effects are reduced because they destroy stratospheric ozone (the negative radiative forcing caused by the depletion of stratospheric ozone is described above). Since their ban, substitute, non-ozone depleting substances have emerged. Unfortunately, many of the new substances, while not ODS, are potent GHGs. Although most of these substances, by volume, make up a very minute amount of GHG emissions overall, many persist in the atmosphere for 50,000 years on upwards. Historic emissions over the last 10 years indicate there will be continued emissions growth in the future. Therefore, even though these substances collectively represent less than two percent of all CO2 equivalent emissions in the year 2000, it is possible that with expanded use, these long-lived and powerful GHGs will have a greater influence on climate in the future.281

14U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2000 p. 1-5. 280 Climate Change Science: An Analysis of some Key Questions. p. 13. 281 Ibid 1-7.

240

Carbon Monoxide: Created from the incomplete combustion of carbon-based fuels, CO does not have any direct radiative forcing on its own. However, CO is an influencing factor in the chemical reaction of other GHGs thus indirectly affecting climate.

Nitrogen Oxides: NOx emissions are the result of the combustion of fuel, biomass, forest fires and soil microbial activity. As with CO, NOx has more indirect than direct radiative forcing effects. They are among the ingredients that react in the troposphere and form photochemical smog. It is difficult to quantify the exact radiative forcing that will result from changes in atmospheric concentrations of NOx because these changes complicate the interactions between other GHGs. NOx are projected to increase into the next century, even though their atmospheric lifetime is relatively short.282

Aerosols: Aerosols, tiny airborne particles, have a dual role in radiative forcing. They directly affect climate by absorbing infrared radiation reradiated from the planet’s surface. This creates a positive radiative tendency. Indirectly however, the tiny particles are able to influence the abundance of and radiative properties of clouds. Natural aerosol emissions include volcanic ash, sea salt, and dust. Anthropogenic sources include emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels, industrial processes including cement manufacturing, incineration, and transportation. Aerosols are removed from the atmosphere easily, every time it rains. Combined with the varied emissions sources, complex atmospheric interactions and short life, it is difficult to determine with certainty the overall radiative effect aerosols have on climate, though they are believed to have an overall cooling effect. The IPCC technical summary provides further detail on the radiative forcing effects and the role of GHGs as a driver for climate change.

282 IPCC Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 44.

241

APPENDIX D: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTABLISHING BASELINE This appendix details actual energy carrier consumption data (electricity, natural gas, and petroleum) between 1990 and 2000. Energy carrier consumption data were obtained from several reliable sources (Detroit Edison, the City of Ann Arbor Energy Office, and the U of M Sustainability Report). However, since some of the raw data for the baseline year (1990) were unavailable, it was necessary to extrapolate baseline greenhouse gas emissions for 1990 using data available after that date and assuming a backwards trend line based on the growth rate for population, economic activity, and national statistical data (Annual Energy Review, and Annual Energy Outlook) during that time. These calculations are demonstrated in this appendix for each sector’s energy use. 1. Electricity A. Residential Sector

Step 1: The Detroit Edison (DTE) Energy Office provided the actual electricity consumption data in 1999 and 2000 for Ann Arbor’s residential sector as shown in the following table.

Table D-1: Actual Residential Electricity Consumption Data from DTE

1999

2000

ZIP Code kWh (Ann Arbor283)

KWh (AAA284)

kWh (Ann Arbor)

kWh (AAA)

48103

112,934,581 169,666,944 105,248,621 158,119,964

48104

95,501,051 96,236,109 76,214,378 76,800,990

48105

76,247,256 97,461,471 68,309,721 87,315,488

48108

33,852,383 69,800,692 32,718,139 67,461,979

Total

318,535,271 433,165,223 282,490,860 389,698,421

283 Ann Arbor refers to the area within the city limits of Ann Arbor. These numbers are used as the inventory for this project. 284 AAA corresponds to Ann Arbor Area. Because raw data from DTE contains areas surrounding the City of Ann Arbor based on ZIP codes, it was necessary to extract the actual values for the Ann Arbor city limits from the Ann Arbor Area. This was done by overlapping ZIP codes and census tracts and estimating demographic distribution based on residential areas shown by local roads.

242

Step 2: As shown in Table D-1, electricity consumption was 318,535,271 kWh in 1999, and

282,490,860 kWh in 2000. In order to normalize the value, the Team averaged these numbers and regarded the outcome as real electricity consumption in the year 2000.

[322,156,005 kWh (raw data in 1999) + 286,238,523 (raw data in 2000)] / 2 = 300,513,065 kWh 300,513,065 (kWh) / 114,024(Ann Arbor population in 2000) = 2,636 kWh/person

Step 3: Using the growth rate (Appendix H, Table H-1), the previous year’s value was calculated as follows:

Growth rate in 1999 = 1.20%

Electricity consumption (1999) per person = Elec. consumption (2000) − [Elec. Consumption (2000) × Growth rate (1999)] = 2,636 − (2,636 × 1.45%) = 2,604 kWh/person

Electricity consumption (1999) = 2,604 x 113,581 (population of Ann Arbor in 1999) = 295,745,176 kWh

Step 4: Same manner of calculations were conducted for each year backward until 1990.

Electricity consumption (1990) per person = Elec. consumption (1991) − [Elec. cons. (1991) × Growth rate (1999)] = 2,317 − (2,317 x 1.73%) = 2,277 kWh/person

Electricity consumption (1990) = 2,277 kWh/person x 109,592 (population of Ann Arbor in 1990) = 249,571,212 kWh

243

B. Commercial Sector

Step 1: The DTE Energy Office provided actual electricity consumption data in 1999 & 2000 for the commercial sector.

Table D-2: Actual Commercial Electricity Consumption Data from DTE

1999

2000

ZIP Code DTE # of Sites285

kWh (Ann Arbor)

kWh (AAA) DTE # of Sites286

kWh (Ann Arbor)

kWh (AAA)

48103

2,018 69,446,375 104,332,562 1,881 66,593,235 100,046,155

48104

2,903 135,586,255 136,629,844 2,671 123,415,407 124,365,318

48105

1,337 41,783,797 53,409,275 1,229 44,162,988 56,450,426

48108

1,934 55,641,595 114,728,167 1,900 58,508,232 120,638,924

Total

8,192 302,458,023 409,099,848 7,681 292,679,861 401,500,823

Step 2: As shown in Table D-2, commercial electricity consumption was 302,458,023 kWh in 1999, and 292,679,861 kWh in 2000. In order to normalize the value, the Team averaged these numbers and regarded the outcome as real electricity consumption in the year 2000.

[302,458,023 (raw data in 1999) + 292,679,861 (raw data in 2000)] / 2 =297,568,942 kWh

297,568,942 kWh / 114,024 (Ann Arbor population in 2000) = 2,610 kWh/person

Step 3: Using the growth rate (Appendix H, Table H-2), the previous year’s value was calculated as follows:


Electricity consumption (1999) per person = Elec. consumption (2000) − [Elec. Consumption (2000) × Growth rate (1999)] = 2,610 − (2,610 × 1.90%)

285 The number of sites is based on the facilities that are registered as commercial sites based on ZIP code. 286 Ibid.

244

= 2,560 kWh/person

Electricity consumption (1999) = 2,560 x 113,581 (population of Ann Arbor in 1999) = 290,767,996 kWh

Step 4: The same calculations were conducted for each year backwards until 1990



245

C. Industrial Sector Step 1: The DTE Energy Office provided actual electricity consumption data in 1999 &

2000 for the industrial sector’s actual electricity consumption.

Table D-3: Actual Industrial Electricity Consumption

1999 2000 ZIP Code DTE # of

Sites287 kWh

(Ann Arbor) kWh (AAA) DTE # of

Sites288 kWh

(Ann Arbor) kWh (AAA)

48103

28 64,324,995 96,638,472 25 70,921,774 106,549,123

48104

38 130,493,175 131,497,563 34 145,213,401 146,331,089

48105

31 121,580,826 155,408,177 30 127,577,589 163,073,415

48106

11 43,950,386 43,950,386 11 48,671,026 48,671,026

48108

24 21,315,337 66,754,621 24 23,604,783 70,904,911

Total

132 381,664,720 494,249,219 124 415,988,574 535,529,564

Step 2: As shown in Table D-3, industrial electricity consumption was 381,664,720 kWh

in 1999, and 415,988,574 kWh in 2000. In order to normalize the value, the Team averaged these numbers and regarded the outcome as real electricity consumption in the year 2000.

[381,664,720kWh (raw data in 1999) + 415,988,574 (raw data in 2000)] / 2 = 398,826,647 kWh

398,826,647 kWh / 114,024 (Ann Arbor population in 2000) = 3,498 kWh/person

Step 3: Using the growth rate (Table H-3), the previous year’s value was calculated as follows:


Electricity consumption (1999) per person = Elec. consumption (2000) − Elec. Consumption (2000) × Growth rate (1999)] = 3,498 − (3,498 × 0.65%) = 3,475 kWh/person

287 The number of sites is based on the facilities that are registered as commercial sites based on ZIP codes. 288 Ibid.

246

Electricity consumption (1999) =3,475 x 113,581 (population of Ann Arbor in 1999) = 394,677,318 kWh

Step 4: The same calculations were conducted for each year backwards until 1990.



247

D. Municipal Government Sector Step 1: Actual electricity consumption data in 1990, 1995, 1999, and 2000 was acquired

from the City of Ann Arbor Energy Office.

Table D-4: Actual Electricity Consumption in Municipal Government Sector

Department

1990 (kWh/yr) 1995 (kWh/yr) 1999 (kWh/yr) 2000 (kWh/yr)

Airport

409,682 438,715 427,652 404,580

City Hall

2,529,328 2,327,784 1,593,644 1,660,058

City Market & Probation

45,522 58,524 68,851 65,667

Fire Department

533,091 546,466 513,885 509,418

Municipal Garage

181,000 192,920 202,480 209,560

Parks & Recreation

2,082,097 2,404,083 2,375,246 2,593,899

Solid Waste

58,900 104,784 106,752 86,539

Transportation Dept.

15,539,601 16,070,894 14,586,124 13,839,994

Waste Water Treatment

18,596,911 14,162,893 12,624,686 12,895,508

Water Treatment

10,049,059 10,954,599 13,764,432 14,416,549

Total

50,025,191 47,261,662 46,263,752 46,681,772

Step 2: As shown in Table D-4, there was no data available for the years 1991-1994, and from 1996-1998. In order to examine the trends during these periods, exponential growth methodology was employed as shown in the following calculation:

From 1991 to 1994

Yearly growth rate in this term = exp [(1/5) ln(47,261,662/ 50,025,191)] = -1.13% per year Projected value in 1991 = 50,025,191 x (1 - 0.0113)

= 49,459,906 kWh Projected value in 1992 = 49,459,906 x (1 - 0.0113) = 48,901,009 kWh

248

Projected value in 1993 = 48,901,009 x (1 - 0.0113)

= 48,348,428 kWh

Projected value in 1994 = 48,348,428 x (1 - 0.0113) = 47,802,091 kWh

From 1996 to 1998 Yearly growth rate in this term = exp [(1/5)ln(46,263,752 / 47,261,662)] = -0.432 % per year Projected value in 1996 = 47,261,662 x (1 - 0.00432) = 47,057,492 kWh



249

E. University of Michigan Step 1: There are two electricity sources that provide power to the University of Michigan.

Electricity is both purchased from private suppliers and generated on site at the U of M Central Power Plant. Data total electricity consumption was obtained from the UM Sustainability Project.

Table D-5: Actual Electricity Consumption in U of M

Year Purchased Electricity (kWh)

On-site Generation (kWh)

1990

254,979,960 72,187,151

1995

250,799,568 128,136,502

1996

262,283,888 152,952,373

1997

248,594,071 157,844,936

1998

312,891,009 144,640,189

1999

312,203,734 136,136,201

2000

312,537,733 144,650,102

2001

317,819,963 141,582,576

Step 2: Due to the unavailability of date, the data between 1991 and 1994 was projected

using an exponential growth methodology as follows:

Purchased electricity

Yearly growth rate in this term = exp [(1/5) ln(250,799,568 / 254,979,960)] = -0.33% per year Projected value in 1991 = 254,979,960 x (1 - 0.0033) = 254,138,526 kWh Projected value in 1992 = 254,138,526 x (1 - 0.0033) = 253,299,869 kWh Projected value in 1993 = 253,299,869 x (1 - 0.0033) = 252,463,979 kWh Projected value in 1994 = 252,463,979 x (1 - 0.0033) = 251,630,848 kWh

250

On site Generation (kWh) Yearly growth rate in this term = exp [(1/5) ln(72,187,151 / 128,136,502)] = 12.16 % per year Projected value in 1991 = 72,187,151 x (1+ 0.1216) = 80,965,109 kWh Projected value in 1992 = 80,965,109 x (1+ 0.1216) = 90,810,466 kWh Projected value in 1993 = 90,810,466 x (1+ 0.1216) = 101,853,019 kWh Projected value in 1994 = 101,853,019 x (1+ 0.1216) =114,238,346 kWh

251

Tab

le D

-6: A

ctua

l Ele

ctri

city

Con

sum

ptio

n be

twee

n 19

90 a

nd 2

000

by S

ecto

r

Yea

r R

esid

entia

l C

omm

erci

al

Indu

stri

al

kWh

kWh/

pers

on

% C

hang

e kW

h kW

h/pe

rson

%

cha

nge

kWh

kWh/

per

son

% C

hang

e

1990

24

9,57

1,21

2 2,

277

1.73

%

229,

887,

870

2,09

8 2.

44%

35

8,24

5,82

1 3,

269

0.69

%

1991

25

4,98

1,23

4 2,

317

1.66

%

236,

579,

913

2,15

0 2.

37%

36

2,21

1,28

9 3,

292

0.69

%

1992

26

0,32

4,40

9 2,

356

1.59

%

243,

298,

933

2,20

2 2.

31%

36

6,19

7,63

7 3,

315

0.69

%

1993

26

5,59

9,07

6 2,

394

1.53

%

250,

040,

985

2,25

4 2.

24%

37

0,20

4,75

5 3,

338

0.68

%

1994

27

0,80

3,82

5 2,

432

1.47

%

256,

802,

214

2,30

6 2.

18%

37

4,23

2,53

2 3,

360

0.68

%

1995

27

5,93

7,48

0 2,

468

1.41

%

263,

578,

861

2,35

7 2.

12%

37

8,28

0,85

4 3,

383

0.67

%

1996

28

0,99

9,09

0 2,

503

1.36

%

270,

367,

267

2,40

9 2.

07%

38

2,34

9,60

9 3,

406

0.67

%

1997

28

5,98

7,91

0 2,

538

1.30

%

277,

163,

873

2,45

9 2.

01%

38

6,43

8,68

2 3,

429

0.66

%

1998

29

0,90

3,39

3 2,

571

1.25

%

283,

965,

230

2,51

0 1.

96%

39

0,54

7,95

7 3,

452

0.66

%

1999

29

5,74

5,17

6 2,

604

1.20

%

290,

767,

996

2,56

0 1.

90%

39

4,67

7,31

8 3,

475

0.65

%

2000

30

0,51

3,06

5 2,

636

1.16

%

297,

568,

942

2,61

0 1.

85%

39

8,82

6,64

7 3,

498

0.58

%

Yea

r M

unic

ipal

Gov

ernm

ent

Uni

vers

ity o

f Mic

higa

n

kWh

% C

hang

e Pu

rcha

sed

(kW

h)

% C

hang

e O

n si

te (k

Wh)

%

Cha

nge

Tot

al E

lect

rici

ty

kWh

kWh

per

Pers

on

1990

50

,025

,191

-1

.13%

25

4,97

9,96

0 -0

.33%

72

,187

,151

12

.16%

1,

214,

897,

204

11,0

86

1991

49

,459

,906

-1

.13%

25

4,13

8,52

6 -0

.33%

80

,965

,109

12

.16%

1,

238,

335,

977

11,2

54

1992

48

,901

,009

-1

.13%

25

3,29

9,86

9 -0

.33%

90

,810

,466

12

.16%

1,

262,

832,

323

11,4

31

1993

48

,348

,428

-1

.13%

25

2,46

3,97

9 -0

.33%

10

1,85

3,01

9 12

.16%

1,

288,

510,

242

11,6

16

1994

47

,802

,091

-1

.13%

25

1,63

0,84

8 -0

.33%

11

4,23

8,34

6 12

.17%

1,

315,

509,

855

11,8

13

1995

47

,261

,662

-1

.13%

25

0,79

9,56

8 -0

.33%

12

8,13

6,50

2 19

.37%

1,

343,

994,

928

12,0

21

1996

47

,057

,492

-0

.43%

26

2,28

3,88

8 4.

38%

15

2,95

2,37

3 3.

20%

1,

396,

009,

718

12,4

36

1997

46

,854

,204

-0

.43%

24

8,59

4,07

1 -5

.51%

15

7,84

4,93

6 -8

.37%

1,

402,

883,

676

12,4

49

1998

46

,651

,794

-0

.43%

31

2,89

1,00

9 20

.55%

14

4,64

0,18

9 -5

.88%

1,

469,

599,

572

12,9

89

1999

46

,263

,752

-0

.43%

31

2,20

3,73

4 -0

.22%

13

6,13

6,20

1 6.

25%

1,

475,

794,

177

12,9

93

2000

46

,681

,772

0.

90%

31

2,53

7,73

3 0.

11%

14

4,65

0,10

2 1.

85%

1,

500,

778,

261

13,1

62

252

2. Natural Gas

A. Residential Sector

Step 1: Actual natural gas consumption data for the residential sector was derived from Steve Bibbee’s 1997 Michcon Report.

Table D-7: Actual Residential Natural Gas Consumption Data

Year Natural Gas (mcf) mcf / person Population in Ann Arbor

1997 4,409,059 39.1 112,694

Source: Steve Bibbee’s Report

Step 2: Assuming -0.5 percent growth rate for residential natural gas consumption (Appendix I, Table I-2), natural gas consumption for the year 1996 was calculated as follows:

Natural gas consumption in 1996 per person

= mcf per person in 1997 – (mcf per person in 1997 x -0.5%) = 39.1 – (39.1 x -0.5%) = 39.3 mcf/person

Natural gas consumption in 1996 = 39.3 mcf/person x 112,251 (Ann Arbor population in 1996) = 4,411,464 mcf Step 3: The same calculations were conducted for each year backwards until 1990 as well

as 1998-2000.

Natural gas consumption in 1990 per person = mcf per person in 1991 – (mcf per person in 1991 * -0.5%) = 40.3 – (40.3 x - .5%) = 40.5 mcf/person

Natural gas consumption in 1990 = 40.5 mcf/person x 109,592 (Ann Arbor population in 1990) = 4,440,019 mcf

253

B. Commercial Sector

Step 1: Actual Natural Gas consumption data for the residential sector was derived from Steve Bibbee’s 1998 Michcon Report.

Table D-8: Actual Commercial Natural Gas Consumption Data

Year Natural Gas (mcf) mcf/person Population in Ann Arbor

1998 2,570,868 22.7 113,138

Source: Steve Bibbee’s Report

Step 2: Growth rates for commercial natural gas consumption were determined based on AER and AEO2002 using Logest Extrapolation (Appendix I, Table I-1). Using the growth rate, the previous year’s (1997) natural gas consumption was calculated as follows:

Natural gas consumption (1997) = Nat. gas consumption (1998) − [Nat. gas Consumption (1998) × Growth rate

(1997]} = 22.7 − (22.7 × 0.995%) = 22.5 mcf/person = 22.5 x 112,694 (population of Ann Arbor in 1997) = 2,535,305 mcf

Step 3: The same calculations were conducted for each year backwards until 1990 as well

as between 1998-2000.

Natural gas consumption (1990) = Nat. gas consumption (1991) − [Nat. gas Consumption (1991) × Growth rate

(1990)] = 21.1 − (21.1 × 1.088%) = 20.9 mcf/person = 20.9 x 109,592 (population of Ann Arbor in 1990) = 2,290,307 mcf

254

C. Industrial Sector Step 1: Actual natural gas consumption data for the industrial sector was derived from

Steve Bibbee’s 1998 Michcon Report.

Table D-9: Actual Industrial Natural Gas Consumption Data

Year Natural Gas (mcf) mcf/person Population in Ann Arbor

1998 51,331 0.45 113,138

Source: Steve Bibbee’s Report Step 2: Assuming a growth rate of 0.31% between 1990 and 2000 (Appendix I, Table I-3),

the previous year’s (1997) natural gas consumption was calculated as follows: Natural gas consumption (1997) = Nat gas consumption (1998) − [Nat gas Consumption (1998) × Growth rate

(1997)] = 0.45 − (0.45 × 0.31%) = 0.45 mcf/person = 0.45 x 112,694 (population of Ann Arbor in 1997) = 50,972 mcf

Step 3: The same calculations were conducted for each year backwards until 1990 as well as between 1999-2000.

Natural gas consumption (1990) = Nat gas consumption (1991) − [Nat gas Consumption (1991) × Growth rate

(1990)] = 0.44 − (0.44 × 0.31%) = 0.44 mcf/person = 0.44 x 109,592 (population of Ann Arbor in 1990) = 48,506 mcf

255

D. Municipal Government Sector

Actual natural gas consumption data for municipal facilities was derived from FASTER 99-1 to 99-12 provided by the City of Ann Arbor Energy Office. The same growth rates were employed as those in the commercial growth rates on a per person basis. The methodology for calculating the baseline is the same as for the commercial sector as well.


Year Natural Gas (mcf)

2000 73,596

E. University of Michigan

Actual natural gas consumption data for non-power plant consumption (used for heating) was derived from the U of M website. The calculation for the 1990 baseline was employed using the commercial growth rate. The methodology for calculating the baseline is the same as for the commercial sector as well.


Year Natural Gas for Non-Power Plant (mcf)

2000 885,270

256

Tab

le D

-12:

Act

ual N

atur

al G

as C

onsu

mpt

ion

betw

een

1990

and

200

0

Res

iden

tial

Com

mer

cial

In

dust

rial

Yea

r m

cf/p

erso

n %

Cha

nge

Tota

l Nat

ural

Gas

(m

cf)

mcf

/per

son

% C

hang

e To

tal N

atur

al G

as

(mcf

) m

cf/p

erso

n %

Cha

nge

Tota

l Nat

ural

Gas

(m

cf)

1990

40

.5

-0.5

0%

4,44

0,01

9 20

.9

1.08

8%

2,29

0,30

7 0.

44

0.31

%

48,5

03

1991

40

.3

-0.5

0%

4,43

5,79

6 21

.1

1.07

4%

2,32

4,85

6 0.

44

0.31

%

48,8

50

1992

40

.1

-0.5

0%

4,43

1,50

5 21

.4

1.06

1%

2,35

9,56

3 0.

45

0.31

%

49,1

99

1993

39

.9

-0.5

0%

4,42

7,14

7 21

.6

1.04

7%

2,39

4,42

1 0.

45

0.31

%

49,5

50

1994

39

.7

-0.5

0%

4,42

2,72

3 21

.8

1.03

4%

2,42

9,42

9 0.

45

0.31

%

49,9

03

1995

39

.5

-0.5

0%

4,41

8,23

3 22

.0

1.02

1%

2,46

4,58

2 0.

45

0.31

%

50,2

57

1996

39

.3

-0.5

0%

4,41

3,67

8 22

.3

1.00

8%

2,49

9,87

5 0.

45

0.31

%

50,6

14

1997

39

.1

-0.5

0%

4,40

9,05

9 22

.5

0.99

5%

2,53

5,30

5 0.

45

0.31

%

50,9

71

1998

38

.9

-0.5

0%

4,40

4,26

7 22

.7

0.98

3%

2,57

0,86

8 0.

45

0.31

%

51,3

31

1999

38

.7

-0.5

0%

4,39

9,41

2 22

.9

0.97

1%

2,60

5,99

0 0.

46

0.31

%

51,6

92

2000

38

.5

-0.5

0%

4,39

4,49

6 23

.2

0.95

8%

2,64

1,23

2 0.

46

0.31

%

52,0

54

Mun

icip

al G

over

nmen

t U

of M

Yea

r %

Cha

nge

Tota

l Nat

ural

Gas

(mcf

) %

cha

nge

Tota

l Nat

ural

Gas

(mcf

)

Tot

al N

atur

al G

as

(mcf

) m

cf p

er C

apita

1990

1.

09%

66

,457

4.

55%

76

5,07

0 7,

610,

355

69,4

43

1991

1.

07%

67

,178

1.

54%

77

7,01

0 7,

653,

691

69,5

57

1992

1.

06%

67

,898

1.

52%

78

9,02

2 7,

697,

187

69,6

71

1993

1.

05%

68

,617

1.

51%

80

1,10

4 7,

740,

840

69,7

87

1994

1.

03%

69

,334

1.

49%

81

3,25

5 7,

784,

644

69,9

02

1995

1.

02%

70

,049

1.

48%

82

5,47

6 7,

828,

596

70,0

18

1996

1.

01%

70

,762

1.

47%

83

7,76

5 7,

872,

693

70,1

35

1997

1.

00%

71

,474

1.

45%

85

0,12

1 7,

916,

931

70,2

51

1998

0.

98%

72

,183

1.

42%

86

2,35

7 7,

961,

007

70,3

66

1999

0.

97%

72

,891

1.

41%

87

4,65

8 8,

004,

643

70,4

75

2000

0.

96%

73

,596

1.

20%

88

5,27

0 8,

046,

649

70,5

70

257

APPENDIX E: KEY FINDINGS OF REGIONAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND CORPORATE PLANS Regional Plans The Team read and evaluated the regional GHG reduction plan adopted by the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers (NEG/ECP) on August 28, 2001. Members of the NEG/ECP include six U.S. states (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont) and five Canadian provinces or territories (New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Québec). Similar to state and local action plans, this regional action plan includes a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHGs and a commitment to reach specific regional reduction targets. Uniquely, the NEG/ECP sets aggressive short-term, mid-term, and long-term reduction targets for the region and establishes an iterative review process to reevaluate and adjust these goals if deemed necessary (see Table E-1).

Table E-1: NEG/ECP Regional Reduction Targets

Range of Goal Target

Short-term Reduce regional GHG emissions to 1990 emissions by 2010 Mid-term Reduce regional GHG emissions by at least 10 % below 1990 emissions by 2020,

and establish an iterative five-year process, commencing in 2005, to adjust the goals if necessary and set future emissions reduction goals

Long-term Reduce regional GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate; current science suggests this will require reductions of 75-85 % below current levels

Source: New England Governors/Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan, 2001. While the target set in the plan is for the entire region, the plan allows for flexibility in attaining these reduction goals. The NEG/ECP plan specifies that each state or provincial jurisdiction be responsible for carrying out its own planning to reduce GHG emissions. Individual jurisdictions and states are not forced to achieve equal reductions, but rather are committed to participating in the process to meet the regional reduction target. Each province or state can, therefore, use different approaches or technologies to aid in meeting the specified targets. Also unique to the plan, is the region’s commitment to renewable energy. Although many local plans address this issue, very few cities or towns have the resources available to offset the costs for adopting such measures and, therefore, frequently fail to specify renewable energy goals. The NEG/ECP plan sets a goal to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions per megawatt hour of electricity use in the region by 20% by the year 2025. Overall, the regional plan sets action steps for each state and jurisdiction to meet the goals set forth by the NEG/ECP. The action steps include:

258

• The establishment of a regional standardized GHG emissions inventory • The establishment of a plan for reducing GHG emissions and conserving energy • The promotion of public awareness • State and provincial governments to lead by example • The reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector • The reduction of the total energy demand through conservation • The reduction and/or adaptation of negative social, economic and environmental

impacts of climate change • A decrease in the transportation sector’s growth in GHG emissions • The creation of a regional emissions registry and the exploration of a trading

mechanism

For each of the above action steps, the plan details the basis for action, a goal, and recommendations to help states and provinces meet those goals. Certain goals are detailed and set specific regional reduction targets for those measures, while other goals are generic descriptions that provide an overall guideline to help states and provinces begin the GHG reduction planning process. Overall, the plan is a preliminary step in reaching regional GHG reduction goals whose main purpose it to prompt the involvement of states and provinces in meeting the GHG reduction goals specified in the plan. State Plans Due to a lack of federal action, several states have adopted Action Plans to reduce GHG emissions in the last several years. The Team evaluated the Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey Action Plans. Rhode Island Background The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and the State Energy Office, with financial assistance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, and the State of Rhode Island, hired two separate consulting companies289 to develop a GHG Action Plan for the State. Over 30 diverse stakeholders, representing business, industry, citizen groups, environmental organizations, and other government agencies were involved in the plan development process. Nearly all decisions throughout the process were made through consensus. The plan development process was divided into three distinct phases:

289 Raab Associates, Ltd was hired to provide facilitation and project management services while the Tellus Institute was hired to provide consulting and modeling services on technical and policy issues for the Rhode Island Plan.

259

• Phase 1 – Develop a GHG Action Plan, evaluating and prioritizing a list of GHG reduction options290

• Phase 2 – Research, analyze, and design implementation strategies for high priority policy options

• Phase 3 – Implement highest priority options and develop implementation plans for other options

Emissions Levels and Targets In the year 2000, Rhode Island generated 3.5 million tons of carbon equivalents into the atmosphere, or 3.39 tons per resident.291 The transportation sector generated the largest amount of GHG emissions in 2000, followed by these sectors respectively: electrical generation, residential, commercial, industrial, and solid waste management. GHG emissions are predicted to surpass 4 million tons by the year 2020 if no further reduction efforts are made within the State. To address this problem, the Rhode Island plan set the same reduction targets as those established in the regional New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Action Plan (see Table E-2).

Table E-2: Rhode Island Reduction Targets

Range of Goal Target

Short-term Reduce regional GHG emissions to 1990 emissions by 2010 Mid-term Reduce regional GHG emissions by at least 10 percent below 1990 emissions by

2020, and establish an iterative five-year process, commencing in 2005, to adjust the goals if necessary and set future emissions reduction goals

Long-term Reduce regional GHG emissions sufficiently to eliminate any dangerous threat to the climate; current science suggests this will require reductions of 75-85 percent below current levels

Source: Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan, July 15, 2002 Reduction Measures The plan recommended a total of 52 measures, both in-state and out-of-state, to reduce GHG emissions to the levels indicated in the targets. Within the plan, the measures recommended were divided into the following categories:

• Higher priority consensus in-state options • Lower priority consensus in-state options • Non-consensus in-state options • Consensus regional/national options • Consensus priority study options

290 The product of Phase 1 was the Action Plan reviewed by the Team. 291 The U.S. Census estimated Rhode Island’s population at 1,048,319 residents in 2000.

260

The majority of higher priority recommendations called for improvements in either the energy efficiency of buildings and facilities or a reduction in transportation emissions. A breakdown of the categorization of the plan’s recommended measures can be seen in Table E-3.

Table E-3: Rhode Island GHG Reduction Categories

Buildings /FACILITIES

Transportation Land Use Energy Supply

Solid Waste

Total

In State Higher Priority 17 6 2 1 3 29 Lower Priority 5 1 4 4 1 15 Non-Consensus 2 1 3 Priority Study 2 2 Regional/National 1 1 1 3

TOTAL 25 11 6 6 4 52

Source: Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Action Plan The recommendations to reduce GHGs through decreased energy consumption within building and facilities largely advocated for the continuation and expansion of already existing programs within the state, many of which are run and funded by an in-state electrical company. Other measures called for the development of new Energy Office programs to provide outreach, education, and reward systems (tax benefits, incentives, etc.) to state residents, businesses, and industries on energy efficiency. Most of these recommended measures were considered to be of higher priority. Several unique transportation measures were recommended in the Rhode Island plan, including a local fuel economy improvements initiative, also referred to as a “Feebate”. This measure would create a fee and rebate incentive system for all new light trucks and cars purchased within the State by Rhode Island residents. Residents purchasing new highly fuel efficient vehicles would be offered a rebate, while those purchasing low efficiency vehicles would be assessed an additional fee.292 The plan states that this program could be designed to be revenue neutral (no state funds would be needed). Other high priority transportation recommendations addressed enhancing public transit systems, commuting efficiencies, and pedestrian and bicycle infrastructures to reduce the total VMT traveled by state residents. Three non-consensus measures were also recommended in the plan. These proved to be the most politically unfeasible recommendations within the State and included upgrading new residential and commercial construction building codes to incorporate higher energy efficiency standards, and increasing the gasoline tax by $0.50 per gallon. Stakeholders representing oil and development interests did not support these items.

292 The standard as to what constitutes high fuel efficiency and the amount of the rebate or fee are not specified in the Action Plan.

261

Uniquely, this Action Plan recommended regional and national measures beyond the Rhode Island’s control or ability to implement. These included recommendations to upgrade and extend appliance efficiency standards, increase national fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, and develop power sector carbon cap and permit trading system. The intention behind these recommendations was to increase federal lobbying by local politicians and organizations to encourage these political shifts at the national level. Of all the recommendations made within the plan, Rhode Island estimated that these regional or national changes, if implemented, would have the most drastic GHG reduction effect. This was a well-written and detailed Action Plan. Recommendations were made based upon saved carbon estimates, cost-benefit analysis, and calculations estimating the other benefits (such as social benefits) of all measures. Most importantly, this Plan identified the highest priority reduction measures (measures that effectively reduce GHG emissions at a reasonable cost) to implement in Rhode Island. Delaware Background The University of Delaware’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy, with funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and State Energy Office, developed the Delaware Climate Action Plan in the beginning of 2000. Similar to the other plans reviewed, stakeholders from government, business, labor, environmental organizations, and community-based groups were included in the plan development process. Uniquely, in this plan, writers designed various possible implementation scenarios (see Table E-4).

Table E-4: Delaware Implementation Scenarios

Scenario % of Plan Recommendations Adopted

Full Implementation 100 %

Major Commitment 65 %

Modest Commitment 35 %

Emissions Levels and Targets Delaware emitted nearly 17.1 million tons of CO2 equivalents in 1990 and statewide emissions were projected to reach nearly 20 million tons by 2005. On a per capita basis, each Delaware resident generated 26 tons of CO2 equivalents in 1990.293 As usual, the majority of these emissions were attributed to fossil fuel combustion to supply the State’s 293 The U.S. Census estimated Delaware’s population at 666,168 residents in 1990.

262

energy demands. In 1990, the utility sector generated the largest amount of emissions (nearly 5 million tons), followed by transportation, industrial, residential, and commercial respectively. Unlike the other states examined, Delaware’s emissions levels were impacted more heavily by industrial energy use. The Delaware Action Plan, similar to the Kyoto Protocol, designated a target of reducing emissions to 7 % below 1990 emissions by 2010. The Full Implementation scenario would enable the State surpass this target and decrease overall GHG emissions by nearly 25 %. Plan writers described this scenario as particularly unachievable given the lack of State government and local industry commitment to the problem to date. Introducing the reduction measures outlined in the Major Commitment scenario would enable the State to meet the specified reduction target. Again, the plan suggested that this target might also be optimistic. Reduction Measures Residential and commercial GHG reduction measures included adopting new statewide energy efficiency building codes, using market incentives to increase energy efficiency, and promoting alternative, low carbon, fuels. Transportation recommendations included promoting highly fuel-efficient and alternative fuel vehicles, improving fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, and reducing overall vehicle miles traveled through public transportation improvements, increased public transportation ridership and ride sharing. The Plan also recommended measures to decrease industries’ GHG emissions and included encouraging participation in voluntary federal programs to monitor and track pollution, acquiring efficient equipment, and maximizing plant operation efficiency. More specifically, industry recommendations included making improvements in heat recovery and containment (such as recovering boiler room waste heat, etc.), space conditioning, boiler steam, air compressors, motors, and lighting. Other recommendations involved increasing energy generation from alternative energy sources, increasing recycling rates, decreasing state consumption rates, improving urban growth management, and increasing afforestation and land protection strategies. Table E-5 details the projected GHG reductions by sector for each scenario in 2010 compared to 1990 baseline emissions.

Table E-5: Percent Reduction in CO2 Emissions by Sector Based on Projected 2010 Emissions

Sector MODEST COMMITMENT

Major Commitment

Full Implementation

Industry 9 % 18 % 27 % Residential 10 % 18 % 28 % Commercial 9 % 18 % 27 % Transportation 10 % 24 % 36 % Utilities 17 % 24 % 40 % Wastes 6 % 16 % 27 % Forests 4 % 8 % 12 % Source: Delaware Greenhouse Gas Action Plan

Overall, this plan was extremely detailed. Recommendations were broken down into subcategories and calculations were conducted to estimate implementation costs, energy

263

savings (in dollars), payback period, energy saved and CO2 equivalents mitigated. Also, the necessary next steps were outlined in the plan to guarantee implementation. New Jersey Background

New Jersey’s Greenhouse Gas Action Plan was developed and published in the year 2000. The New Jersey Climate Change Workgroup294 generated this plan in an effort to pursue the sustainability goals identified in a 1999 report published by New Jersey Future, a non-profit organization, entitled “Living with the Future in Mind – Goals and Indicators for New Jersey”. The New Jersey Climate Change Workgroup worked in conjunction with a group of selected stakeholders representing academia, industry, public interest groups, nine state agencies and two federal agencies. In response to this document, then Governor Whitman ordered all State agencies in 1999 to pursue the sustainability goals outlined in the report. The GHG reduction goals and measures in this plan outline some steps that can be taken towards meeting these sustainability goals. Emissions Levels and Targets New Jersey generated 136 million tons of CO2 equivalents, or 17.6 tons per resident, in 1990 with the majority of these emissions coming from transportation (36%), followed by residential (21%), commercial (16%), industrial (16%), government (10%), and agriculture and land use (1%) sources respectively.295 When aggregated, residential and commercial buildings account for the largest generation of GHG emissions in the State. The Action Plan estimated that these emissions levels would increase to 150 million tons by the year 2005 if no GHG reduction efforts were made by the State. New Jersey, through this plan, set its reduction target to 3.5 % below 1990 emissions levels by 2005.

Reduction Measures All recommended reduction measures were organized into the five following categories:

• Energy Conservation • Innovative Technologies • Pollution Prevention • Waste Management – MSW Landfill Gas Recycling • Natural Resources • Open Space

294 The Workgroup consisted of members from State agencies, local businesses, and environmental organizations. 295 The U.S. Census estimated New Jersey’s population at 7,730,188 residents in 1990.

264

Of the recommended measures, plan writers projected that reductions in solid waste and enhanced waste management strategies as well as improvements in energy conservation efforts would have the most impact on decreasing GHG emissions, followed by innovative technologies in industry, energy conservation in residential buildings, and energy conservation in transportation respectively (see Table E-6).

Table E-6: Proposed CO2 Equivalent Reductions by Market Sector

Market Sector Projected GHG Reduced in 2005 (MTCO2e)

Energy Conservation – Residential Bldgs. 1.3 Innovative Technologies – Residential Bldgs. 0.2 Energy Conservation – Commercial Bldgs. 4.5 Innovative Technologies – Commercial Bldgs. 3.7 Energy Conservation – Industrial 0.4 Innovative Technologies – Industrial 2.3 Energy Conservation – Transportation 1.5 Innovative Technologies – Transportation 0.7 Pollution Prevention 0.8 Waste Management 4.5 Natural Resources296 1.2

Source: NJDEP Greenhouse Gas Action Plan Interesting energy conservation measures in the plan included updating state building codes to incorporate higher energy efficiency standards and developing a registered vehicle bi-yearly inspection and maintenance program to identify vehicles with “serious emissions problems”. Innovative technology recommendations included increasing the use of alternative fuels in government fleets, and increasing energy production from the following sources: low carbon technologies, cogeneration, microturbines, photovoltaics, geothermal heat pump systems, and fuel cells. Methods suggested to improve solid waste management involved increasing statewide recycling levels and landfill gas recovery efforts. To increase carbon sequestration within the State, the plan identified various methods to increase tree planting, open space protection, and energy recovery from biomass energy production. Additionally, the plan recommended planting specific tree species that are known to sequester larger amounts of carbon. Many of the measures recommended in the plan were general in nature, describing methods that could be used to conserve energy or reduce vehicle miles traveled, but not designating specific reduction targets or specifying implementation methods. For example, in the energy conservation section, recommendations included increasing the rate of residential appliance upgrades and mechanical repairs in industry, but didn’t specify how the State would encourage these changes. Unlike the Rhode Island Action Plan, this plan did not detail how next steps would be taken to meet the reduction goals. By not stating the next steps or providing direction for implementation, the goals of reducing GHG emissions to 3.5 % below 1990 emissions levels by the year 2005 seemed particularly unreasonable.

296 Natural resources refers to methods used to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.

265

Discussion Overall, all of the state plans followed a similar protocol to identify and outline GHG reduction measures. All compiled emissions inventories to estimate baseline emissions, set a specific reduction target, and identified measures to meet those targets. Each plan was well written, yet the Rhode Island and Delaware plans were most detailed and set more realistic reduction goals. Both of these plans also specified the next steps needed to achieve the recommended reduction targets and, therefore, provided policy makers with the best information and future direction. Local Plans Overview The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is an international coalition of worldwide communities and governments who have joined together to reduce GHG emissions at the local level. In 2003, 134 local governments including cities and counties in the U.S. have joined the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) campaign. Among these communities, the Team picked three local governments: Burlington, Fort Collins, and Madison in order to evaluate their GHG reduction action plans. In general, the GHG emissions generated by local communities are dependent upon local climate conditions, since, for example, more energy is required for heating or cooling in locations with extreme temperatures. The level of urbanization within a community also drastically impacts GHG emissions generation. As a city becomes more urbanized, more energy will be consumed through increased electricity use and vehicle miles traveled. Therefore, the Team decided to examine plans from cities with a similar climate and demographic conditions to Ann Arbor. Table E-7 shows a demographic comparison between the three cities selected and Ann Arbor. Degree-days are a measure of outdoor air temperature. Heating degree days (HDD) are the total sum of degrees per day that the daily temperature falls below 65°F, while cooling degree days (CDD) are the total sum of degrees per day that the daily temperature rises above 65°F. Compared with Ann Arbor, the three cities are similar to one another with respect to climate and demographics. The Team, therefore, inferred that the GHG emissions generated per person in these cites would be comparable to Ann Arbor and the mitigation measures recommended and/or implemented would be relevant to this Project.

266

Table E-7: Comparison of Three Local Governments and Ann Arbor

City Population297

Population Density per

Square Mile of Land Area298

Heating Degree Days299

Cooling Degree Days300

GHG Emissions per Capita

(MTCO2e)301

Ann Arbor, MI

114,024 4,221.1 5,766 809 17.8

Burlington, VT

38,889 3,682.0 6,944 577 13.1

Fort Collins, CO

118,652 2,549.3 5,675 728 15.5

Madison, WI

208,054 3,029.7 6,706 642 20.0

U.S. Average

281,421,906 n/a 4,576 1,193 20.2

Burlington, VT The City of Burlington completed their Climate Action Plan in March 2000 subsequent to joining the CCP campaign in 1997. Since then, the City has executed measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach a reductions target of 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. Reduction targets were derived from the International Kyoto Protocol agreement. The initial greenhouse gas emissions inventory was conducted for the baseline year of 1990 and an interim year of 1997. GHG emissions were quantified through the analysis of four economic sectors: transportation, industrial, commercial, and residential. Municipal solid waste management was also included in the greenhouse gas inventory. GHG emissions baseline levels in 1990 were approximately 510,000 tons of CO2 equivalents or 13.1 tons of CO2 equivalents per person. Based on the business as usual scenario, emissions levels were projected to reach 709,000 tons of CO2 equivalents by 2005. The City identified that the largest GHG emitter was the industrial sector. Burlington developed five strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Each strategy was subdivided into more specific measures, and the amounts of prospective greenhouse gas emission reductions were quantified respectively. The City estimated that, if implemented, these measures would reduce GHG emissions by 156,000 tons in the year 2005. However, it is estimated that 257,000 tons of emission reductions are needed to meet the City’s target. Although the reduction target is feasible, the City recognizes that it will take more time to execute. Thus, the City of Burlington undertakes the ultimate goal of reducing emissions to 90 % of 1990 levels.302

297 Census 2000 <http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html>. 298 Ibid. 299 Heating & Cooling Degree Days are based on the year of 2001, National Climate Data Center <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/servlets/ACS>. 225 Ibid. 301 Greenhouse gas emission values are based on the year of 1990. 302 The City of Burlington does not detail any specific data to accomplish their goal of reducing emissions to 90 percent of 1990 levels.

267

Table E-8: Burlington’s Emissions Reduction Strategies303

Residential

Category Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Benefits

Install EnergyStar heating equipment 1400 lbs/year of CO2 Properly insulate and define the building shell, and minimize air leakage to and from the outdoors, particularly at the top and bottom of the heated envelope

It depends on site (typically save $50 to $100 and up to 1900 lbs/year of CO2)

Select heating system that uses low carbon-content fuel (i.e. natural gas)

Up to 4600 lbs/year of CO2

Replace manual thermostat with a programmable model to automatically practice set-back at night and other convenient times without sacrificing comfort

It will save up to $60 annually and up to 1170 lbs/year of CO2

Install EnergyStar windows It will save up to $80 annually and up to 1400 lbs/year of CO2

Space heating & cooling

Install EnergyStar window air-conditioning units (cooling)

Up to $50 of savings and 330 lbs/year of CO2

Install solar hot water heating system 1600 lbs/year of CO2 compared to heating with natural gas

Purchase a high versus standard efficient water heater. Select gas water heaters instead of electric

2800 lbs/year of CO2

Use less hot water A family of 3 could conserve roughly 10,400 gallons of water per household per year

Water heating

Install non-aerating low-flow shower heads Up to $120 and 1800 lbs/year of CO2 reductions

Buy EnergyStar model 285 lbs/year of CO2 Consider retiring existing refrigerators of freezers older than 7 years, and replacing them with a new energy star model

Save $60 and close to 1000 lbs/year of CO2

Appliance – Refrigerator

Decide to unplug, and get rid of an extra refrigerator Save $100 and as much as 1ton of CO2 per year

Buy EnergyStar model Energy cost savings of $58/year, $20/year of natural gas use, more than 3000 gallons of water savings

Appliance – cloth washers & dryers

Line dry laundry when possible. Use an extra spin cycle. Switch from an electric to a gas-fired clothes dryer

Drying a load of laundry with an electric dryer costs about $0.35 and results in pounds of CO2 emissions

Appliance – Dishwashers

Buy Energy Star model Energy cost savings of $28/year, 410 lbs/year of CO2 reduction, approx 500 gallons of water saving

Replace incandescent light bulbs with Energy Star screw-in compact fluorescent light bulbs

$20/year of energy savings, 280 lbs/year of CO2 reduction

Lighting

Install efficiency lighting fixtures at kitchen and bathroom


303The City of Burlington, The Climate Action Plan <http://www.burlingtonelectric.com/SpecialTopics/Summary.pdf>.

268


Replace incandescent light bulbs with Energy Star screw-in compact fluorescent light bulbs


Install efficiency lighting fixtures at kitchen and bathroom


Install timer controls, motion sensors, dimmer switches

Reducing the use of four 60-watt bulbs by 1 hour each day results in $10/year energy savings and 130 lbs/year of CO2

Purchase CFL (fluorescent light bulbs) torchiere lamp

Replacing a 300-watt halogen torchiere with a CFL model will result in $35/year of energy saving & 525 lbs/year of CO2

TV, VCR Buy EnergyStar model $8/year of energy savings, 110 lbs/year of CO2 reduction

Drive your car one less day a week $110/year in operation & maintenance cost, 1,200 lbs/year of CO2 reduction

Make sure tires are fully inflated 220 lbs/year of CO2 Keep engine tuned Up to 1 ton/year of CO2 Do not let engine idle Unknown

Personal vehicles use

Buy a fuel-efficient car Unknown

269

Transportation


Intercept park & ride rots Low target = 754 tons of CO2, high target = 1507 tons of CO2

Expand park & shuttle Low target = 251 tons of CO2, high target = 502 tons of CO2

Expand regional park & ride lots Low target = 625 tons of CO2, high target = 938 tons of CO2

Fixed route transit expansion 793 tons of CO2 Additional free shuttles for big event 1 ton of CO2 Charlotte – Burl – Essex commuter rail 1088 tons of CO2 Employee bike amenities Low target = 28 tons of CO2, high

target = 42 tons of CO2 Free bike program Low target = 6 tons of CO2, high target

= 1234 tons of CO2 Employee parking buyout program Low target = 419 tons of CO2, high

target = 837 tons of CO2 Employee transit pass Low target = 419 tons of CO2, high

target = 837 tons of CO2 Encourage telecommuting Low target = 837 tons of CO2, high

target = 1256 tons of CO2 Multi-employer car pooling Low target = 815 tons of CO2, high

target = 1630 tons of CO2 Business sponsored transit for customers Low target = 549 tons of CO2, high

target = 1099 tons of CO2 Encourage walk to work (employee wellness) Low target = 59 tons of CO2, high

target = 88 tons of CO2 Extend college street shuttle Low target = 0 tons of CO2, high target

= 1 tons of CO2 Increase allowable land use densities Low target = 1675 tons of CO2, high

target = 3014 tons of CO2

Business vehicles use

Improve transit amenities Low target = 638 tons of CO2, high target = 1704 tons of CO2

Biomass-fueled district energy system

The development of a biomass-fueled district energy system

Unknown

Green Fleets

Develop and operate climate-friendly transportation fleets

Unknown

270

Buildings


Improve lighting quantity and quality, minimizing use of electrical lighting

Unknown

Replace incandescent lamps Replacing a single 60 watt incandescent lamp with a 15 watt fluorescent lamp will save $4/year of electricity & 60 lbs/year of CO2

Upgrade fluorescent lighting fixtures Reduce emissions by roughly 20% per fixture

Replace high wattage incandescent or mercury vapor outdoor lighting and security lighting with high efficiency lighting

Energy consumption can be reduced by as much as 80% to 90%

Install lighting control unit such as occupancy sensors and photocell controls

Energy saving from 25% to more than 50%

Lighting upgrade in city building 257 tons of CO2 savings for 1992 - 1998

Lightning

Town building lighting retrofits (fluorescent bulbs, occupancy sensors)

1,300 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Upgrade or install insulation. Reduce or eliminate excessive air infiltration. Clearly and properly define the heated envelope

Unknown

Install energy efficient windows or window films or other window treatment

Unknown

Perform manufacturer recommended maintenance and performance testing on existing heating and cooling system

Unknown

Examine heating & cooling distribution system for energy savings opportunities

Unknown

Switch to primary space heating fuels with lower emissions of GHG

Unknown

Improve efficiency of ventilation system, install heat recovery ventilators (HRV)

Unknown


Install automatic setback thermostats or other energy system management controls

Unknown

Implement hot water and general water conservation measures

Reduces energy bills & GHG emissions

Reduce hot water temperatures (down to 120°F) Unknown Insulate electric water heaters & hot water distribution pipes

Unknown

Invest in an energy efficient or solar water heating system

Unknown

Wastewater re-circulation or re-processing Unknown Buy EnergyStar labeled product Less than half of energy reduction Turn off un-needed copiers & printers during non-business hours

Unknown

Water heating

Consider controlling any "instant-on" electronic equipment with a power strip & its toggle switch

Unknown

271

Buildings (Cont.)

Site heat producing appliances away from refrigeration equipment

Dramatically reduces energy

Install an "outdoor air economizer" for walk-in coolers Unknown Use insulated doors instead of "anti-sweat" heaters on display-cooler doors

Unknown

Commercial Food Service

Instead of automatically supplying glasses of water to all restaurant customers, ask if each would like one.

Unknown

Motors Implement protocol to install premium efficiency motors at times of replacement, and analyze motors larger than 1hp for proper sizing and efficiency, replace where cost-effective

Unknown

Commercial


Renewable energy supplies

Develop solar hot water system and photovoltaic technology (PV)

Unknown

Solid waste Reduce organic waste, which produces the greenhouse gas methane. Cut down embodied energy, which is the energy needed to produce the law materials required to manufacture a product.

Unknown

Recycling products Buy recycled products Unknown Climate neutral products

Develop environmental friendly products Unknown

Industrial


Energy efficiency Increase energy efficiency such as lighting, motor efficiency, building shell improvement, water conservation, recycling, pollution prevention

Unknown

Climate neutral products

Develop environmental friendly products, process, or facilities

Unknown

Waste reduction Recycling, reuse Unknown Switch to combined heat and power system (CHP, or cogeneration), or lower carbon, renewable fuels system

Unknown Fuel switching

Solar water heating, biomass energy, solar photovoltaics Unknown Office equipment Buy energy star labeling requirements Unknown Extended product responsibility

Take into account the environmental impacts of a product's entire lifecycle, from material suppliers to manufactures to consumers

Unknown

272

Municipal


Improve vehicle maintenance Unknown Establishing minimum fuel efficiency standards for new vehicles purchased

Unknown

Establishing an early retirement program for the least efficient vehicles

Unknown

Transportation

Examining opportunities for the use of alternative fuel vehicles

Unknown

LED technology Replace traffic signals with LED lamp Unknown Office equipment Establishing standards for purchasing environmentally

sensitive office products and office equipment Unknown

Tree and shrub planting Develop a comprehensive urban forestry master plan Unknown Code, ordinance Establish standards and guidelines for emissions reduction Unknown Education Encourage municipal employees to help identify further

emissions reduction opportunities Unknown

Public outreach and education

Encourage education and activities to raise awareness of global warming and opportunities for climate protection

Unknown

Investigate methane recovery to generate power Unknown Promote waste reduction Unknown

Municipal Solid Waste

Establish policies that make recycling as simple as possible for residents

Unknown

Fort Collins, CO After joining the CCP campaign in 1997, the City of Fort Collins completed the local action plan to reduce GHG emissions in November 1999. The initial inventory for greenhouse gas emissions was developed for the 1990 baseline year. The inventory includes carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions associated with fossil fuel combustion, and methane (CH4) generated from municipal solid waste. Based upon baseline year values, future values of GHG emission are predicted for the year 2010. Total GHG emissions in 1990 were approximately 1,360,000 tons CO2 equivalents, or 15.5 tons CO2 equivalents per capita. When examined by energy carrier, the largest contributor was electricity generation, which accounted for 42 % of the total GHG emissions for the City, followed by the transportation sector at 30%, and natural gas consumption at 24%. Finally, methane discharged from municipal solid waste accounted for 4 % of total GHG emissions. The City projected future GHG would increase by 159 % to 3,523,000 tons CO2 equivalents by the year 2010 provided no mitigation actions were undertaken. The action plan examined a wide variety of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions classifying principally three types: Existing, New, and Pending measures. A total of 51 measures were recommended. These mitigation measures were arranged by category: Transportation, Energy, Solid Waste, Vegetation, Purchasing, Education and Outreach and the amounts of GHG reductions were quantified for each measure respectively. In addition,

273

all mitigation measures were prioritized in terms of CO2 reduction capacity, cost, environmental impacts, public and political support, and feasibility. Fort Collins established a GHG emissions reduction target of 30% below 2010 business as usual levels. According to the City’s estimation, GHG emissions will be reduced by 1,112,000 tons of CO2 by 2010, which results in a 32% reduction in Fort Collins’ predicted 2010 emissions levels (3,523,000 tons of CO2) if existing, pending, and new measures are implemented. Therefore, Fort Collins’ GHG emissions in 2010 are projected to be 2,411,000 tons of CO2 equivalents. However, this projected figure indicates approximately an 80 percent increase in GHG emissions compared to the baseline year of 1990. The universal trends for GHG emissions reduction targest tend to be established as several percents below 1990 levels. In contrast, Fort Collins’ 2010 GHG emissions target represents a significant increase in GHG emissions compared to the 1990 base year.

Table E-9: Fort Collins’ Emissions Reduction Strategies304 Residential



Promote alternatives to residential air conditioning (placement of trees on the east and west sides of buildings, painting buildings $ roof surface a light color, etc)

768 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Lightning Promote the sales of compact fluorescent bulbs for residences


Personal vehicles use Promote sale of fuel efficient cars to the public 14,508 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 Solar system Increase repair and installation of solar thermal

systems 538 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Green electricity Purchase of green electricity such as wind power, small hydro or biomass


Transportation


Alternative fuel vehicles

Use propane city fleet vehicles 139 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

VMT VMT growth rate should not exceed population growth rate


Promote telecommuting

Promote telecommuting in private business 3,076 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Commuter rail Build transportation infrastructure in the city to accommodate or improve access to potential future rail links


304 City of Fort Collins Local Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, November 1999 <http://fcgov.com/airquality/lap.php>.

274

Building


Green building Establishing a program for builders to integrate environmental features into the design and construction of new commercial buildings


Green building Establishing a program for builders to integrate environmental features into the design and construction of new residential buildings


Energy code for new construction

Require builders to consider energy saving alternatives throughout constructions


Reducing total energy use

Reduce energy use in city government buildings by 15% per gross square foot


Energy training Give training opportunities on energy efficiency construction for local homebuilders


Commercial


Recycling

Conducting business recycling program 41,735 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Industrial

Category Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Benefits Climate wise program Promote DOE's Climate Wise Program to local

businesses 38,390 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Electricity distribution system improvement

Improve electricity distribution system to keep distribution losses low even as population growth necessitates system expansion


275

Municipal

Category Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures Benefits A campaign would be conducted within city departments to raise awareness about how to reduce fuel consumption and how much fuel is consumed.

62 tons of CO2 savings per year Transportation

Push for tighter fuel efficiency standards (CAFE) 121,000 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 LED technology Replace traffic signals with LED lamp 3,137 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Sequestration of CO2 by all trees in the city 21,071 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 Natural area shrub planting 48 tons of CO2 savings as average

Tree and shrub planting

Increase tree planting citywide 125 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 Code, ordinance Establish law for mandatory renewables in deregulation 71,561 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 Education Work actively on education and outreach for GHG

emission 24,290 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Methane flaring and heat recovery at waste water treatment plant


10% reduction of municipal solid waste 121 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 Trash Districting - decreasing the number of miles driven by trash trucks


Divert 50% of the waste stream from landfill disposal 112,787 tons of CO2 savings in 2010

Municipal Solid Waste

Install a gas collection system for non-methane organic compounds


Residential curbside recycling program 39,732 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 Recycling Expand central recycling drop off site or add second site


Zero interest loans for conservation help (ZILCH)

ZILCH program makes zero interest loans available to residents for energy upgrades to home


Enable customers to subscribe to wind power electricity 4,013 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 (2 turbines)

Increasing utility commitment to wind energy through green pricing program

4,013 tons of CO2 savings in 2010 (5 turbines)

Wind power

The city government commits to purchase wind generated power


Wastewater treatment system

Upgrading to high efficiency motors and pumps in order to reduce electrical load of water treatment plants


Electronic distribution method

Use electronic distribution methods for bids and proposals


276

Madison, WI The City of Madison began participating in the CCP campaign following the City Council’s approval of a resolution in 1998. The first draft of the climate protection plan was finished in February 2000. After having been reviewed by a wide variety of public and private organizations, the City completed the final plan in January 2002. The inventory for GHG emissions was conducted for the 1990 baseline year and an interim year of 1996. The inventory encompasses four economic sectors: residential, commercial, industrial and transportation sector. Municipal solid waste and the airport are also attached for the inventory. Mainly carbon dioxide and methane are inventoried for the calculation of GHG emissions. The City also projected GHG emissions in 2010 on the basis of the business as usual scenario with no measures implemented to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Based upon the inventory analysis, Madison established a greenhouse gas emission reduction goal of 7% below 1990 levels by 2010, which is the same target that the United States was supposed to achieve under the 1997 Kyoto treaty. The action plan investigates greenhouse gas reduction strategies primarily focusing on city, county, and state facilities and programs involving local utilities and commercial sector energy efficiency measures rather than emphasizing residential, industrial and transportation sector measures. 305 The City identified that the most effective programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are the following three existing programs: 1) Madison Pride and other recycling programs, 2) Madison Gas & Electric energy efficiency program, and 3) utilization of methane gas for electricity generation at county landfills and Madison Metropolitan Sewage Plant. The City also investigated additional measures which were classified into the following six categories: city programs, city fleet, city buildings, metro transit, private programs, and state and county programs. Greenhouse gas reductions are quantified for each measure. However, it seems to be ambiguous whether the cumulative greenhouse gas savings would be sufficient to achieve their target by 2010 or not.306

Table E-10: Madison’s Emission Reduction Strategies307

Residential


The sustainable Lifestyle Campaign

Reducing energy consumption (gas & electric) by 13 %

242 tons of CO2

305 Madison’s approaches to reduce GHG emissions are somewhat different from the other two cities in that Madison does not focus much on the residential, industrial, transportation, and municipal solid waste sectors, since these sectors produce a small portion of the City’s total GHG emissions. 306 Madison’s GHG emissions in 1990 were 3,824,851 tons of CO2 equivalents, and 5,078,655 tons of CO2 equivalents in 1996, however, with all mitigation measures implemented, it is unclear whether the cumulative GHG savings would be sufficient to achieve their target of 7% below 1990 level by 2010. 307 City of Madison Climate Protection Plan Final, January 2002 <http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/Environment/ default.htm>.

277

Transportation


Alternative fuel vehicles Use ethanol in existing flex-fuel vehicles 67 tons of CO2 Increase use of Metro Transit bus system 64 tons of CO2 Public transportation Increase green power purchase by 25% to 50% 1,425 tons of CO2 Add fuel efficiency to criteria for new vehicles purchase

1,057 tons of CO2

Conduct training on efficient driving for fleet drivers

1,057 tons of CO2

Fuel economy

Include training or information on alternative to fleet use

211 tons of CO2

Increase Yellow Bike program 593 tons of CO2 Private Increase Bike-to-Work Week participation 35 tons of CO2

Fleet vehicles Increase state fleet alternatives fuel vehicles 1,094 tons of CO2

Building


Building retrofits Retrofit 15 largest energy-using buildings to Energy Star requirements

4,108 tons of CO2

Green building Introduce green building consideration in new building design

259 tons of CO2

Renewable energy Add renewable energy source to one more city building

26 tons of CO2

Commercial


Building

Implement commercial sector green building program

15210 tons of CO2

Industrial


Environmental Protection Agency program

Double industry participation in Environmental Protection Agency ClimateWise Program

2,661 tons of CO2

Energy efficiency Continuation of energy efficiency programs (Madison Gas & Electricity and Alliant Energy)

35,098 tons of CO2

Tree plant Plant 120 trees per year (Madison Gas & Electricity) 4 tons of CO2

Municipal


LED technology Convert all red traffic signals to LED fixtures 1,400 tons of CO2 Office equipment The City will review its purchasing practices and see

where it can improve on the products purchased by various departments. Life-cycle energy costs will also be considered.

Unknown

278


2600 trees are planted each year by the city & MG&E

63 tons of CO2 Tree and shrub planting

City tree planting program 63 tons of CO2 Education Conduct education program for employees on energy

efficiency 517 tons of CO2

Municipal Solid Waste Increase state landfill tipping fees Unknown Recycling Add mixed paper and box board to curbside

recycling program 9,990 tons of CO2

Tax increment financing (TIF)

The City will include a green building requirement for developers which receive TIF from the city.

Building Implement voluntary county's green building program

15,210 tons of CO2

279

Corporate Strategies BP BP has taken great strides in addressing climate change and is now publicly recognized as the corporate leader in dealing with this issue. In the late 1990s Sir John Browne openly announced that BP would be the first company in its industry to voluntarily reduce GHG emissions by 10% below 1990 levels.308 Never before had a company of BP’s size and influence taken such a firm and transparent stance on the climate change issue. It is a position that suggests that industries worldwide should take the initiative to combat climate change, cooperating with governments and environmental groups. In order to accomplish their aggressive goal, the company invested a significant amount of resources into calculating an accurate baseline emissions figure - which was externally verified by two independent auditors, KPMG and DNV - to ensure that the data was not manipulated to augment results. Once this baseline was established BP was prepared to implement solutions that fell into five major categories:

1. Reducing the impact of their operations and products. This was achieved principally through increasing the energy efficiency of their individual business units and reducing the flaring/venting of methane gas from oil fields. They have set goals to encourage further energy efficiency, offer less carbon intensive products, and increase research into renewable energy sources.

308 BP.com, <http://www.bpamoco.com/environ_social/environment/climate_change/index.inc...>.

280

Figure E-1: BP GHG Emissions Reductions

Source: <http://www.bp.com/environ_social/environment/climate_change/our_performance

Examples of projects undertaken by BP to increase efficiency include:309

• Construction of a new combined heat and power facility located at the Hull chemical facility in the UK. This project resulted in savings of over 150,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.

• Implementation of 8 air/fuel ration controllers on large compressor engines at

BP’s Canadian gas subsidiary have resulted in savings of over 50,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.

2. Promoting flexible market instruments. Emissions trading, Joint Implementation (JI), and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) are the three basic market mechanisms for decreasing emissions. BP collaboratively used these three instruments in an extremely efficient manner. Emissions trading became the foundation of their reduction strategy as business units were allowed to compete with one another, yet remain flexible in the manner in which they banked credits. JI and CDM are now being implemented to ensure that net emissions remain below the target:

• In 2001, 4.55 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents were traded among the various business units, at prices ranging from $7 to $99, with an average of $39.63 per metric ton.310

309 Environmental/Social: Climate Change: Our Performance <http://www.bp.com/environ_social/ environment/climate_change/our_performance/>.

281

Figure E-2: Regional GHG Emissions Trading, 2001

Source: <http://www.bp.com/environ_social/environment/climate_change/our_performance/index.asp#10>.

3. Working with others to accelerate new energy technologies. Partnerships and alliances were integral in preparing many of the solutions that BP used to reduce their emissions, furthermore, they have committed to several collaborative projects focused on technologically viable ways to limit and sequester CO2.

• In 2000 BP entered into a partnership with Princeton University to establish the Carbon Mitigation Initiative (CMI) that is dedicated to conducting thorough research in the fields of carbon sequestration technology, natural carbon cycles, and how energy systems will influence the emergence of a hydrogen-based economy.311

• The internal trading system that has been implemented by BP was originally

designed in cooperation with Environmental Defense in an effort to bring the corporate and environmental communities together in a collaborative effort.

• Other partnerships exist between BP and a large variety of outside actors: The Nature Conservancy, World Resources Institute, Pew Center on Climate

310 Environmental/Social: Climate Change: Our Performance <http://www.bp.com/environ_social/ environment/climate_change/our_performance/>. 311 BP.com: Environmental/Social: Climate Change: Working in Partnership <http://www.bp.com/ environ_social/environment/climate_change/our_position/>.

282

Change, and, of course, the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association.

4. Participating in the policy processes. Due to their title as “first mover” it was not difficult for BP to position themselves amongst heads of state and NGOs involved in shaping the future of Climate Change policy.

• After successfully implementing their own internal trading system, BP officials were invited by the European Union to participate in the development of a European emissions trading program.

5. Investing in research. Recognizing the need for climate science, technology and policy research in the future, BP has invested a great deal of money in several institutes to facilitate advanced understanding of this global problem.

• Aside from the Carbon Mitigation Initiative research program being funded at Princeton, BP has also provided financial resources for research efforts at MIT’s dual program in technology and climate change policy, and the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine to explore efforts to store energy and improve the delivery efficiency of energy to buildings.

Besides clearly articulating past and future actions on combating climate change, BP has set well-defined, quantifiable goals and targets. They have provided public access to a large library of statistics and figures pertaining to their energy needs and emissions associated with each stage of their processes. The transparency with which they have approached this issue gives testament to the assumption that reaching these goals is an endeavor that BP truly intends to realize. By addressing the issue outright and publicly, embracing the generally accepted science, BP has managed to hedge its bets and create a great deal of “first mover” advantage, and have had a significant impact on the process of fighting GHG emissions. Climate change policy is a reality in most parts of the world and highly probable in the United States. The manner in which it will most likely take shape will strongly resemble BP’s strategy of emissions trading supplemented by JI and CDM. BP has already positioned themselves as a major player in the development of the European Union emissions trading program and have had the opportunity to participate in many of the global negotiations. Being in this position, they are able to help shape the future playing field and ensure a competitive advantage over other firms. The reductions they have made in individual business units have been measured in real cost savings such as energy efficiency and waste/input reduction. Through this process BP has stressed the great deal of knowledge they have acquired and because they have proven that reductions of this magnitude can be made with no net cost to the firm, they have pushed the envelope and reset the bar for their competitors. The real indication that this program has been an outright success is illustrated by the strong sense of accomplishment and pride that exists within the firm’s culture. Employees, from the top down, are highly enthusiastic about what has been achieved.

283

It is important to point out that although BP states that their reduction goal of 10 percent below 1990 levels has been met already (a full 8 years prior to their target), they fail to outwardly mention how their baseline data was affected when they acquired Arco. By doing so they essentially raised their 1990 baseline substantially, making their reduction target more achievable – a higher baseline decreases the number of emissions reductions necessary to achieve the target. Dupont Dupont, another larger member of the corporate community, has also taken a proactive approach to addressing climate change in a manner which has gained attention. A self-described “science” company, Dupont is involved in everything from food and nutrition to health care and electronics. Very early in the development of the climate change debate, Dupont acknowledged the validity of evidence that suggested global climate change was a reality. In 1991 they committed to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and becoming 15% more energy efficient.312 Besides recognition of the actual science behind climate change, this initiative was further driven by the acknowledgement of Dupont’s environmental footprint, a long-term goal of sustainable growth, and the need to position the company to gain competitive advantage in the growing “environmental” market. Whatever the reasons for senior management to make this decision, Dupont undertook a major responsibility by setting such an aggressive reduction target. Such goals are achievable for large energy consumers under the same supply chain. Dupont’s energy needs are enormous, virtually unparalleled by any other world entity, and therefore they have a great deal of marginal “value” in their energy consumption. Relatively small changes in behavior will have compounding effects on the entire business. Realizing the relative ease with which they could attain their initial goal, Dupont reevaluated their commitment at the close of the 1990s and designated new goals. It was decided that their world operations would reduce GHG emissions by 65% of their 1990 baseline, hold energy consumption flat, and assure 10% of their energy needs came from renewable sources. The GHG reduction strategy was based on the general framework of the Kyoto signatories. The gases included CO2, N2O, CH4, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6. They established three milestones in order to enable a thorough analysis of their progress.313

312 Mongan, Edwin L. The Journey to Sustainable Growth: Dupont’s Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal. 313 Mongan, Edwin L. The Journey to Sustainable Growth: Dupont’s Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal.

284

Table E-11: Milestones

Year GHG Reduction

1997 16%

2000 59%

2010 65%

The basic strategy that was developed was to prevent the increase in CO2 emissions and gain the majority of reductions from concentrating on N2O and HFC-23 emissions. According to internal statements, Dupont was able to maintain a flat energy consumption path from 1988 to 1997 while production increased 36%. 314 They characterize this accomplishment as “essentially” achieved because it is prorated for the growth of the company as a whole. When BP acquired Arco, their emissions baseline was suddenly larger than before the merge, and therefore allowed the company to attain their reduction target by actually reducing less than originally destined. The same applies in the case of Dupont’s zero growth energy consumption. Clearly a major shift in manufacturing practices and product development was necessary in order to achieve this goal. Most energy savings were associated with implementing more energy efficient technologies, modernizing powerhouses, and focusing on less energy intensive products. In order to accomplish their goal of 10 percent renewable energy consumption Dupont examined alternative sources of energy:315

• Wind: Wind turbines were installed onsite at facilities in specific regions • Biomass: Dupont developed landfill gas recapture systems and used the

trapped methane to power facilities.

• Solar: In site specific regions where proper insolation (the amount of solar radiation a region receives per unit area – varies geographically) made cost-effective sense, Dupont installed solar panels.

• Hydro: The grid average of electricity provided by hydro is approximately 2

percent of Dupont’s energy needs.

So far Dupont has been successful in realizing their climate change goals. They have experienced drastic decreases in energy consumption and greenhouse gas output, all the while experiencing positive financial growth. Like BP, they have set a proper example for the corporate community, clearly articulating the need for climate change response strategies and the reality that to do so will not expunge our economy into ultimate ruins. In 1999 Chad

314 Ibid. 315 Mongan, Edwin L. The Journey to Sustainable Growth: Dupont’s Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal.

285

Holliday, CEO and Chairman of Dupont, told the members of his executive board that Dupont needs to concentrate on “Creating shareholder and societal value while decreasing our environmental footprint.” Climate change is the quintessential environmental issue facing the contemporary corporate community. Corporations of all types find themselves in an ideal position to reap the benefits of traditional cost savings strategies like energy efficiency and input reduction, while compounding their gains with risk minimization, organizational reformations, and “green” marketing. The corporate community is the one institution which poses the resources and global reach to successfully achieve sustainable development.

286

Interviews All of the city plan writers the Team contacted had developed their GHG emissions reduction plans as a part of the CCP campaign. In addition, all plan writers included various teams, committees, or stakeholders in the measure development process. According to the writers, allowing stakeholders, such as staff from various municipal departments, local business and industry representatives, citizen’s groups, etc. to participate in this process empowered them and gave them a sense of ownership in the project. All plan writers viewed stakeholder involvement as a method to add legitimacy to the project, to gain community and business support for reducing GHG emissions, and to limit potential attempts to defy recommendations. Additionally, with their areas of expertise, these committee members provided valuable feedback regarding the feasibility of specific reduction measures. Plan writers took varying approaches to setting a GHG emissions reduction target. For example, the City of Fort Collins chose a more conservative approach, setting the goal to what they believed was realistic and achievable (30 percent below 2010 business as usual levels). In contrast, the town of Brookline set such an aggressive target (20 percent below 1995 levels by the year 2010), one that the plan writer now believes is an unachievable goal. Others, such as the State of Rhode Island, set highly aggressive short-term, mid-term and long-term goals. Rhode Island conducted research and modeled reduction targets dictated in the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan to determine its feasibility. After review, Rhode Island determined the target difficult to meet yet possible and, therefore, set its reduction target (1990 levels by 2010, 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 75-85% below current levels long-term) in compliance with the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan. The majority of plan writers interviewed used CCP software to quantify the potential GHG emissions reductions for each recommended measure. Only Rhode Island relied on other sources and hired the Tellus Institute, an environmental consulting company, to conduct the analysis. Both Fort Collins and Brookline initiated the implementation of various reduction measures. Of the measures implemented, both cities have found short-term measures most easy to carry out. Examples given of easily implementable measures included:

• Expansion of already existing programs that reduce GHGs, such as recycling, energy efficiency education for businesses and residents

• LED traffic light conversions • Annual day programs, such as a bike to work day, or walk to school day • Creating additional recycling drop-off stations within city limits • Purchasing more alternative energy • Creating a city or county run voluntary assistance program to provide consultation to

businesses on methods to reduce GHG emissions through energy efficiency, transportation, and waste reduction.

287

Long-term measures, those that either take a long time to implement or are often controversial and require time to gain political backing, were described by plan writers as the most difficult measures to implement. Interestingly, the State of Rhode Island included in its action plan regional and national measures to reduce GHG emissions, such as upgrading appliance efficiency standards, raising national fuel efficiency standards, and participating in a carbon cap and permit trading system for the power sector. Although Rhode Island cannot implement these measures, the State intends to lobby the national government to support and implement these policies. Overall, the information gathered in the interviews proved to be helpful in the generation of this research Project. By learning about both the process and the current implementation status of recommended GHG reduction measures utilized by these individuals, the Team reevaluated the validity and feasibility of the original reduction targets and measures specified in these plans. The interviews provided insights into why certain measures worked and others didn’t. Overall, this information helped the Team recommend the most appropriate measures to the City of Ann Arbor. Additionally, from the interviews, the Team learned that broad assumptions often must be made during the plan writing process.

288

289

APPENDIX F: GHG Reduction Plan Interview Guideline 1. Could you please describe in detail the process you went through to develop your GHG

emissions reduction plan? (i.e. where you started, how you were able to identify areas to target for GHG emissions reductions, etc.)

2. In what ways did you promote your efforts through the media?

3. What major resources (organizations, literature, and/or individuals) did you rely upon during the plan development process?

4. What difficulties did you experience in the process of developing your GHG reduction

plan? a. What obstacles did you face? b. What would you do differently in the process if you could do it over again?

5. How did you fund the project?

6. How long did it take you to develop the 1st draft of your GHG emissions reduction plan?

a. How many revisions of the plan did you make until you had your final draft? b. Please describe the types of revisions you made to your plan. c. How close is the final document to what you originally had in mind?

7. What emissions reduction target did you set as your goal?

a. What were some of the reasons you set this as your target? b. How was goal agreed upon?

8. How were you able to estimate your GHG emissions reductions?

a. What were some of the resources that helped you quantify your reductions? b. How can we access these resources?

9. In what ways did you determine which sectors (residential, commercial, municipal, etc.)

to target for reduction?

10. In what ways did you take into account implementation costs when generating your plan? 11. Can you please describe some of the recommendations you made specifically for

businesses and residents to reduce GHG emissions? a. How do you intend to promote and reach these goals?

12. What types of difficulties did you encounter working with multiple parties (i.e. different

municipal departments that were involved with the project)? a. Can you please share with us any strategies to improve collaboration?

290

13. What stage are you currently at in implementation? a. Please describe any recommendations that you have found difficult to

implement? b. Have you been able to achieve your GHG emissions reduction goal?

14. What other contacts, if any, would you recommend speaking to either within or outside of your department who played an important role in plan development?

291

Brookline, Massachusetts: GHG Reduction Plan Interview Guideline 1. Could you please describe in detail the process you went through to develop your GHG

emissions reduction plan? (i.e. where you started, how you were able to identify areas to target for GHG emissions reductions, etc.)

2. What major resources (organizations, literature, and/or individuals) did you rely upon

during the plan development process? 3. What difficulties did you experience in the process of developing your GHG reduction

plan? a. What obstacles did you face? b. What would you do differently in the process if you could do it over again?

4. How long did it take you to develop the 1st draft of your GHG emissions reduction plan?

a. How many revisions of the plan did you make until you had your final draft? b. Please describe the types of revisions you made to your plan. c. How close is the final document to what you originally had in mind?

5. What emissions reduction target did you set as your goal?

a. What were some of the reasons you set this as your target? b. How was goal agreed upon?

6. How were you able to quantify your GHG emissions reductions?

a. What were some of the resources that helped you quantify your reductions? b. How can we access these resources?


to target for reduction? 8. In what ways did you take into account implementation costs when generating your plan? 9. Can you please describe some of the recommendations you made specifically for

businesses and residents to reduce GHG emissions? a. How do you intend to promote and reach these goals?

10. What types of difficulties did you encounter working with multiple parties (i.e. different

municipal departments that were involved with the project)? a. Can you please share with us any strategies to improve collaboration?

11. What stage are you currently at in implementation?

a. Please describe any recommendations that you have found difficult to implement? b. Have you been able to achieve your GHG emissions reduction goal?

12. What other contacts, if any, would you recommend speaking to either within or outside of

your department who played an important role in plan development?

292

Rhode Island: GHG Reduction Plan Interview Guideline 1. Could you please describe in detail the role your business played in developing Rhode

Island’s greenhouse gas action plan? (hired to provide facilitation and project management services also working on CT plan)

2. What difficulties did you experience in the process of developing Rhode Island’s greenhouse gas action plan?

a. What obstacles did you face? b. What would you do differently in the process if you could do it over again?

3. What were some of the reasons you set your target equivalent to the New England

Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, 10% below 1990 levels in 2020, and 75-85% below current levels in the long-term?

4. How were you able to quantify your greenhouse gas emissions reductions?

(Was this completed by the Tellus Institute?) a. The Rhode Island action plan mentions that the Tellus Institute provided

stakeholders with a list of GHG reduction options? Is this full list available for viewing?


to target for reduction?

6. How does Rhode Island intend to promote and reach goals set for businesses and residents to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

7. Similarly, how does Rhode Island intend to promote or implement consensus

regional/national plans to reduce GHG emissions? 8. What types of difficulties did you encounter working with multiple parties (i.e. different

stakeholders that were involved with the project)? a. Can you please share with us any strategies to improve collaboration?

9. What stage are you currently at in the process? Have you completed Phase II of your

plan?

10. What other contacts, if any, would you recommend speaking to who played an important role in plan development?

293

APPENDIX G: MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE METHODOLOGY In order to evaluate the actual GHG emissions generated from the management of Ann Arbor’s MSW, the Team estimated emissions from the City’s total landfilled waste between 1990-2001 using data provided by the Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department.316 The solid waste data was recorded in cubic yards between 1990 and 1994. The Team converted all data from cubic yards to tons assuming 1 ton of trash = 4 cubic yards of trash.317

Table G-1: Total Ann Arbor Waste Generation, 1990-2001 (Tons)

Year Total Landfilled 1990 54,059 1991 51,105 1992 37,328 1993 30,749 1994 30,589 1995 31,044 1996 36,408 1997 40,240 1998 39,775 1999 38,375 2000 40,225 2001 39,903

Source: Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department Annual Reports, 2000-2001

The Team then calculated the total per capita pounds of waste landfilled each day during those years (see Table G-2). Lbs/ AA Resident/ Day = [(Total Waste Landfilled/ Population) x 2000] / 365

316 2002 data was not available at that time. 317 This is the conversion factor currently used by the City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department. It also fits into the Standard Volume to Weight Conversion Factors range published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste, <http://www.epa.gov/recycle.measure/docs/guide_b.pdf>.

294

Table G-2: Total Waste Landfilled per Ann Arbor Resident

Year

Total Waste Landfilled

(Tons) Ann Arbor Population

Tons/AA Resident

Lbs/AA Resident

Lbs/AA Resident/Day

1990 54,059 109,592 0.49 986.55 2.70 1991 51,105 110,035 0.46 928.88 2.54 1992 37,328 110,478 0.34 675.74 1.85 1993 30,749 110,922 0.28 554.42 1.52 1994 30,589 111,365 0.27 549.35 1.51 1995 31,044 111,808 0.28 555.31 1.52 1996 36,408 112,251 0.32 648.69 1.78 1997 40,240 112,694 0.36 714.14 1.96 1998 39,775 113,138 0.35 703.13 1.93 1999 38,375 113,581 0.34 675.73 1.85 2000 40,225 114,024 0.35 705.55 1.93 2001 39,903 114,309 0.35 698.16 1.91

AVERAGE 1.92 The Team averaged the daily pounds of waste landfilled per Ann Arbor resident during the last five years (see Table G-3) and assumed daily per capita landfilled waste rates would remain constant (at this average) over time. Average Lbs/Resident/Day (over last 5 years) = (1.96 + 1.93 + 1.85 + 1.93 + 1.91) / 5 The Team assumed Ann Arbor’s total landfilled waste would grow over time based on estimated future population growth. The Team then projected future annual landfilled waste totals using the average daily disposal rate per Ann Arbor resident and the Team’s estimated population growth rate. Total Landfilled Waste (tons) = (Population x Lbs/AA Resident/Day x 365) / 2000

Table G-3: Projected Total Landfilled Waste, 2002-2050

Year Population Lbs/AA Resident/Day Lbs/AA Resident/Yr Tons/Resident/YrTotal Waste Landfilled

(Tons) 2002 114,595 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,154 2003 114,881 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,254 2004 115,169 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,355 2005 115,456 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,456 2006 115,745 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,557 2007 116,034 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,658 2008 116,325 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,760 2009 116,615 1.92 700.80 0.35 40,862 2010 117,047 1.92 700.80 0.35 41,013 2011 117,480 1.92 700.80 0.35 41,165 2012 117,915 1.92 700.80 0.35 41,317

295

Year Population Lbs/AA Resident/Day Lbs/AA Resident/Yr Tons/Resident/YrTotal Waste Landfilled

(Tons) 2013 118,351 1.92 700.80 0.35 41,470 2014 118,789 1.92 700.80 0.35 41,624 2015 119,228 1.92 700.80 0.35 41,778 2016 119,669 1.92 700.80 0.35 41,932 2017 120,112 1.92 700.80 0.35 42,087 2018 120,557 1.92 700.80 0.35 42,243 2019 121,003 1.92 700.80 0.35 42,399 2020 121,426 1.92 700.80 0.35 42,548 2021 121,851 1.92 700.80 0.35 42,697 2022 122,278 1.92 700.80 0.35 42,846 2023 122,706 1.92 700.80 0.35 42,996 2024 123,135 1.92 700.80 0.35 43,147 2025 123,566 1.92 700.80 0.35 43,298 2026 123,999 1.92 700.80 0.35 43,449 2027 124,433 1.92 700.80 0.35 43,601 2028 124,868 1.92 700.80 0.35 43,754 2029 125,305 1.92 700.80 0.35 43,907 2030 125,719 1.92 700.80 0.35 44,052 2031 126,133 1.92 700.80 0.35 44,197 2032 126,550 1.92 700.80 0.35 44,343 2033 126,967 1.92 700.80 0.35 44,489 2034 127,386 1.92 700.80 0.35 44,636 2035 127,807 1.92 700.80 0.35 44,783 2036 128,228 1.92 700.80 0.35 44,931 2037 128,652 1.92 700.80 0.35 45,080 2038 129,076 1.92 700.80 0.35 45,228 2039 129,502 1.92 700.80 0.35 45,378 2040 129,891 1.92 700.80 0.35 45,514 2041 130,280 1.92 700.80 0.35 45,650 2042 130,671 1.92 700.80 0.35 45,787 2043 131,063 1.92 700.80 0.35 45,925 2044 131,456 1.92 700.80 0.35 46,062 2045 131,851 1.92 700.80 0.35 46,200 2046 132,246 1.92 700.80 0.35 46,339 2047 132,643 1.92 700.80 0.35 46,478 2048 133,041 1.92 700.80 0.35 46,618 2049 133,440 1.92 700.80 0.35 46,757 2050 133,840 1.92 700.80 0.35 46,898

296

Based on U.S. Environments Protection Agency Waste Characterization data from 1990, 1995, 1998, 1999, and 2000, the Team estimated the average prevalence of each material type in landfilled waste. Although the Team noticed trends in the prevalence of certain material types, the Environmental Protection Agency has not made any formal projections for the prevalence of material types in the waste stream beyond 2000. The Team, therefore, did not make any predictions and chose to average the prevalence throughout the decade and assumed that it would remain constant over time. Average percent = (1990 percent + 1995 percent + 1998 percent + 1999 percent + 2000

percent) / 5

Table G-4: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Waste Characterization 1990-2000: Materials Discarded

Percent of MSW Generation (by Weight) Materials 1990 1995 1998 1999 2000 AveragePaper and Paperboard 30.5% 31.3% 30.7% 31.4% 29.2% 30.62%Glass 6.1% 6.2% 6.0% 6.0% 6.1% 6.08%Metals Ferrous 6.1% 4.8% 5.0% 5.3% 5.5% 5.34% Aluminum 1.0% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.4% 1.26% Other Nonferrous 0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.28% Total Metals 7.3% 6.4% 6.6% 6.9% 7.2% 6.88%Plastics 9.7% 11.4% 13.0% 13.7% 14.4% 12.44%Rubber and Leather 3.2% 3.5% 3.7% 3.3% 3.5% 3.44%Textiles 3.0% 4.2% 4.6% 4.7% 5.0% 4.30%Wood 7.0% 6.4% 7.1% 7.1% 7.5% 7.02%Other 1.5% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 2.0% 1.84%Food Scraps 12.1% 13.5% 15.0% 14.8% 15.6% 14.20%Yard Trimmings 17.9% 13.2% 9.3% 8.2% 7.4% 11.20%Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2% 1.98% TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0%Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000

Facts and Figures, 530-R-02-001. In order to estimate more accurately the GHG’s emitted from each material type, the Team broke down paper and paperboard products into more specific categories, again using Environmental Protection Agency waste characterization statistics. The subcategories included: corrugated cardboard, newspaper, office paper, magazines, books, and telephone directories (see Tables G-5 and G-6). This paper and paperboard breakdown was then added to overall material breakdown (see Table G-6).

297

Table G-5: Prevalence of Paper and Paperboard Products in Waste Stream

Percent of Total Waste Discarded

Paper and Paperboard 30.62% Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002.

Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, 530-R-02-001.

Table G-6: Paper and Paperboard Breakdown

PAPER AND PAPERBOARD BREAKDOWN

Thousand Tons318 Breakdown (%) Final % Newspapers 15,030 17.33% 5.31%Books 1,140 1.31% 0.40%Magazines 2,130 2.46% 0.75%Office Paper 7,530 8.68% 2.66%Telephone Directories 740 0.85% 0.26%Corrugated Cardboard 31,210 35.98% 11.02%Other 28,960 33.39% 10.22%

Total Paper and Paperboard 86,740 100% 30.62%

Breakdown = thousand tons of material/total thousand tons of paper and paperboard x

100

EXAMPLE: 15,030 / 86,760 x 100 = 17.33% Final % = breakdown x percent of total waste discarded EXAMPLE: 17.33% x 30.62% = 5.31%

318 Actual weight of each paper product found in the waste characterization study: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2000 Facts and Figures, 530-R-02-001.

298

Table G-7: Total Waste Discarded: Material Breakdown

Materials Average % of Waste Stream Paper and Paperboard

Corrugated Cardboard 11.02% Other 10.22% Newspaper 5.31% Office Paper 2.66% Magazines 0.75% Books 0.40% Telephone Directories 0.26% Total Paper and Paperboard 36.62%

Glass 6.08% Metals

Ferrous 5.34% Aluminum 1.26% Other Nonferrous 0.28% Total Metals 6.88%

Plastics 12.44% Rubber and Leather 3.44% Textiles 4.30% Wood 7.02% Other 1.84% Food Scraps 14.20% Yard Trimmings 11.20% Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 1.98%

TOTAL 100.00a%

Based on these national estimates, the Team calculated the total weight of each material type in Ann Arbor’s landfilled waste for each year beginning in 1990 and ending in 2050 (see Tables G-8 and G-9).

Tons of Material/Year = Average % of Waste Stream x Total Tons of Waste Generated/Year

299

Table G-8: Total Landfilled Waste: Ann Arbor Material Breakdown

Materials Tons 1990 Tons 2000Paper and Paperboard

Corrugated Cardboard 5,955.87 4,431.75 Other 5,526.50 4,112.26 Newspaper 2,868.21 2,134.23 Office Paper 1,436.97 1,069.24 Magazines 406.47 302.46 Books 217.55 161.88 Telephone Directories 141.22 105.08 Total Paper and Paperboard 16,552.79 12,316.90

Glass 3,286.77 2,445.68Metals

Ferrous 2,886.74 2,148.02 Aluminum 681.14 506.84 Other Nonferrous 151.36 112.63 Total Metals 3,719.24 2,767.48

Plastics 6,724.91 5,003.99Rubber and Leather 1,765.02 1,859.62Textiles 2,324.53 1,729.68Wood 3,794.92 2,823.80Other 994.68 740.14Food Scraps 7,676.34 5,711.95Yard Trimmings 8,390.05 6,054.58Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes 919.80 1,070.36TOTAL 54,058.75 40,225.00

30

0

Tab

le G

-9: P

roje

cted

Lan

dfill

ed W

aste

: Ann

Arb

or M

ater

ial B

reak

dow

n

Mat

eria

ls

Ton

s 201

0T

ons 2

020

Ton

s 203

0T

ons 2

040

Ton

s 205

0Pa

per a

nd P

aper

boar

d C

orru

gate

d Ca

rdbo

ard

4,51

8.59

4,68

7.66

4,85

3.37

5,01

4.43

5,16

6.91

Oth

er

4,19

2.84

4,34

9.71

4,50

3.48

4,65

2.93

4,79

4.41

New

spap

er

2,17

6.05

2,25

7.47

2,33

7.27

2,41

4.83

2,48

8.26

Offi

ce P

aper

1,

090.

201,

130.

991,

170.

971,

209.

831,

246.

61 M

agaz

ines

30

8.38

319.

9233

1.23

342.

2235

2.63

Boo

ks

165.

0517

1.22

177.

2818

3.16

188.

73 T

elep

hone

Dire

ctor

ies

107.

1411

1.15

115.

0811

8.89

122.

51 T

otal

Pap

er a

nd P

aper

boar

d12

,558

.24

13,0

28.1

213

,488

.66

13,9

36.2

914

,360

.06

Gla

ss

2,49

3.60

2,58

6.90

2,67

8.35

2,76

7.23

2,85

1.38

Met

als

F

erro

us

2,19

0.11

2,27

2.05

2,35

2.37

2,43

0.43

2,50

4.34

Alu

min

um

516.

7753

6.10

555.

0557

3.47

590.

91 O

ther

Non

ferr

ous

114.

8411

9.13

123.

3512

7.44

131.

31 T

otal

Met

als

2,82

1.71

2,92

7.28

3,03

0.76

3,13

1.34

3,22

6.56

Plas

tics

5,10

2.04

5,29

2.94

5,48

0.04

5,66

1.90

5,83

4.07

Rubb

er a

nd L

eath

er

1,93

6.26

1,41

0.85

1,46

3.64

1,56

5.67

1,61

3.28

Text

iles

1,76

3.57

1,82

9.55

1,89

4.23

1,95

7.09

2,01

6.60

Woo

d 2,

879.

132,

986.

853,

092.

443,

195.

063,

292.

22O

ther

75

4.64

782.

8881

0.55

837.

4586

2.92

Food

Scr

aps

5,82

3.88

6,04

1.78

6,25

5.36

6,46

2.94

6,65

9.47

Yar

d Tr

imm

ings

9,

204.

054,

593.

484,

765.

355,

097.

535,

252.

54M

isce

llane

ous I

norg

anic

Was

tes

1,00

9.04

812.

0684

2.45

901.

1792

8.57

TO

TA

L

41,0

13.2

142

,547

.73

44,0

51.8

045

,513

.67

46,8

97.6

6

301

The Team used Environmental Protection Agency emissions coefficients to calculate total life cycle GHG emissions from solid waste. The Environmental Protection Agency evaluated the following components (both GHG sources and sinks) to generate net GHG emissions coefficients (in CO2 equivalents) for various waste management scenarios: raw materials acquisition and manufacturing, changes in forest or soil carbon storage, and waste management. Each material present in the solid waste stream has a unique life-cycle GHG emissions coefficient. The Team used the municipal solid waste management GHG emissions coefficients available through the Environmental Protection Agency’s software program WARM (WAste Reduction Model). It is important to note that the Environmental Protection Agency only has GHG emissions coefficients for approximately 80% of the waste stream; therefore, the Team could not inventory total GHG emissions from MSW. In order to estimate current GHG emissions from MSW management, excluding any materials recovery or landfill gas recovery, the Team downloaded WARM in order to set specific analysis inputs, relative to Ann Arbor, into the software. The Team selected the following inputs:

All waste generated in Ann Arbor is landfilled319 There is no landfill gas (LFG) recovery320

The default distance to the landfill = 20 miles

Convert GHGs emitted into metric tons of CO2 equivalents

By selecting these inputs to estimate baseline emissions, the software generated the following list of GHG emissions coefficients, by material type, associated with landfilling (see Table G-10).

319 The Project will estimate the reduction in GHG emissions from Ann Arbor’s source reduction, recycling, and composting programs separately. 320 The Project will estimate the reduction in GHG emissions from Ann Arbor’s landfill gas recovery program separately.

302

Table G-10: Per Ton Estimates of GHG Emissions for Landfilling321

Material GHG Emissions per Ton of

Material Landfilled (MTCO2e) Aluminum Cans 0.04Steel Cans 0.04Glass 0.04HDPE 0.04LDPE322 0.04PET 0.04Corrugated Cardboard 0.99Magazines/third-class mail (0.06)*

Newspaper (0.42)*

Office Paper 3.87Phonebooks (0.42)*

Textbooks 3.87Dimensional Lumber (0.16)*

Medium Density Fiberboard (0.16)*

Food Scraps 1.06Yard Trimmings (0.09)*

Grass 0.32Leaves (0.85)*

Branches (0.16)*

Mixed Paper, Broad 1.14Mixed Paper, Resid. 0.96Mixed Paper, Office 1.41Mixed Metals 0.04Mixed Plastics 0.04Mixed Recyclables 0.79Mixed Organics 0.43Mixed MSW 0.62

Source: Environmental Protection Agency WARM Model Software The Team applied these coefficients to the estimated material breakdown of Ann Arbor’s discarded materials (see Table G-11). The Team then used the coefficients to calculate the total life-cycle GHGs emitted from landfilling Ann Arbor’s municipal solid waste for the years 1990-2001, and to project emissions for 2002-2050 in metric tons of CO2 equivalents (see Table G-12). Again, it is important to note that the Environmental Protection Agency only has GHG emissions coefficients for approximately 80% of the waste stream. This means that overall estimates are likely lower than actual GHG emissions from Ann Arbor’s solid waste management.

Total MTCO2e/Year = MTCO2e/Ton (for each material type) x Tons of Material Generated/Year (for each material type)

321 These figures are negative because they take into account the sequestration potential of the material in the landfill. 322 Low density polyethylene.

303

Table G-11: Ann Arbor MSW GHG Emissions Coefficients by Material Type

Materials Emissions Factors (MTCO2e/Ton)

Paper and Paperboard Corrugated Cardboard 0.29 Other (Misc) 1.14 Newspaper -0.42 Office Paper 3.87 Magazines -0.06 Books 3.87 Telephone Directories -0.42

Glass 0.04 Metals

Ferrous 0.04 Aluminum 0.04 Other Nonferrous 0.04

Plastics 0.04 Rubber and Leather Textiles Wood -0.16 Other Food Scraps 1.06 Yard Trimmings -0.09 Miscellaneous Inorganic Wastes

Table G-12: Ann Arbor MSW Management GHG Emissions

Year MTCO2e 1990 24,845.22 1991 23,487.57 1992 17,155.59 1993 14,131.91 1994 14,058.60 1995 14,267.72 1996 16,732.99 1997 18,494.17 1998 18,280.45 1999 17,637.02 2000 18,487.27 2001 18,339.28 2002 18,454.65 2003 18,500.79 2004 18,547.04 2005 18,593.41 2006 18,639.89 2007 18,686.49 2008 18,733.21

304

Year MTCO2e 2009 18,780.04 2010 18,849.53 2011 18,919.27 2012 18,989.27 2013 19,059.53 2014 19,130.05 2015 19,200.84 2016 19,271.88 2017 19,343.18 2018 19,414.75 2019 19,486.59 2020 19,554.79 2021 19,623.23 2022 19,691.92 2023 19,760.84 2024 19,830.00 2025 19,899.40 2026 19,969.05 2027 20,038.94 2028 20,109.08 2029 20,179.46 2030 20,246.05 2031 20,312.87 2032 20,379.90 2033 20,447.15 2034 20,514.63 2035 20,582.33 2036 20,650.25 2037 20,718.39 2038 20,786.77 2039 20,855.36 2040 20,917.93 2041 20,980.68 2042 21,043.62 2043 21,106.75 2044 21,170.07 2045 21,233.58 2046 21,297.29 2047 21,361.18 2048 21,425.26 2049 21,489.54 2050 21,554.01

305

APPENDIX H: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING FUTURE GROWTH RATE OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

This appendix details the Teams methods for projecting the future growth rate for each sector’s electricity consumption (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Municipal Government, and U of M) based on the Current Scenario. The Current Scenario represents actual City of Ann Arbor electricity consumption. Electricity consumption for the Current Scenario from 2001 to 2050 was projected based on the Annual Energy Review (AER) and the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) using Logest Analysis Formula for each sector as explained in the following procedures. All electricity data applied to the estimation of total GHG emissions is detailed in Appendix D.

1. Residential Sector

Step 1: In order to estimate future values, it is practical to analyze historical electricity consumption patterns. The Annual Energy Review (AER) issued by the U.S. Department of Energy investigates historical trends in electricity consumption. The Team utilized national electricity utilization data from 1974 to 2000 from AER 2001, Table 8-5.323 Based on this data, annual electricity consumption per capita is calculated by dividing total consumption by the national population. However, having examined the yearly percent change, consumption patterns seem to fluctuate. Therefore, the yearly percent changes were averaged for every 3-years in order to normalize the data (Table H-1).

Step 2: The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projects domestic energy consumption growth for every economic sector by 2020. Our Team obtained the projected electricity consumption from AEO2002 Table 2324, and then translated them into a per capita basis.

Step 3: Final growth rates for electricity consumption per person were calculated using Logest Extrapolation based on the data from AER2001 and AEO2002 mentioned in step 1 and step 2. Logest Extrapolation is a method of regression analysis, which calculates an exponential curve that fits input data, and estimates an array of values that describes the curve. Logest Analysis Formula is described as follows:

y = b × mx

323 AER 2001 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_25.pdf>. 324 AEO2002 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeo_base.pdf>.(Actually this site links to AEO2003 due to unavailability for AEO2002, however, data are similar between AEO2002 and AER2003).

306

where, b = [=LOGEST(2.82:0.95, 1977:2050)] = 8.53140 × 1032 m= [=LOGEST(2.82:0.95, 1977:2050)} = 0.96065 x = year

Example calculation

Growth rate in 1990 = 8.53140 × 1032 x (0.96065)1990

= 1.72%

Step 4: Based on the values of extrapolation (growth rate), electricity consumption was

calculated for each year between 2001-2050 for each sector (Table H-4). Those electricity consumption values were then transformed into GHG emissions values (Appendix K).

2. Commercial Sector The commercial sector’s electricity consumption growth rates are calculated based on the historical electricity consumption patterns between 1977 and 2000 from AER2001, and the sector’s projected future growth rates from AER2002. Those data are standardized using the Logest Analysis Formula applying the same methodologies as in residential sector (Table H-2).

3. Industrial Sector The industrial sector’s electricity consumption growth rates are calculated based on AER2001 and AEO2002. However, those values seemed to be somewhat irregular, therefore, it was necessary to normalize the values. 0.72% was adapted for the growth rate between 1975 and 2000, and 0.58% for between 2001 and 2020. By inputting these data into the Logest Analysis Formula, the final extrapolation is calculated to the year 2050 (Table H-3).

4. Municipal Government The municipal government’s electricity consumption growth rates are employed using the same growth rates as the commercial sector. 5. University of Michigan U of M’s electricity consumption growth rates are employed using the same growth rates as the commercial sector.

307

Table H-1: Key Sources for Estimating Growth Rate (Residential Sector)

Year AER 2001 Table8.5

Billion kWh kWh/person % Change

3 Year Average

% Change

AEO2002 Table 2

KWh/person

Yearly % Change

Extrapolation (Growth Rate)

1974 578 2,472 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1975 588 2,493 0.85% N/A N/A N/A N/A 1976 606 2,547 2.15% N/A N/A N/A N/A 1977 645 2,686 5.46% 2.82% N/A N/A N/A 1978 674 2,782 3.57% 3.72% N/A N/A N/A 1979 683 2,793 0.42% 3.15% N/A N/A N/A 1980 717 2,905 3.99% 2.66% N/A N/A N/A 1981 722 2,894 -0.37% 1.35% N/A N/A N/A 1982 730 2,895 0.03% 1.22% N/A N/A N/A 1983 751 2,945 1.72% 0.46% N/A N/A N/A 1984 780 3,026 2.75% 1.50% N/A N/A N/A 1985 794 3,050 0.80% 1.76% N/A N/A N/A 1986 819 3,116 2.18% 1.91% N/A N/A N/A 1987 850 3,205 2.84% 1.94% N/A N/A N/A 1988 893 3,335 4.06% 3.02% N/A N/A N/A 1989 906 3,352 0.53% 2.47% N/A N/A N/A 1990 924 3,704 10.48% 5.02% N/A N/A 1.726% 1991 955 3,787 2.25% 4.42% N/A N/A 1.658% 1992 936 3,670 -3.10% 3.21% N/A N/A 1.593% 1993 995 3,860 5.17% 1.44% N/A N/A 1.530% 1994 1,008 3,872 0.32% 0.80% N/A N/A 1.470% 1995 1,043 3,969 2.50% 2.66% N/A N/A 1.412% 1996 1,083 4,083 2.89% 1.90% N/A N/A 1.356% 1997 1,076 4,018 -1.59% 1.26% N/A N/A 1.303% 1998 1,130 4,181 4.06% 1.78% N/A N/A 1.252% 1999 1,145 4,199 0.42% 0.96% N/A N/A 1.203% 2000 1,192 4,236 0.87% 1.79% 4,329 1.155% 2001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,425 2.22% 1.110% 2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,491 1.49% 1.066% 2003 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,603 2.49% 1.024% 2004 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,667 1.40% 0.984% 2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,699 0.70% 0.945% 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,720 0.45% 0.908% 2007 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,739 0.39% 0.872% 2008 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,771 0.68% 0.838% 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,780 0.19% 0.805% 2010 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,805 0.51% 0.773% 2011 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,831 0.56% 0.743% 2012 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,876 0.93% 0.714% 2013 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,896 0.41% 0.686% 2014 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,932 0.73% 0.659% 2015 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,970 0.78% 0.633% 2016 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,011 0.81% 0.608% 2017 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,026 0.31% 0.584% 2018 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,055 0.58% 0.561% 2019 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,090 0.68% 0.539% 2020 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,138 0.95% 0.518%

308

Table H-1: cont.


Billion kWh kWh/person %

Change

3 Year Average

% Change

AEO2002 Table 2

KWh/person

Yearly % Change


2021 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.497% 2022 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.478% 2023 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.459% 2024 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.441% 2025 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.423% 2026 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.407% 2027 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.391% 2028 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.375% 2029 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.361% 2030 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.346% 2031 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.333% 2032 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.320% 2033 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.307% 2034 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.295% 2035 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.283% 2036 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.272% 2037 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.262% 2038 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.251% 2039 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.241% 2040 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.232% 2041 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.223% 2042 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.214% 2043 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.206% 2044 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.198% 2045 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.190% 2046 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.182% 2047 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.175% 2048 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.168% 2049 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.162% 2050 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.155%

309

Table H-2: Key Sources for Estimating Growth Rate (Commercial Sector)


Billion kWh kWh/person % Change 3 Year Average

% Change

AEO2002 Table 2

KWh/person

Yearly % Change


1974 385 1,783 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1975 403 1,848 3.69% N/A N/A N/A N/A 1976 425 1,930 4.40% N/A N/A N/A N/A 1977 447 2,008 4.07% 4.05% N/A N/A N/A 1978 461 2,048 2.00% 3.49% N/A N/A N/A 1979 473 2,082 1.62% 2.56% N/A N/A N/A 1980 488 2,127 2.16% 1.93% N/A N/A N/A 1981 514 2,219 4.33% 2.71% N/A N/A N/A 1982 526 2,250 1.40% 2.63% N/A N/A N/A 1983 544 2,307 2.53% 2.75% N/A N/A N/A 1984 583 2,450 6.22% 3.39% N/A N/A N/A 1985 606 2,524 2.99% 3.91% N/A N/A N/A 1986 631 2,604 3.20% 4.14% N/A N/A N/A 1987 660 2,699 3.65% 3.28% N/A N/A N/A 1988 699 2,832 4.91% 3.92% N/A N/A N/A 1989 726 2,910 2.76% 3.78% N/A N/A N/A 1990 751 2,978 2.34% 3.34% N/A N/A 2.436% 1991 766 3,004 0.85% 1.98% N/A N/A 2.370% 1992 761 2,952 -1.71% 0.49% N/A N/A 2.306% 1993 795 3,054 3.45% 0.86% N/A N/A 2.244% 1994 820 3,120 2.17% 1.30% N/A N/A 2.183% 1995 863 3,254 4.28% 3.30% N/A N/A 2.124% 1996 887 3,312 1.80% 2.75% N/A N/A 2.067% 1997 929 3,438 3.78% 3.29% N/A N/A 2.011% 1998 979 3,590 4.44% 3.34% N/A N/A 1.957% 1999 1,002 3,560 -0.83% 2.46% N/A N/A 1.904% 2000 1,028 3,620 1.66% 1.76% N/A N/A 1.853% 2001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,210 1.44% 1.803% 2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,250 0.96% 1.754% 2003 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,352 2.40% 1.707% 2004 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,449 2.22% 1.661% 2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,534 1.91% 1.616% 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,617 1.82% 1.572% 2007 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,695 1.69% 1.530% 2008 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,768 1.56% 1.489% 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,839 1.50% 1.449% 2010 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,911 1.48% 1.409% 2011 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,983 1.46% 1.371% 2012 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,056 1.47% 1.334% 2013 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,129 1.44% 1.298% 2014 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,200 1.40% 1.263% 2015 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,264 1.22% 1.229% 2016 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,321 1.08% 1.196% 2017 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,374 0.94% 1.164% 2018 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,425 0.95% 1.132% 2019 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,476 0.95% 1.102% 2020 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5,525 0.90% 1.072%

310

Table H-2: cont.



% Change

AEO2002 Table 2

KWh/person

Yearly % Change



311

Table H-3: Key Sources for Estimating Growth Rate (Industrial Sector)



% Change

AEO2002 Table 2

KWh/person

Yearly % Change


1974 685 3,203 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1975 688 3,186 -0.55% N/A N/A N/A N/A 1976 754 3,458 8.56% 3.74% N/A N/A N/A 1977 786 3,569 3.20% 4.53% N/A N/A N/A 1978 809 3,635 1.84% 2.66% N/A N/A N/A 1979 842 3,741 2.94% 0.22% N/A N/A N/A 1980 815 3,587 -4.13% -0.28% N/A N/A N/A 1981 826 3,600 0.36% -4.81% N/A N/A N/A 1982 745 3,216 -10.66% -2.36% N/A N/A N/A 1983 776 3,319 3.21% -0.13% N/A N/A N/A 1984 838 3,553 7.06% 3.09% N/A N/A N/A 1985 837 3,518 -1.00% 1.48% N/A N/A N/A 1986 831 3,461 -1.63% -0.10% N/A N/A N/A 1987 858 3,541 2.33% 1.40% N/A N/A N/A 1988 896 3,665 3.48% 2.73% N/A N/A N/A 1989 926 3,752 2.38% 2.31% N/A N/A N/A 1990 946 3,792 1.08% 0.83% N/A N/A 0.69% 1991 947 3,756 -0.96% 0.57% N/A N/A 0.69% 1992 973 3,815 1.59% -0.01% N/A N/A 0.69% 1993 977 3,790 -0.66% 1.03% N/A N/A 0.68% 1994 1,008 3,872 2.16% 0.35% N/A N/A 0.68% 1995 1,013 3,855 -0.45% 0.95% N/A N/A 0.67% 1996 1,034 3,899 1.14% 0.04% N/A N/A 0.67% 1997 1,038 3,876 -0.57% 0.30% N/A N/A 0.66% 1998 1,051 3,889 0.33% -0.16% N/A N/A 0.66% 1999 1,058 3,880 -0.24% -0.70% N/A N/A 0.65% 2000 1,068 3,795 -2.19% 1.29% N/A N/A 0.65% 2001 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,678 -5.32% 0.65% 2002 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,670 -0.22% 0.64% 2003 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,756 2.34% 0.64% 2004 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,806 1.33% 0.63% 2005 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,861 1.46% 0.63% 2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,908 1.21% 0.62% 2007 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,968 1.55% 0.62% 2008 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,002 0.84% 0.62% 2009 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,038 0.92% 0.61% 2010 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,095 1.41% 0.61% 2011 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,156 1.47% 0.60% 2012 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4138 0.66% 0.60% 2013 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,208 0.60% 0.60% 2014 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,231 0.54% 0.59% 2015 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,250 0.46% 0.59% 2016 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,269 0.45% 0.58% 2017 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,290 0.49% 0.58% 2018 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,317 0.62% 0.58% 2019 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,338 0.48% 0.57% 2020 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4,350 0.28% 0.57%

312

Table H-3: cont.


Billion kWh kWh/person %

Change

3 Year Average

% Change

AEO2002 Table 2

KWh/person

Yearly % Change



313

Table H-4: Ann Arbor’s Electricity Consumption: Residential, Commercial, and Industrial325

Residential Commercial Industrial Year kWh kWh

/person %

Change kWh kWh /person

% Change kWh kWh

/person %

Change 1990 249,571,212 2,277 1.73% 229,887,870 2,098 2.436% 358,245,821 3,269 0.69% 1991 254,981,234 2,317 1.66% 236,579,913 2,150 2.370% 362,211,289 3,292 0.69% 1992 260,324,409 2,356 1.59% 243,298,933 2,202 2.306% 366,197,637 3,315 0.69% 1993 265,599,076 2,394 1.53% 250,040,985 2,254 2.244% 370,204,755 3,338 0.68% 1994 270,803,825 2,432 1.47% 256,802,214 2,306 2.183% 374,232,532 3,360 0.68% 1995 275,937,480 2,468 1.41% 263,578,861 2,357 2.124% 378,280,854 3,383 0.67% 1996 280,999,090 2,503 1.36% 270,367,267 2,409 2.067% 382,349,609 3,406 0.67% 1997 285,987,910 2,538 1.30% 277,163,873 2,459 2.011% 386,438,682 3,429 0.66% 1998 290,903,393 2,571 1.25% 283,965,230 2,510 1.957% 390,547,957 3,452 0.66% 1999 295,745,176 2,604 1.20% 290,767,996 2,560 1.904% 394,677,318 3,475 0.65% 2000 300,513,065 2,636 1.16% 297,568,942 2,610 1.85% 398,826,647 3,498 0.65% 2001 304,744,698 2,666 1.11% 303,840,115 2,658 1.80% 402,422,077 3,520 0.65% 2002 308,897,042 2,696 1.07% 310,091,181 2,706 1.75% 406,032,451 3,543 0.64% 2003 312,970,736 2,724 1.02% 316,319,641 2,753 1.71% 409,657,705 3,566 0.64% 2004 316,966,533 2,752 0.98% 322,523,119 2,800 1.66% 413,297,779 3,589 0.63% 2005 320,885,290 2,779 0.95% 328,699,355 2,847 1.62% 416,952,611 3,611 0.63% 2006 324,727,957 2,806 0.91% 334,846,206 2,893 1.57% 420,622,140 3,634 0.62% 2007 328,495,571 2,831 0.87% 340,961,645 2,938 1.53% 424,306,303 3,657 0.62% 2008 332,189,243 2,856 0.84% 347,043,760 2,983 1.49% 428,005,039 3,679 0.62% 2009 335,810,150 2,880 0.80% 353,090,750 3,028 1.45% 431,718,286 3,702 0.61% 2010 339,765,745 2,903 0.77% 359,530,774 3,072 1.41% 435,967,214 3,725 0.61% 2011 343,659,919 2,925 0.74% 365,947,224 3,115 1.37% 440,240,117 3,747 0.60% 2012 347,493,773 2,947 0.71% 372,338,510 3,158 1.33% 444,537,001 3,770 0.60% 2013 351,268,449 2,968 0.69% 378,703,137 3,200 1.30% 448,857,872 3,793 0.60% 2014 354,985,128 2,988 0.66% 385,039,707 3,241 1.26% 453,202,736 3,815 0.59% 2015 358,645,020 3,008 0.63% 391,346,916 3,282 1.23% 457,571,599 3,838 0.59% 2016 362,249,365 3,027 0.61% 397,623,548 3,323 1.20% 461,964,466 3,860 0.58% 2017 365,799,421 3,045 0.58% 403,868,479 3,362 1.16% 466,381,343 3,883 0.58% 2018 369,296,466 3,063 0.56% 410,080,670 3,402 1.13% 470,822,236 3,905 0.58% 2019 372,741,790 3,080 0.54% 416,259,166 3,440 1.10% 475,287,149 3,928 0.57% 2020 376,061,740 3,097 0.52% 422,318,925 3,478 1.07% 479,680,486 3,950 0.57% 2021 379,331,253 3,113 0.50% 428,340,904 3,515 1.04% 484,096,075 3,973 0.56% 2022 382,551,663 3,129 0.48% 434,324,409 3,552 1.02% 488,533,907 3,995 0.56% 2023 385,724,305 3,143 0.46% 440,268,817 3,588 0.99% 492,993,972 4,018 0.56% 2024 388,850,506 3,158 0.44% 446,173,581 3,623 0.96% 497,476,262 4,040 0.55% 2025 391,931,588 3,172 0.42% 452,038,220 3,658 0.94% 501,980,768 4,062 0.55% 2026 394,968,864 3,185 0.41% 457,862,322 3,692 0.91% 506,507,480 4,085 0.55% 2027 397,963,633 3,198 0.39% 463,645,536 3,726 0.89% 511,056,390 4,107 0.54% 2028 400,917,183 3,211 0.38% 469,387,575 3,759 0.86% 515,627,488 4,129 0.54% 2029 403,830,788 3,223 0.36% 475,088,210 3,791 0.84% 520,220,765 4,152 0.54% 2030 406,624,645 3,234 0.35% 480,651,453 3,823 0.82% 524,731,612 4,174 0.53%

325 Data between 1990 and 2000 are actual data based on Appendix D, Table D-6, and data after 2001 are projections based on the Table H-1, H-2, and H-3.

314

Table H-4: cont.

Residential Commercial Industrial Year kWh kWh

/person %

Change kWh kWh /person

% Change kWh kWh

/person %

Change 2031 409,379,937 3,246 0.33% 486,170,779 3,854 0.79% 529,262,792 4,196 0.53% 2032 412,097,906 3,256 0.32% 491,646,146 3,885 0.77% 533,814,284 4,218 0.52% 2033 414,779,772 3,267 0.31% 497,077,559 3,915 0.75% 538,386,065 4,240 0.52% 2034 417,426,737 3,277 0.30% 502,465,072 3,944 0.73% 542,978,115 4,262 0.52% 2035 420,039,977 3,287 0.28% 507,808,780 3,973 0.71% 547,590,411 4,285 0.51% 2036 422,620,649 3,296 0.27% 513,108,821 4,002 0.69% 552,222,932 4,307 0.51% 2037 425,169,883 3,305 0.26% 518,365,375 4,029 0.67% 556,875,657 4,329 0.51% 2038 427,688,790 3,313 0.25% 523,578,654 4,056 0.66% 561,548,563 4,351 0.50% 2039 430,178,452 3,322 0.24% 528,748,910 4,083 0.64% 566,241,630 4,372 0.50% 2040 432,510,566 3,330 0.23% 533,716,788 4,109 0.62% 570,784,113 4,394 0.50% 2041 434,814,116 3,338 0.22% 538,639,247 4,134 0.60% 575,343,936 4,416 0.49% 2042 437,090,138 3,345 0.21% 543,516,668 4,159 0.59% 579,921,059 4,438 0.49% 2043 439,339,644 3,352 0.21% 548,349,460 4,184 0.57% 584,515,446 4,460 0.49% 2044 441,563,619 3,359 0.20% 553,138,058 4,208 0.56% 589,127,059 4,482 0.48% 2045 443,763,023 3,366 0.19% 557,882,917 4,231 0.54% 593,755,861 4,503 0.48% 2046 445,938,793 3,372 0.18% 562,584,517 4,254 0.53% 598,401,815 4,525 0.48% 2047 448,091,838 3,378 0.18% 567,243,356 4,276 0.51% 603,064,884 4,547 0.47% 2048 450,223,045 3,384 0.17% 571,859,950 4,298 0.50% 607,745,030 4,568 0.47% 2049 452,333,276 3,390 0.16% 576,434,832 4,320 0.49% 612,442,218 4,590 0.47% 2050 454,423,371 3,395 0.16% 580,968,550 4,341 0.47% 617,156,412 4,611 0.47%

Table H-5: Ann Arbor’s Electricity Consumption: Municipal, University of Michigan

Municipal University of Michigan

Year kWh kWh /person

% Change

Purchased Electricity (kWh)

Onsite Generation

(kWh)

Purchased + Onsite(kWh)

% Change

Total (kWh)

1990 50,025,191 456 -1.13% 254,979,960 72,187,151 327,167,111 2.43% 1,214,897,204 1991 49,459,906 449 -1.13% 254,138,526 80,965,109 335,103,635 2.69% 1,238,335,977 1992 48,901,009 443 -1.13% 253,299,869 90,810,466 344,110,335 2.97% 1,262,832,323 1993 48,348,428 436 -1.13% 252,463,979 101,853,019 354,316,998 3.26% 1,288,510,242 1994 47,802,091 429 -1.13% 251,630,848 114,238,346 365,869,194 3.57% 1,315,509,855 1995 47,261,662 423 -1.13% 250,799,568 128,136,502 378,936,070 9.58% 1,343,994,928 1996 47,057,492 419 -0.43% 262,283,888 152,952,373 415,236,261 -2.12% 1,396,009,718 1997 46,854,204 416 -0.43% 248,594,071 157,844,936 406,439,007 12.57% 1,402,883,676 1998 46,651,794 412 -0.43% 312,891,009 144,640,189 457,531,198 -2.01% 1,469,599,572 1999 46,263,752 407 -0.43% 312,203,734 136,136,201 448,339,935 1.97% 1,475,794,177 2000 46,681,772 409 0.90% 312,537,733 144,650,102 457,187,835 0.48% 1,500,778,261 2001 47,221,328 413 1.80% 317,819,963 141,582,576 459,402,539 1.80% 1,517,630,757 2002 48,192,838 421 1.75% 323,549,769 144,135,092 467,684,861 1.75% 1,540,898,372 2003 49,160,834 428 1.71% 329,225,493 146,663,517 475,889,010 1.71% 1,563,997,926 2004 50,124,948 435 1.66% 334,844,961 149,166,880 484,011,841 1.66% 1,586,924,220 2005 51,084,828 442 1.62% 340,406,142 151,644,277 492,050,419 1.62% 1,609,672,503 2006 52,040,141 450 1.57% 345,907,148 154,094,867 500,002,016 1.57% 1,632,238,460 2007 52,990,573 457 1.53% 351,346,232 156,517,873 507,864,105 1.53% 1,654,618,197 2008 53,935,825 464 1.49% 356,721,784 158,912,576 515,634,360 1.49% 1,676,808,227 2009 54,875,618 471 1.45% 362,032,326 161,278,319 523,310,646 1.45% 1,698,805,450 2010 55,876,495 477 1.41% 367,276,513 163,614,501 530,891,014 1.41% 1,722,031,242 2011 56,873,708 484 1.37% 372,453,122 165,920,580 538,373,702 1.37% 1,745,094,671 2012 57,867,010 491 1.33% 377,561,058 168,196,065 545,757,123 1.33% 1,767,993,416 2013 58,856,169 497 1.30% 382,599,340 170,440,521 553,039,861 1.30% 1,790,725,487 2014 59,840,967 504 1.26% 387,567,104 172,653,563 560,220,667 1.26% 1,813,289,205 2015 60,821,202 510 1.23% 392,463,598 174,834,855 567,298,453 1.23% 1,835,683,189 2016 61,796,685 516 1.20% 397,288,174 176,984,109 574,272,283 1.20% 1,857,906,347 2017 62,767,242 523 1.16% 402,040,289 179,101,083 581,141,372 1.16% 1,879,957,857 2018 63,732,710 529 1.13% 406,719,497 181,185,579 587,905,076 1.13% 1,901,837,158 2019 64,692,941 535 1.10% 411,325,447 183,237,440 594,562,888 1.10% 1,923,543,933 2020 65,634,719 541 1.07% 415,857,880 185,256,550 601,114,431 1.07% 1,944,810,301

315

Table H-5: cont.

Municipal University of Michigan

Year kWh kWh /person

% Change

Purchased Electricity (kWh)

On site generation

(kWh)

Purchased + Onsite(kWh)

% Change

Total (kWh)

2021 66,570,625 546 1.04% 420,316,621 187,242,832 607,559,453 1.04% 1,965,898,311 2022 67,500,551 552 1.02% 424,701,579 189,196,245 613,897,823 1.02% 1,986,808,354 2023 68,424,402 558 0.99% 429,012,739 191,116,782 620,129,522 0.99% 2,007,541,018 2024 69,342,091 563 0.96% 433,250,164 193,004,472 626,254,636 0.96% 2,028,097,076 2025 70,253,544 569 0.94% 437,413,985 194,859,373 632,273,358 0.94% 2,048,477,479 2026 71,158,698 574 0.91% 441,504,401 196,681,574 638,185,975 0.91% 2,068,683,337 2027 72,057,496 579 0.89% 445,521,674 198,471,190 643,992,864 0.89% 2,088,715,919 2028 72,949,895 584 0.86% 449,466,126 200,228,366 649,694,493 0.86% 2,108,576,635 2029 73,835,860 589 0.84% 453,338,135 201,953,270 655,291,405 0.84% 2,128,267,028 2030 74,700,472 594 0.82% 457,138,130 203,646,094 660,784,225 0.82% 2,147,492,407 2031 75,558,258 599 0.79% 460,866,593 205,307,051 666,173,644 0.79% 2,166,545,411 2032 76,409,212 604 0.77% 464,524,049 206,936,376 671,460,425 0.77% 2,185,427,973 2033 77,253,336 608 0.75% 468,111,067 208,534,323 676,645,390 0.75% 2,204,142,122 2034 78,090,636 613 0.73% 471,628,256 210,101,162 681,729,418 0.73% 2,222,689,978 2035 78,921,129 618 0.71% 475,076,264 211,637,182 686,713,445 0.71% 2,241,073,742 2036 79,744,835 622 0.69% 478,455,770 213,142,685 691,598,455 0.69% 2,259,295,693 2037 80,561,783 626 0.67% 481,767,486 214,617,990 696,385,477 0.67% 2,277,358,174 2038 81,372,005 630 0.66% 485,012,155 216,063,427 701,075,582 0.66% 2,295,263,593 2039 82,175,540 635 0.64% 488,190,544 217,479,337 705,669,880 0.64% 2,313,014,412 2040 82,947,624 639 0.62% 491,303,444 218,866,073 710,169,517 0.62% 2,330,128,608 2041 83,712,648 643 0.60% 494,351,670 220,223,998 714,575,669 0.60% 2,347,085,615 2042 84,470,672 646 0.59% 497,336,056 221,553,483 718,889,539 0.59% 2,363,888,079 2043 85,221,761 650 0.57% 500,257,451 222,854,908 723,112,359 0.57% 2,380,538,674 2044 85,965,981 654 0.56% 503,116,723 224,128,658 727,245,381 0.56% 2,397,040,102 2045 86,703,404 658 0.54% 505,914,752 225,375,125 731,289,877 0.54% 2,413,395,087 2046 87,434,103 661 0.53% 508,652,429 226,594,706 735,247,136 0.53% 2,429,606,370 2047 88,158,157 665 0.51% 511,330,657 227,787,805 739,118,462 0.51% 2,445,676,703 2048 88,875,645 668 0.50% 513,950,346 228,954,825 742,905,171 0.50% 2,461,608,849 2049 89,586,651 671 0.49% 516,512,414 230,096,176 746,608,590 0.49% 2,477,405,576 2050 90,291,259 675 0.47% 519,017,783 231,212,269 750,230,052 0.47% 2,493,069,653

316

317

APPENDIX I: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING FUTURE GROWTH RATE OF NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION

This appendix details the Team’s methods for projecting the future growth rate for each sector’s natural gas consumption (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Municipal Government, and U of M) based on the Current Scenario. The Current Scenario represents Ann Arbor’s actual natural gas consumption. Natural gas consumption for the Current Scenario from 2001 to 2050 was projected based on the Annual Energy Review (AER) and the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) using the Logest Analysis Formula for each sector as detailed in the following procedures. All natural gas data applied to the estimation of total greenhouse gas emissions is detailed in Appendix D.

1. Commercial Sector

Step 1: In order to estimate future natural gas values, it is practical to analyze historical natural gas consumption patterns. The Annual Energy Review (AER) issued by the U.S. Department of Energy investigates historical tendency of natural gas expenditures. The Team utilized national natural gas utilization data from 1974 to 2000 from AER 2001 Table 6-5. 326 Upon examination, the Team found that historical consumption patterns consistently fluctuate. Therefore, the yearly percent changes are averaged every 3-years in order to normalize the values (Table I-1).

Step 2: The Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) projects domestic energy consumption growth for each economic sector by 2020. Our Team acquired the projected natural gas consumption patterns from AEO2002 Table2.327

Step 3: Final growth rates for natural gas consumption per person is calculated using Logest Extrapolation based on the data from AER2001 and AEO2002 mentioned in step 1 and step 2. Logest Extrapolation is a method of regression analysis, which calculates an exponential curve that fits input data, and estimates an array of values that describes the curve. The Logest Analysis Formula is described as follows:

y = b × mx

where, b = [=LOGEST(2.35:3.52, 1977:2050)] = 9.434 × 108

m= [=LOGEST(2.35:3.52, 1977:2050)] = 0.987423436 x = year

326 AER2002 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec6_13.pdf>. 327 AEO2002 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/aeo_base.pdf> (Actually this site links to AEO2003 due to unavailability for AEO2002, however, data are similar between AEO2002 and AER2003).

318

Example calculation

Growth rate in 1990 = 9.434 × 108 x (0.987423436)1990 = 1.088%

Step 4: Based on the values of extrapolation (growth rate), electricity consumption was calculated for each year between 2001-2050 for each sector (Table I-4). Those natural gas consumption values were then transformed into greenhouse gas emissions values (Appendix K).

2. Residential Sector

The growth rate of natural gas consumption in the residential sector is calculated based on the values from AER2001 and AEO2002. However, those values appeared to be irregular, so it was necessary to normalize the values. Growth rates from both AER2001 and AEO 2002 fluctuate so much that the Logest Analysis Formula could not be employed. Therefore, the standardized value of –0.5 percent per year, derived from AER2001 and AEO2002, is used to estimate future residential natural gas consumption.

3. Industrial Sector

The average national growth trend for natural gas in the commercial sector between 1990 and 2000 was 1.24% (AER 2002). The Team assumed that the industrial sector’s natural gas consumption will only increase modestly, at ¼ the rate of the national average between 1990-1999 per person (0.31%). Thus, 0.31 percent per year is adapted as the natural gas growth rate between 1990 and 2000. Future growth rates between 2001 and 2050 are estimated based on AEO2002 projections. However, due to irregularity, it was necessary to normalize the values. By inputting these data into the Logest Analysis Formula, the final extrapolation is calculated to the year 2050.

4. Municipal Government The municipal government’s natural gas consumption growth rates are employed using the same growth rates as the commercial sector.

5. University of Michigan U of M’s natural gas consumption growth rates are employed using the same growth rates as the commercial sector.

319

Table I-1: Key Sources for Estimating Growth Rate (Commercial Sector)

Year % Change of Natural Gas (AER 2002)

3 Year Average of AER 2002 (A)

A +3% (B)

AEO 2002 Projection (C)

C +3% (D) B + D Extrapolation

from B + D

1975 -1.95% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1976 6.37% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1977 -6.37% -0.65% 2.3514% N/A N/A 2.3514% N/A 1978 4.00% 1.34% 4.3358% N/A N/A 4.3358% N/A 1979 7.31% 1.65% 4.6469% N/A N/A 4.6469% N/A 1980 -6.45% 1.62% 4.6187% N/A N/A 4.6187% N/A 1981 -3.45% -0.86% 2.1359% N/A N/A 2.1359% N/A 1982 3.57% -2.11% 0.8905% N/A N/A 0.8905% N/A 1983 -6.90% -2.26% 0.7422% N/A N/A 0.7422% N/A 1984 3.70% 0.13% 3.1262% N/A N/A 3.1262% N/A 1985 -3.57% -2.25% 0.7452% N/A N/A 0.7452% N/A 1986 -4.53% -1.46% 1.5352% N/A N/A 1.5352% N/A 1987 4.74% -1.12% 1.8811% N/A N/A 1.8811% N/A 1988 9.88% 3.36% 6.3637% N/A N/A 6.3637% N/A 1989 1.87% 5.50% 8.4969% N/A N/A 8.4969% N/A 1990 -3.68% 2.69% 5.6909% N/A N/A 5.6909% N/A 1991 4.20% 0.80% 3.7982% N/A N/A 3.7982% 1.074% 1992 2.56% 1.03% 4.0287% N/A N/A 4.0287% 1.061% 1993 2.14% 2.97% 5.9685% N/A N/A 5.9685% 1.047% 1994 1.40% 2.04% 5.0352% N/A N/A 5.0352% 1.034% 1995 4.48% 2.67% 5.6747% N/A N/A 5.6747% 1.021% 1996 4.29% 3.39% 6.3906% N/A N/A 6.3906% 1.008% 1997 1.58% 3.45% 6.4518% N/A N/A 6.4518% 0.995% 1998 -6.54% -0.22% 2.7769% N/A N/A 2.7769% 0.983% 1999 1.33% -1.21% 1.7912% N/A N/A 1.7912% 0.971% 2000 10.53% 1.77% 4.7725% N/A N/A 4.7725% 0.958% 2001 N/A N/A N/A 0.58% 3.58% 3.58% 0.946% 2002 N/A N/A N/A 2.60% 5.60% 5.60% 0.934% 2003 N/A N/A N/A 2.77% 5.77% 5.77% 0.923% 2004 N/A N/A N/A 1.30% 4.30% 4.30% 0.911% 2005 N/A N/A N/A -0.05% 2.95% 2.95% 0.900% 2006 N/A N/A N/A 0.48% 3.48% 3.48% 0.888% 2007 N/A N/A N/A 0.73% 3.73% 3.73% 0.877% 2008 N/A N/A N/A 0.46% 3.46% 3.46% 0.866% 2009 N/A N/A N/A 0.45% 3.45% 3.45% 0.855% 2010 N/A N/A N/A 0.69% 3.69% 3.69% 0.844% 2011 N/A N/A N/A 0.67% 3.67% 3.67% 0.834% 2012 N/A N/A N/A 0.40% 3.40% 3.40% 0.823% 2013 N/A N/A N/A 0.62% 3.62% 3.62% 0.813% 2014 N/A N/A N/A 0.61% 3.61% 3.61% 0.803% 2015 N/A N/A N/A 0.59% 3.59% 3.59% 0.793% 2016 N/A N/A N/A 0.57% 3.57% 3.57% 0.783% 2017 N/A N/A N/A 0.56% 3.56% 3.56% 0.773% 2018 N/A N/A N/A 0.55% 3.55% 3.55% 0.763% 2019 N/A N/A N/A 0.75% 3.75% 3.75% 0.754% 2020 N/A N/A N/A 0.52% 3.52% 3.52% 0.744%

320

Table I-1: cont.

Year % Change of Natural Gas (AER 2002)

3 Year Average of AER2002

(A))

A +3% (B)

AEO 2002 Projection (C)

C +3% (D) B + D Extrapolation

from B + D


321

Table I-2: Key Sources for Estimating Growth Rate (Residential Sector)

Year % Change of Natural

Gas Consumption (AER 2002)

3 Year Average of AER 2002

(A)

AEO 2002 Projection (B) A+B Average

(A+B)

1975 1.706% 0.00% N/A 0.00% N/A1976 1.672% 0.00% N/A 0.00% N/A1977 -5.510% -0.71% N/A -0.71% N/A1978 0.589% -1.08% N/A -1.08% N/A1979 0.315% -1.54% N/A -1.54% N/A1980 -5.339% -1.48% N/A -1.48% N/A1981 -5.146% -3.39% N/A -3.39% N/A1982 0.792% -3.23% N/A -3.23% N/A1983 -6.260% -3.54% N/A -3.54% N/A1984 3.212% -0.75% N/A -0.75% N/A1985 -3.708% -2.25% N/A -2.25% N/A1986 -3.604% -1.37% N/A -1.37% N/A1987 -0.890% -2.73% N/A -2.73% N/A1988 6.454% 0.65% N/A 0.65% N/A1989 2.269% 2.61% N/A 2.61% N/A1990 -9.133% -0.14% N/A -0.14% -0.5%1991 2.765% -1.37% N/A -1.37% -0.5%1992 1.691% -1.56% N/A -1.56% -0.5%1993 4.628% 3.03% N/A 3.03% -0.5%1994 -3.173% 1.05% N/A 1.05% -0.5%1995 -0.942% 0.17% N/A 0.17% -0.5%1996 7.053% 0.98% N/A 0.98% -0.5%1997 -5.869% 0.08% N/A 0.08% -0.5%1998 -10.065% -2.96% N/A -2.96% -0.5%1999 3.709% -4.07% N/A -4.07% -0.5%2000 0.790% -1.86% N/A -1.86% -0.5%2001 N/A N/A 0.07% 0.07% -0.5%2002 N/A N/A 2.55% 2.55% -0.5%2003 N/A N/A 1.15% 1.15% -0.5%2004 N/A N/A 0.22% 0.22% -0.5%2005 N/A N/A -1.03% -1.03% -0.5%2006 N/A N/A -0.48% -0.48% -0.5%2007 N/A N/A -0.11% -0.11% -0.5%2008 N/A N/A -0.11% -0.11% -0.5%2009 N/A N/A -0.46% -0.46% -0.5%2010 N/A N/A -0.28% -0.28% -0.5%2011 N/A N/A 0.07% 0.07% -0.5%2012 N/A N/A 0.23% 0.23% -0.5%2013 N/A N/A -0.47% -0.47% -0.5%2014 N/A N/A -0.12% -0.12% -0.5%2015 N/A N/A -0.13% -0.13% -0.5%2016 N/A N/A 0.21% 0.21% -0.5%2017 N/A N/A -0.46% -0.46% -0.5%2018 N/A N/A 0.04% 0.04% -0.5%2019 N/A N/A 0.20% 0.20% -0.5%2020 N/A N/A 0.36% 0.36% -0.5%

322

Table I-2: cont.


Gas Consumption (AER 2002)

3 Year Average of AER 2002

(A)

AEO 2002 Projection (B) A+B Average

(A+B)

2021 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2022 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2023 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2024 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2025 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2026 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2027 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2028 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2029 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2030 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2031 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2032 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2033 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2034 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2035 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2036 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2037 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2038 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2039 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2040 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2041 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2042 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2043 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2044 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2045 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2046 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2047 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2048 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2049 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5% 2050 N/A N/A N/A N/A -0.5%

323

Table I-3: Key Sources for Estimating Growth Rate (Industrial Sector)


Gas Consumption (AEO 2002) (A)

(A) + 9% Extrapolation Based on Left Column

Projected Growth Rate between 1990 and 2000

1975 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1976 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1977 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1978 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1979 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1980 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1981 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1982 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1983 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1984 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1985 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1986 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1987 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1988 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1989 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1990 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1991 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1992 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1993 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1994 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1995 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1996 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1997 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1998 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 1999 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 2000 N/A N/A N/A 0.31% 2001 -8.49% 0.51% 1.162% N/A 2002 8.43% 17.43% 1.080% N/A 2003 1.93% 10.93% 0.999% N/A 2004 0.31% 9.31% 0.919% N/A 2005 0.50% 9.50% 0.839% N/A 2006 1.06% 10.06% 0.759% N/A 2007 0.48% 9.48% 0.680% N/A 2008 0.28% 9.28% 0.602% N/A 2009 0.64% 9.64% 0.525% N/A 2010 0.45% 9.45% 0.448% N/A 2011 0.61% 9.61% 0.372% N/A 2012 0.42% 9.42% 0.296% N/A 2013 -0.21% 8.79% 0.221% N/A 2014 -0.12% 8.88% 0.147% N/A 2015 0.30% 9.30% 0.073% N/A 2016 0.29% 9.29% 0.000% N/A 2017 0.12% 9.12% -0.072% N/A 2018 -0.05% 8.95% -0.144% N/A 2019 -0.54% 8.46% -0.216% N/A 2020 -0.29% 8.71% -0.287% N/A

324

Table I-3: cont.


Gas Consumption (AEO 2002) (A)

(A) + 9% Extrapolation Based on Left Column

Projected Growth Rate between 1990 and 2000

2021 N/A N/A -0.357% N/A 2022 N/A N/A -0.427% N/A 2023 N/A N/A -0.496% N/A 2024 N/A N/A -0.564% N/A 2025 N/A N/A -0.632% N/A 2026 N/A N/A -0.700% N/A 2027 N/A N/A -0.767% N/A 2028 N/A N/A -0.833% N/A 2029 N/A N/A -0.899% N/A 2030 N/A N/A -0.964% N/A 2031 N/A N/A -1.029% N/A 2032 N/A N/A -1.093% N/A 2033 N/A N/A -1.157% N/A 2034 N/A N/A -1.220% N/A 2035 N/A N/A -1.283% N/A 2036 N/A N/A -1.345% N/A 2037 N/A N/A -1.407% N/A 2038 N/A N/A -1.468% N/A 2039 N/A N/A -1.529% N/A 2040 N/A N/A -1.589% N/A 2041 N/A N/A -1.649% N/A 2042 N/A N/A -1.708% N/A 2043 N/A N/A -1.767% N/A 2044 N/A N/A -1.826% N/A 2045 N/A N/A -1.883% N/A 2046 N/A N/A -1.941% N/A 2047 N/A N/A -1.998% N/A 2048 N/A N/A -2.054% N/A 2049 N/A N/A -2.110% N/A 2050 N/A N/A -2.166% N/A

325

Table I-4: Ann Arbor’s Natural Gas Consumption Residential and Commercial328

Residential Commercial

Year mcf/person % Change Total (mcf) mcf/person % Change Total (mcf)

1990 40.5 -0.50% 4,440,019 20.90 1.09% 2,290,307 1991 40.3 -0.50% 4,435,796 21.13 1.07% 2,324,856 1992 40.1 -0.50% 4,431,505 21.36 1.06% 2,359,563 1993 39.9 -0.50% 4,427,147 21.59 1.05% 2,394,421 1994 39.7 -0.50% 4,422,723 21.82 1.03% 2,429,429 1995 39.5 -0.50% 4,418,233 22.04 1.02% 2,464,582 1996 39.3 -0.50% 4,413,678 22.27 1.01% 2,499,875 1997 39.1 -0.50% 4,409,059 22.50 1.00% 2,535,305 1998 38.9 -0.50% 4,404,267 22.72 0.98% 2,570,868 1999 38.7 -0.50% 4,399,412 22.94 0.97% 2,605,990 2000 38.5 -0.50% 4,394,496 23.16 0.96% 2,641,232 2001 38.3 -0.50% 4,383,455 23.38 0.95% 2,672,893 2002 38.2 -0.50% 4,372,442 23.60 0.93% 2,704,614 2003 38.0 -0.50% 4,361,456 23.82 0.92% 2,736,393 2004 37.8 -0.50% 4,350,498 24.04 0.91% 2,768,227 2005 37.6 -0.50% 4,339,567 24.25 0.90% 2,800,113 2006 37.4 -0.50% 4,328,664 24.47 0.89% 2,832,050 2007 37.2 -0.50% 4,317,788 24.68 0.88% 2,864,033 2008 37.0 -0.50% 4,306,940 24.90 0.87% 2,896,061 2009 36.8 -0.50% 4,296,118 25.11 0.86% 2,928,130 2010 36.7 -0.50% 4,290,454 25.32 0.84% 2,963,783 2011 36.5 -0.50% 4,284,797 25.53 0.83% 2,999,553 2012 36.3 -0.50% 4,279,148 25.74 0.82% 3,035,440 2013 36.1 -0.50% 4,273,505 25.95 0.81% 3,071,440 2014 35.9 -0.50% 4,267,871 26.16 0.80% 3,107,553 2015 35.7 -0.50% 4,262,244 26.37 0.79% 3,143,775 2016 35.6 -0.50% 4,256,624 26.57 0.78% 3,180,104 2017 35.4 -0.50% 4,251,012 26.78 0.77% 3,216,539 2018 35.2 -0.50% 4,245,407 26.98 0.76% 3,253,078 2019 35.0 -0.50% 4,239,809 27.19 0.75% 3,289,719 2020 34.9 -0.50% 4,233,375 27.39 0.74% 3,325,796

328 Data between 1990 and 2000 are actual data based on Appendix D, Table D-12, and data after 2001 are projections based on the Table I-1, I-2, and I-3.

326

Table I-4: cont Residential Commercial

Year mcf/person % Change Total (mcf) mcf/person % Change Total (mcf)

2021 34.7 -0.50% 4,226,951 27.59 0.73% 3,361,957 2022 34.5 -0.50% 4,220,537 27.79 0.73% 3,398,199 2023 34.3 -0.50% 4,214,132 27.99 0.72% 3,434,521 2024 34.2 -0.50% 4,207,737 28.19 0.71% 3,470,920 2025 34.0 -0.50% 4,201,352 28.38 0.70% 3,507,396 2026 33.8 -0.50% 4,194,976 28.58 0.69% 3,543,946 2027 33.7 -0.50% 4,188,610 28.78 0.68% 3,580,568 2028 33.5 -0.50% 4,182,254 28.97 0.67% 3,617,260 2029 33.3 -0.50% 4,175,908 29.16 0.66% 3,654,022 2030 33.2 -0.50% 4,168,740 29.35 0.66% 3,690,116 2031 33.0 -0.50% 4,161,584 29.54 0.65% 3,726,260 2032 32.8 -0.50% 4,154,441 29.73 0.64% 3,762,455 2033 32.7 -0.50% 4,147,309 29.92 0.63% 3,798,697 2034 32.5 -0.50% 4,140,191 30.11 0.62% 3,834,987 2035 32.3 -0.50% 4,133,084 30.29 0.62% 3,871,321 2036 32.2 -0.50% 4,125,990 30.47 0.61% 3,907,699 2037 32.0 -0.50% 4,118,907 30.66 0.60% 3,944,119 2038 31.9 -0.50% 4,111,837 30.84 0.59% 3,980,580 2039 31.7 -0.50% 4,104,779 31.02 0.59% 4,017,080 2040 31.5 -0.50% 4,096,508 31.20 0.58% 4,052,406 2041 31.4 -0.50% 4,088,254 31.38 0.57% 4,087,748 2042 31.2 -0.50% 4,080,016 31.55 0.56% 4,123,104 2043 31.1 -0.50% 4,071,795 31.73 0.56% 4,158,473 2044 30.9 -0.50% 4,063,590 31.90 0.55% 4,193,853 2045 30.8 -0.50% 4,055,402 32.08 0.54% 4,229,244 2046 30.6 -0.50% 4,047,230 32.25 0.54% 4,264,644 2047 30.5 -0.50% 4,039,075 32.42 0.53% 4,300,053 2048 30.3 -0.50% 4,030,936 32.59 0.52% 4,335,469 2049 30.1 -0.50% 4,022,814 32.76 0.52% 4,370,891 2050 30.0 -0.50% 4,014,708 32.92 0.51% 4,406,318

327

Table I-5: Ann Arbor’s Natural Gas Consumption Industrial, Municipal and University of Michigan Industrial Municipal U of M

Year mcf/

person % Change Total (mcf) % Change Total

(mcf) % Change Total (mcf)

Total (mcf)

1990 0.44 0.31% 48,503 1.09% 66,457 1.51% 768,476 7,613,761 1991 0.44 0.31% 48,850 1.07% 67,178 1.49% 780,122 7,656,803 1992 0.45 0.31% 49,199 1.06% 67,898 1.48% 791,820 7,699,985 1993 0.45 0.31% 49,550 1.05% 68,617 1.46% 803,568 7,743,304 1994 0.45 0.31% 49,903 1.03% 69,334 1.45% 815,366 7,786,755 1995 0.45 0.31% 50,257 1.02% 70,049 1.43% 827,212 7,830,333 1996 0.45 0.31% 50,614 1.01% 70,762 1.42% 839,105 7,874,033 1997 0.45 0.31% 50,971 1.00% 71,474 1.40% 851,042 7,917,852 1998 0.45 0.31% 51,331 0.98% 72,183 1.37% 862,830 7,961,479 1999 0.46 0.31% 51,692 0.97% 72,891 1.35% 874,658 8,004,643 2000 0.46 1.15% 52,054 0.96% 73,596 1.20% 885,270 8,046,649 2001 0.46 1.16% 52,791 0.95% 74,479 1.19% 895,776 8,079,393 2002 0.47 1.08% 53,495 0.93% 75,362 1.17% 906,301 8,112,214 2003 0.47 1.00% 54,164 0.92% 76,248 1.16% 916,845 8,145,106 2004 0.48 0.92% 54,799 0.91% 77,135 1.15% 927,406 8,178,064 2005 0.48 0.84% 55,396 0.90% 78,023 1.14% 937,983 8,211,084 2006 0.48 0.76% 55,956 0.89% 78,913 1.13% 948,576 8,244,159 2007 0.49 0.68% 56,478 0.88% 79,805 1.12% 959,184 8,277,287 2008 0.49 0.60% 56,960 0.87% 80,697 1.11% 969,805 8,310,463 2009 0.49 0.52% 57,402 0.86% 81,591 1.22% 981,614 8,344,855 2010 0.49 0.45% 57,873 0.84% 82,584 1.21% 993,461 8,388,155 2011 0.50 0.37% 58,303 0.83% 83,581 1.20% 1,005,347 8,431,581 2012 0.50 0.30% 58,692 0.82% 84,581 1.19% 1,017,270 8,475,131 2013 0.50 0.22% 59,040 0.81% 85,584 1.18% 1,029,231 8,518,800 2014 0.50 0.15% 59,346 0.80% 86,590 1.17% 1,041,228 8,562,587 2015 0.50 0.07% 59,609 0.79% 87,599 1.16% 1,053,260 8,606,487 2016 0.50 0.00% 59,830 0.78% 88,612 1.15% 1,065,327 8,650,497 2017 0.50 -0.07% 60,007 0.77% 89,627 1.14% 1,077,429 8,694,614 2018 0.50 -0.14% 60,142 0.76% 90,645 1.13% 1,089,565 8,738,837 2019 0.50 -0.22% 60,235 0.75% 91,666 1.10% 1,101,514 8,782,942 2020 0.50 -0.29% 60,272 0.74% 92,671 1.09% 1,113,490 8,825,605 2021 0.49 -0.36% 60,267 0.73% 93,679 1.08% 1,125,494 8,868,348 2022 0.49 -0.43% 60,220 0.73% 94,689 1.07% 1,137,524 8,911,168 2023 0.49 -0.50% 60,131 0.72% 95,701 1.06% 1,149,579 8,954,064 2024 0.49 -0.56% 60,001 0.71% 96,715 1.05% 1,161,660 8,997,034 2025 0.48 -0.63% 59,830 0.70% 97,731 1.04% 1,173,765 9,040,075 2026 0.48 -0.70% 59,620 0.69% 98,750 1.03% 1,185,895 9,083,186 2027 0.48 -0.77% 59,370 0.68% 99,770 1.02% 1,198,047 9,126,365 2028 0.47 -0.83% 59,081 0.67% 100,793 1.02% 1,210,223 9,169,611 2029 0.47 -0.90% 58,755 0.66% 101,817 0.99% 1,222,177 9,212,679 2030 0.46 -0.96% 58,380 0.66% 102,823 0.98% 1,234,149 9,254,207 2031 0.46 -1.03% 57,970 0.65% 103,830 0.97% 1,246,136 9,295,781 2032 0.45 -1.09% 57,525 0.64% 104,839 0.96% 1,258,140 9,337,399 2033 0.45 -1.16% 57,047 0.63% 105,848 0.96% 1,270,159 9,379,062 2034 0.44 -1.22% 56,537 0.62% 106,860 0.95% 1,282,193 9,420,767 2035 0.44 -1.28% 55,996 0.62% 107,872 0.94% 1,294,241 9,462,514 2036 0.43 -1.35% 55,425 0.61% 108,886 0.93% 1,306,304 9,504,302 2037 0.43 -1.41% 54,825 0.60% 109,900 0.92% 1,318,380 9,546,131 2038 0.42 -1.47% 54,198 0.59% 110,916 0.92% 1,330,469 9,588,000 2039 0.41 -1.53% 53,546 0.59% 111,933 0.88% 1,342,169 9,629,507 2040 0.41 -1.59% 52,853 0.58% 112,918 0.87% 1,353,874 9,668,559 2041 0.40 -1.65% 52,137 0.57% 113,903 0.86% 1,365,584 9,707,626 2042 0.39 -1.71% 51,400 0.56% 114,888 0.86% 1,377,299 9,746,706 2043 0.39 -1.77% 50,643 0.56% 115,873 0.85% 1,389,017 9,785,801 2044 0.38 -1.83% 49,868 0.55% 116,859 0.84% 1,400,738 9,824,908 2045 0.37 -1.88% 49,075 0.54% 117,845 0.84% 1,412,463 9,864,030 2046 0.36 -1.94% 48,267 0.54% 118,832 0.83% 1,424,190 9,903,164 2047 0.36 -2.00% 47,445 0.53% 119,818 0.82% 1,435,920 9,942,312 2048 0.35 -2.05% 46,610 0.52% 120,805 0.82% 1,447,652 9,981,472 2049 0.34 -2.11% 45,763 0.52% 121,792 0.81% 1,459,386 10,020,646 2050 0.34 -2.17% 44,906 0.51% 122,779 0.81% 1,471,214 10,059,926

328

329

APPENDIX J: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING GHG FROM TRANSPORTATION SECTOR Greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector involve petroleum consumption within the City of Ann Arbor. Petroleum utilization was determined based on the total number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per year. Assuming the average fuel economy of vehicles per gallon, estimates of VMT were established for driving activities by Ann Arbor residents and other local fleets: Community vehicles, City of Ann Arbor fleet vehicles, U of M fleet vehicles, Ann Arbor public school fleet buses, and Ann Arbor Transportation Authority buses. Fundamental data regarding motor vehicles was collected from the University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable System Material Flow Analysis Study of 1997.

Methodology for estimating baseline value of petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

Step 1: Two types of petroleum were considered as transportation fuels in this Project: gasoline and diesel fuels. GHG coefficients are slightly different between the two fuel types.329 However, the total number of VMT was calculated to include all vehicle types. The Team took into consideration fuel economies for each vehicle type when calculating VMT. Thus, the Team used the same GHG emission coefficient for diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles.

The total petroleum consumption for Ann Arbor in 1997 amounted to 52,985,186 gallons (Table J-2). This is an aggregate value that includes total gallons of fuel consumed by each vehicle type. This was estimated from the total VMT divided by average fuel economy for each vehicle type. After dividing total VMT by Ann Arbor’s population (112,694 in 1997), the Team estimated the average VMT per person to be 7,745 miles.

Step 2: Using the projected growth rate of 1.5 percent per year for VMT per person330, the

previous year’s (1996) VMT per person value was calculated as follows: VMT/person in 1996 = VMT/person in 1997 - VMT/person in 1997 x (1.5%) = 7,745 – (7,745 x 0.015) = 7,629 miles By multiplying Ann Arbor’s population in 1996, total VMT was calculated as

follows: 329 According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, the emission coefficient for diesel is 161.386 lbs CO2 per million Btu (=73.21kgCO2/million Btu), whereas that of motor gasoline is 156.425 lbs CO2 per million Btu (=70.94 kg CO2/million Btu) <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/factors.html>. 330 1.5%/year per person is the national average based on the U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 22, September 2002, Table 11.2 <http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/>.

330

Total VMT in 1996 = 7,629 miles x 112,694 = 856,381,902 miles The average fuel economy for all vehicle types was estimated at 16.47 miles per

gallon (Table J-1).331 Based on this number, the total gallons of gasoline consumed were calculated as follows:

Total gallons of petrol in 1996 = 856,381,902 miles / 16.47 miles/gallon = 52,538,767 gallons Step 3: The same calculations were used to estimate total annual fuel consumption for each

year backwards until 1990.

VMT/person in 1990 = VMT/person in 1991 – [VMT/person in 1991 x (1.5%)]

= 7,074 – (7,074 x 0.015) = 6,968 miles By multiplying Ann Arbor’s population in 1990, total VMT were calculated as

follows: Total VMT in 1990 = 6,968 miles x 109,592 = 763,611,964 miles Total gallons of gasoline in 1990 = 763,611,964 miles / 16.47 miles/gallon = 46,363,811 gallons Step 4: Using a conversion factor of 125,000 [Btu/gallon], the total gallons of gasoline

consumed in 1990 have 5,795,476 [MMBtu] of fuel energy. Using the coefficient 71.72 [kg CO2e/MMBtu gasoline],332 greenhouse gas emissions were calculated as follows:

Greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 = 5,795,476 MMBtu x 71.72 kg CO2e/MMBtu gasoline = 415,651,564 kgCO2e

331 In petroleum consumption calculation, fuel economy is assumed as 16.47 miles per gallon between 1990 and 2000. This number seems to be relative small compared to national automobile Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard, which values vary in vehicle classification. However, the Team decided that it is practical to adapt 16.47miles per gallon as fuel economy since this value is based on the calculation from real data, and it involves all types of vehicles (old and new cars). 332 See Appendix N.

331

Table J-1: Fleet Analysis in Ann Arbor333

Vehicle Type Stock Gallons per Vehicle

Avg. Fuel Economy (mpg) Avg. VMT Total VMT Fuel (gal)

Light Two Door 17,016 604 18.0 11,435 184,848,193 10,269,344 Four Door 31,248 639 17.0 11,435 339,450,382 19,967,670 Pickup 10,291 679 16.0 11,435 111,793,706 6,987,107 Station Wagon 14,801 639 17.0 11,435 160,786,963 9,458,057 Roadster 65 336 17.0 11,435 371,638 21,861 Convertible 676 538 17.0 11,435 6,184,048 363,768 Hearse 4 471 17.0 11,435 32,018 1,883 Other 2,899 635 18.0 11,435 33,150,065 1,841,670 Subtotal for class 77,000 635 17.1 836,617,013 48,911,359 Total for Class (- fleets) 75,770 639 17.1 826,780,733 48,419,545 Heavy Van 1,257 679 16.0 11,435 13,655,105 853,444 Ambulance 1 1,429 14.0 20,000 20,000 1,429 Bus 20 3,333 6.0 20,000 400,000 66,667 Dump 233 3,333 6.0 20,000 4,660,000 776,667 Motor Home 442 833 6.0 10,000 2,210,000 368,333 Mixer 12 833 6.0 10,000 60,000 10,000 Panel 3 1,429 14.0 20,000 60,000 4,286 Stake 314 1,429 14.0 20,000 6,280,000 448,571 Tank 35 3,333 6.0 20,000 700,000 116,667 Tractor 240 1,667 6.0 10,000 2,400,000 400,000 Utility 79 1,667 6.0 10,000 790,000 131,667 Wrecker 64 417 6.0 5,000 160,000 26,667 Subtotal for class 2,700 1,187 11.6 31,395,105 3,204,396 Total for class (-fleets) 2,215 911 11.6 24,175,105 2,016,896 Motorcycle 1,412 86 40.0 11,435 4,843,866 121,097Subtotal 79,397 17.3 855,799,704 50,557,538

Fleet Vehicles

Stock Gallons per Vehicle

Avg. Fuel Economy (mpg) Avg. VMT Total VMT Fuel (gal)

City of Ann Arbor Light Duty 300 450 20 10000 2,700,000 135,000 Heavy Duty 170 667 6 5000 680,000 113,333University of Michigan Light Duty 922 387 20 8600 7,136,280 356,814 Heavy Duty 35 571 7 5000 140,000 20,000 Buses 50 2,500 6 15000 750,000 125,000AATA Buses 75 6,667 6 40000 3,000,000 500,000 LDV 8 AA School System HDVs 125 3,333 6 20000 2,500,000 416,667 LDVs Huron Valley Ambulance HDVs 30 417 12 5000 150,000 12,500Subtotal : 1,715 17,056,280 2,427,647

Total for all Vehicles 81,112 16.47 872,855,984 52,985,186

333 The University of Michigan, Center for Sustainable System Material Flow Analysis Study of 1997.

332

Table J-2: Transportation Sector Data Summary

Year VMT/person Projected %

VMT Growth /Person

Ann Arbor Population Total VMT

Average Fuel

Economy (mpg)

Total Gallons of Gasoline

GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)

1990 6,968 1.50% 109,592 763,611,964 16.47 46,363,811 415,652 1991 7,074 1.50% 110,035 778,375,716 16.47 47,260,213 423,688 1992 7,182 1.50% 110,478 793,412,039 16.47 48,173,166 431,872 1993 7,291 1.50% 110,922 808,725,813 16.47 49,102,964 440,208 1994 7,402 1.50% 111,365 824,322,000 16.47 50,049,909 448,697 1995 7,515 1.50% 111,808 840,205,650 16.47 51,014,308 457,343 1996 7,629 1.50% 112,251 856,381,902 16.47 51,996,473 466,148 1997 7,745 1.50% 112,694 872,855,984 16.47 52,985,186 475,012 1998 7,862 1.50% 113,138 889,433,047 16.47 54,003,221 484,139 1999 7,979 1.50% 113,581 906,311,030 16.47 55,027,992 493,326 2000 8,099 1.50% 114,024 923,495,230 16.50 55,969,408 501,766 2001 8,221 1.50% 114,309 939,691,028 16.55 56,778,914 509,023 2002 8,344 1.50% 114,595 956,170,859 16.60 57,600,654 516,390 2003 8,469 1.50% 114,881 972,939,706 16.65 58,434,817 523,868 2004 8,596 1.50% 115,169 990,002,636 16.70 59,281,595 531,459 2005 8,725 1.50% 115,456 1,007,364,807 16.75 60,141,183 539,166 2006 8,856 1.50% 115,745 1,025,031,467 16.80 61,013,778 546,989 2007 8,989 1.50% 116,034 1,043,007,957 16.85 61,899,582 554,930 2008 9,124 1.50% 116,325 1,061,299,709 16.90 62,798,799 562,991 2009 9,260 1.50% 116,615 1,079,912,252 16.95 63,711,637 571,175 2010 9,399 1.30% 117,047 1,100,166,547 17.00 64,715,679 580,176 2011 9,522 1.30% 117,480 1,118,592,246 17.05 65,606,583 588,163 2012 9,645 1.30% 117,915 1,137,326,541 17.10 66,510,324 596,265 2013 9,771 1.30% 118,351 1,156,374,599 17.15 67,427,090 604,484 2014 9,898 1.30% 118,789 1,175,741,677 17.20 68,357,074 612,821 2015 10,026 1.30% 119,228 1,195,433,116 17.25 69,300,470 621,279 2016 10,157 1.30% 119,669 1,215,454,349 17.30 70,257,477 629,858 2017 10,289 1.30% 120,112 1,235,810,900 17.35 71,228,294 638,562 2018 10,423 1.30% 120,557 1,256,508,385 17.40 72,213,126 647,391 2019 10,558 1.30% 121,003 1,277,552,513 17.50 73,003,001 654,472 2020 10,695 1.30% 121,426 1,298,690,258 17.75 73,165,648 655,930 2021 10,834 1.30% 121,851 1,320,177,738 18.00 73,343,208 657,522 2022 10,975 1.30% 122,278 1,342,020,739 18.25 73,535,383 659,245 2023 11,118 1.30% 122,706 1,364,225,143 18.50 73,741,900 661,096 2024 11,262 1.30% 123,135 1,386,796,930 18.75 73,962,503 663,074 2025 11,409 1.30% 123,566 1,409,742,178 19.00 74,196,957 665,176 2026 11,557 1.30% 123,999 1,433,067,068 19.25 74,445,042 667,400 2027 11,707 1.30% 124,433 1,456,777,879 19.50 74,706,558 669,744 2028 11,860 1.30% 124,868 1,480,880,997 19.75 74,981,316 672,208 2029 12,014 1.30% 125,305 1,505,382,914 20.00 75,269,146 674,788 2030 12,170 1.30% 125,719 1,529,985,236 20.25 75,554,826 677,349 2031 12,328 1.20% 126,133 1,554,989,632 20.50 75,853,153 680,024 2032 12,476 1.20% 126,550 1,578,842,551 20.75 76,088,798 682,136 2033 12,626 1.20% 126,967 1,603,061,364 21.00 76,336,255 684,355 2034 12,777 1.20% 127,386 1,627,651,684 21.25 76,595,373 686,678 2035 12,931 1.20% 127,807 1,652,619,210 21.50 76,866,010 689,104 2036 13,086 1.20% 128,228 1,677,969,728 21.75 77,148,033 691,632 2037 13,243 1.20% 128,652 1,703,709,112 22.00 77,441,323 694,261 2038 13,402 1.20% 129,076 1,729,843,328 22.25 77,745,768 696,991 2039 13,563 1.20% 129,502 1,756,378,433 22.50 78,061,264 699,819 2040 13,725 1.20% 129,891 1,782,787,339 22.75 78,364,279 702,536 2041 13,890 1.20% 130,280 1,809,593,330 23.00 78,677,971 705,348 2042 14,057 1.20% 130,671 1,836,802,375 23.25 79,002,253 708,255 2043 14,225 1.20% 131,063 1,864,420,535 23.50 79,337,044 711,257 2044 14,396 1.20% 131,456 1,892,453,962 23.75 79,682,272 714,352 2045 14,569 1.20% 131,851 1,920,908,900 24.00 80,037,871 717,540 2046 14,744 1.20% 132,246 1,949,791,686 24.25 80,403,781 720,820 2047 14,921 1.20% 132,643 1,979,108,754 24.50 80,779,949 724,192 2048 15,100 1.20% 133,041 2,008,866,634 24.75 81,166,329 727,656 2049 15,281 1.20% 133,440 2,039,071,952 25.00 81,562,878 731,211 2050 15,464 1.20% 133,840 2,069,731,438 25.25 81,969,562 734,857

333

APPENDIX K: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

This appendix details the calculations used to estimate GHG emissions for the following sectors: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Municipal Government, and the University of Michigan. In general, GHG emissions for these sectors were calculated based on electricity and natural gas consumption as follows:

GHG emissions = (electricity consumption x CI) + (Natural gas consumption x CI)

CI (Carbon Intensity) refers to the conversion factor that translates electricity and natural gas consumption into GHG emissions (Appendix N). GHG emissions for municipal solid waste management and the transportation sectors are developed in Appendix G. Table K-1 in this Appendix illustrates the greenhouse gas emissions by sector.

Sample calculation of greenhouse gas emissions in residential sector

Step1: The residential sector’s electricity consumption in 1990 was 247,571,212 kWh (Appendix D, Table D-6). Using the emissions coefficient for electricity generation from DTE (876.6 kg CO2e/MWh), GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption was calculated as follows:

247,571,212 kWh x 876.6 kg CO2eq/MWh × 10-6 = 218,774 metric tons of CO2e/yr

Step2: Natural Gas consumption for the residential sector in 1990 was 4,440,019 mcf (Appendix D, Table D-12). GHG emissions derived from natural gas consumption was calculated using the emissions coefficient for natural gas (58.8 kgCO2eq/MMBtu NG) as follows:

4,440,019 mcf x 1,027 Btu/scf x 1,000 scf/mcf x 58.81 kgCO2eq/MMBtu x (1/1,000,000) x MMBtu/Btu x (1/1,000) x metric tons/kg = 268,168 MTCO2e/yr

, where scf = standard cubic feet = cubic feet

mcf = thousand cubic feet = 1000cf MMBtu = metric million Btu

Step3: The aggregation of step 1 and step 2 results in total greenhouse gas emissions for the

residential sector. 218,774 + 268,168 = 486,957 MTCO2e/yr

334

Table K-1: Ann Arbor’s Current Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions (MTCO2e)

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Municipal U of M MSW Total Per Person

1990 486,957 339,857 316,968 415,652 47,866 319,713 24,845 1,951,858 17.8 1991 491,444 347,810 320,465 423,688 47,414 325,732 23,488 1,980,041 18.0 1992 495,869 355,796 323,981 431,872 46,968 332,493 17,156 2,004,134 18.1 1993 500,230 363,812 327,514 440,208 46,527 340,084 14,132 2,032,507 18.3 1994 504,525 371,853 331,066 448,697 46,091 348,608 14,059 2,064,899 18.5 1995 508,754 379,917 334,637 457,343 45,661 358,179 14,268 2,098,758 18.8 1996 512,916 388,000 338,225 466,148 45,525 386,077 16,733 2,153,623 19.2 1997 517,010 396,098 341,831 475,012 45,390 378,171 18,494 2,172,006 19.3 1998 521,029 404,208 345,455 484,139 45,255 426,140 18,280 2,244,506 19.8 1999 524,980 412,292 349,096 493,326 44,958 420,388 17,637 2,262,677 19.9 2000 528,863 420,383 352,756 501,766 45,367 427,193 18,487 2,294,814 20.1 2001 531,906 427,792 355,952 509,023 45,893 430,342 18,339 2,319,247 20.3 2002 534,880 435,188 359,159 516,390 46,798 437,761 18,455 2,348,631 20.5 2003 537,788 442,567 362,378 523,868 47,700 445,117 18,501 2,377,918 20.7 2004 540,629 449,928 365,607 531,459 48,599 452,407 18,547 2,407,176 20.9 2005 543,404 457,268 368,847 539,166 49,494 459,629 18,593 2,436,401 21.1 2006 546,113 464,586 372,097 546,989 50,385 466,781 18,640 2,465,591 21.3 2007 548,759 471,878 375,358 554,930 51,272 473,861 18,686 2,494,745 21.5 2008 551,342 479,144 378,630 562,991 52,154 480,866 18,733 2,523,861 21.7 2009 553,862 486,382 381,911 571,175 53,032 487,866 18,780 2,553,009 21.9 2010 556,988 494,181 385,664 580,176 53,970 494,789 18,850 2,584,618 22.1 2011 560,060 501,966 389,436 588,163 54,904 501,635 18,919 2,615,084 22.3 2012 563,079 509,736 393,226 596,265 55,835 508,402 18,989 2,645,534 22.4 2013 566,047 517,490 397,035 604,484 56,763 515,089 19,060 2,675,968 22.6 2014 568,965 525,226 400,862 612,821 57,687 521,695 19,130 2,706,386 22.8 2015 571,833 532,943 404,708 621,279 58,607 528,218 19,201 2,736,788 23.0 2016 574,653 540,639 408,572 629,858 59,523 534,658 19,272 2,767,176 23.1 2017 577,426 548,314 412,454 638,562 60,435 541,015 19,343 2,797,550 23.3 2018 580,153 555,967 416,355 647,391 61,343 547,287 19,415 2,827,911 23.5 2019 582,835 563,596 420,275 654,472 62,247 553,461 19,487 2,856,373 23.6 2020 585,357 571,087 424,128 655,930 63,133 559,550 19,555 2,878,741 23.7 2021 587,835 578,550 427,999 657,522 64,014 565,553 19,623 2,901,097 23.8 2022 590,271 585,984 431,886 659,245 64,890 571,471 19,692 2,923,439 23.9 2023 592,665 593,389 435,791 661,096 65,761 577,303 19,761 2,945,766 24.0 2024 595,019 600,764 439,712 663,074 66,627 583,049 19,830 2,968,074 24.1 2025 597,334 608,108 443,650 665,176 67,487 588,709 19,899 2,990,364 24.2 2026 599,612 615,421 447,606 667,400 68,342 594,284 19,969 3,012,633 24.3 2027 601,852 622,703 451,578 669,744 69,192 599,774 20,039 3,034,882 24.4 2028 604,058 629,952 455,568 672,208 70,036 605,179 20,109 3,057,109 24.5 2029 606,228 637,170 459,574 674,788 70,874 610,484 20,179 3,079,299 24.6 2030 608,244 644,227 463,506 677,349 71,693 615,706 20,246 3,100,971 24.7 2031 610,228 651,248 467,453 680,024 72,506 620,844 20,313 3,122,615 24.8 2032 612,179 658,234 471,416 682,136 73,313 625,898 20,380 3,143,556 24.8 2033 614,099 665,184 475,395 684,355 74,114 630,871 20,447 3,164,464 24.9 2034 615,989 672,099 479,390 686,678 74,909 635,761 20,515 3,185,340 25.0 2035 617,851 678,978 483,400 689,104 75,698 640,571 20,582 3,206,183 25.1 2036 619,684 685,821 487,426 691,632 76,481 645,300 20,650 3,226,995 25.2 2037 621,491 692,629 491,469 694,261 77,259 649,950 20,718 3,247,777 25.2 2038 623,272 699,401 495,527 696,991 78,030 654,521 20,787 3,268,529 25.3 2039 625,028 706,138 499,602 699,819 78,796 658,990 20,855 3,289,229 25.4 2040 626,573 712,627 503,542 702,536 79,532 663,382 20,918 3,309,110 25.5 2041 628,094 719,076 507,496 705,348 80,262 667,698 20,981 3,328,955 25.6 2042 629,591 725,488 511,463 708,255 80,986 671,939 21,044 3,348,766 25.6 2043 631,067 731,860 515,445 711,257 81,704 676,105 21,107 3,368,545 25.7 2044 632,521 738,195 519,441 714,352 82,416 680,198 21,170 3,388,292 25.8 2045 633,954 744,492 523,451 717,540 83,122 684,218 21,234 3,408,010 25.8 2046 635,368 750,752 527,474 720,820 83,822 688,167 21,297 3,427,701 25.9 2047 636,763 756,974 531,512 724,192 84,517 692,046 21,361 3,447,366 26.0 2048 638,139 763,160 535,565 727,656 85,205 695,856 21,425 3,467,007 26.1 2049 639,499 769,310 539,631 731,211 85,888 699,598 21,490 3,486,626 26.1 2050 640,841 775,424 543,712 734,857 86,565 703,278 21,554 3,506,232 26.2

335

APPENDIX L: ANN ARBOR’S MITIGATION EFFORTS, 1991-2002

Year Project Description Annual Cost Savings* kWh**

Annual Reduction (MTCO2e)

1991 Recycling and Composting 21,960.47 1991 Total 21,960.47





1996 Recycling and Composting 37,924.80 Landfill Recapture/Substitution 25,687.67 1996 Total 63,612.47

1997 Bi-Fuel City Fleet CNG Vehicles Fuel Switching 2.00 City Fleet BEVs Fuel Switching 0.30 Recycling and Composting 38,862.50

Landfill Recapture/Substitution 109,835.74 1997 Total 148,700.54

1998 Landfill Barn Lighting Retrofit $82.11 1,039.37 0.91 Argo Park Lighting Retrofit $397.51 5,031.77 4.40 FS #1 Lighting Retrofit $4,455.41 56,397.59 49.33 FS #4 Lighting Retrofit $1,017.54 12,880.25 11.27 FS #6 Lighting Retrofit $553.72 7,009.11 6.13 FS #3 Lighting Retrofit $1,206.32 15,269.87 13.36 FS #2 Lighting Retrofit $568.29 7,193.54 6.29 Airport Lighting Retrofit $2,269.00 28,721.52 25.12 Bryant CC Lighting Retrofit $486.00 6,151.90 5.38 Northside CC Lighting Retrofit $501.00 6,341.77 5.55 Gallup Lighting Retrofit $442.29 5,598.61 4.90 Cobblestone Lighting Retrofit $264.85 3,352.53 2.93 Cobblestone add-on Lighting Retrofit $107.54 1,361.27 1.19 Huron Hills Lighting Retrofit $275.13 3,482.66 3.05 WWTP Treatment

Retrofit $7,327.00 92,746.84 81.12

Bi-Fuel City Fleet CNG Vehicles Fuel Switching 3.36 City Fleet BEVs Fuel Switching 0.30 Recycling and Composting 35,873.53 Landfill Recapture/Substitution $341,346.00 5,687,200.00 109,754.60 1998 Total $361,299.71 5,939,778.61 145,852.70

1999 Landfill Barn Lighting Retrofit $82.11 1,039.37 0.91 Argo Park Lighting Retrofit $397.51 5,031.77 4.40 FS #1 Lighting Retrofit $4,455.41 56,397.59 49.33 FS #4 Lighting Retrofit $1,017.54 12,880.25 11.27 FS #6 Lighting Retrofit $553.72 7,009.11 6.13

336



FS #3 Lighting Retrofit $1,206.32 15,269.87 13.36 FS #2 Lighting Retrofit $568.29 7,193.54 6.29 Airport Lighting Retrofit $2,269.00 28,721.52 25.12 Bryant CC Lighting Retrofit $486.00 6,151.90 5.38 Northside CC Lighting Retrofit $501.00 6,341.77 5.55 Gallup Lighting Retrofit $442.29 5,598.61 4.90 Cobblestone Lighting Retrofit $264.85 3,352.53 2.93 Cobblestone add-on Lighting Retrofit $107.54 1,361.27 1.19 Huron Hills Lighting Retrofit $275.13 3,482.66 3.05 WWTP Treatment

Retrofit $7,327.00 92,746.84 81.12

City Hall Boiler Fuel Switching $2,500.00 31,645.57 27.68 Airport Rooftop Units Heating Retrofit $1,062.00 13,443.04 11.76 Baker Commons Lighting Retrofit $10,002.00 126,607.59 110.73 Housing Com Office Lighting Retrofit $2,037.00 25,784.81 22.55 Bi-Fuel City Fleet CNG Vehicles Fuel Switching 3.36 City Fleet BEVs Fuel Switching 0.53 AATA Get! Downtown Program VMT 3,238.30 Recycling and Composting 37,509.17 Landfill Recapture/Substitution $302,230.60 5,415,000.00 83,241.88 1999 Total $337,785.31 5,865,059.62 124,386.86


Retrofit $7,327.00 92,746.84 81.12

City Hall Boiler Fuel Switching $2,500.00 31,645.57 27.68 Airport Rooftop Units Heating Retrofit $1,062.00 13,443.04 11.76 Baker Commons Lighting Retrofit $10,002.00 126,607.59 110.73 Housing Com Office Lighting Retrofit $2,037.00 25,784.81 22.55 Municipal Garage Lights Lighting Retrofit $2,644.00 33,468.35 29.27 Bi-Fuel City Fleet CNG Vehicles Fuel Switching 3.36 City Fleet BEVs Fuel Switching 0.75 Dedicated City Fleet CNG Vehicles

Fuel Switching 0.79

337



AATA Get! Downtown Program VMT 6,476.60 Recycling and Composting 40,110.69

Landfill Recapture/Substitution $280,077.00 5,028,000.00 70,911.36 2000 Total $318,275.71 5,511,527.97 117,926.44


Retrofit $7,327.00 92,746.84 81.12

City Hall Boiler Fuel Switching $2,500.00 31,645.57 27.68 Airport Rooftop Units Heating Retrofit $1,062.00 13,443.04 11.76 Baker Commons Lighting Retrofit $10,002.00 126,607.59 110.73 Housing Com Office Lighting Retrofit $2,037.00 25,784.81 22.55 Municipal Garage Lights Lighting Retrofit $2,644.00 33,468.35 29.27 LED Traffic Signals Efficiency

Upgrade $19,138.00 242,253.16 367.30

City Fleet Biodiesel Fuel Switching 115.59 Bi-Fuel City Fleet CNG Vehicles Fuel Switching 3.36 City Fleet BEVs Fuel Switching 0.75 Dedicated City Fleet CNG Vehicles

Fuel Switching 5.98

AATA Get! Downtown Program VMT 9,714.90 Recycling and Composting 44,622.92 Landfill Recapture/Substitution $298,847.26 5,371,330.00 63,228.46 2001 Total $356,183.97 6,097,111.14 118,482.16

2002 Landfill Barn Lighting Retrofit $82.11 1,039.37 0.91 Argo Park Lighting Retrofit $397.51 5,031.77 4.40 FS #1 Lighting Retrofit $4,455.41 56,397.59 49.33 FS #4 Lighting Retrofit $1,017.54 12,880.25 11.27 FS #6 Lighting Retrofit $553.72 7,009.11 6.13 FS #3 Lighting Retrofit $1,206.32 15,269.87 13.36 FS #2 Lighting Retrofit $568.29 7,193.54 6.29 Airport Lighting Retrofit $2,269.00 28,721.52 25.12 Bryant CC Lighting Retrofit $486.00 6,151.90 5.38 Northside CC Lighting Retrofit $501.00 6,341.77 5.55 Gallup Lighting Retrofit $442.29 5,598.61 4.90

338



Cobblestone Lighting Retrofit $264.85 3,352.53 2.93 Cobblestone add-on Lighting Retrofit $107.54 1,361.27 1.19 Huron Hills Lighting Retrofit $275.13 3,482.66 3.05

2002 WWTP Treatment Retrofit

$7,327.00 92,746.84 81.12

City Hall Boiler Fuel Switching $2,500.00 31,645.57 27.68 Airport Rooftop Units Heating Retrofit $1,062.00 13,443.04 11.76 Baker Commons Lighting Retrofit $10,002.00 126,607.59 110.73 Housing Com Office Lighting Retrofit $2,037.00 25,784.81 22.55 Municipal Garage Lights Lighting Retrofit $2,644.00 33,468.35 29.27 LED Traffic Signals Efficiency

Upgrade $19,138.00 242,253.16 414.25

City Fleet Biodiesel Fuel Switching 135.14 Bi-Fuel City Fleet CNG Vehicles Fuel Switching 3.36 City Fleet BEVs Fuel Switching 0.75 Dedicated City Fleet CNG Vehicles

Fuel Switching 5.98

AATA Get! Downtown Program VMT 12,953.20 Landfill Recapture/Substitution $268,935.57 4,851,010.00 57,103.53 2002 Total $326,272.28 5,576,791.14 71,039.11

1991-2002 GRAND TOTAL 922,618.57

* Income generated and costs saved ** kWh generated and avoided

339

APPENDIX M: ANN ARBOR’S ENERGY EFFICIENCY FINANCING PROGRAM

Dept. Building Project DescriptionEstimated

Energy Savings

Estimated Energy Costs

Simple Payback (years)

kWh Saved MTCO2e Saved

FIRE Station #1 O&M-1: Install Energy Saving Lamps

$600 $720 1.20 7,594.94 6.66

FIRE Station #1 O&M-3: Lower Hot Water Temperature

$100 $0 0.00 1,265.82 1.11

FIRE Station #1 O&M-6: Control Exhaust Fans

$500 $690 1.38 6,329.11 5.55

FIRE Station #1 ECM-1: Convert Underground Garage Lights

$1,400 $5,259 3.76 17,721.52 15.53

FIRE Station #1 ECM-2: Convert Incandescent Lights to Fluorescent

$149 $300 2.01 1,886.08 1.65

FIRE Station #1 ECM-3: Install photo-cell for outside lights

$100 $165 1.65 1,265.82 1.11

FIRE Station #1 ECM-4: Replace Exit Signs

$437 $1,260 2.88 5,531.65 4.85

FIRE Station #1 ECM-5: Repair Gaps in Overhead Doors

$137 $400 2.92 1,734.18 1.52

FIRE Station #1 ECM-6: Control Domestic Hot Water Circulation Pump

$19 $210 11.05 240.51 0.21

FIRE Station #1 ECM-7: Convert Apparatus Room Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$1,209 $5,940 4.91 15,303.80 13.42

FIRE Station #1 ECM-9: Install Energy Management Controls System

$1,270 $18,560 14.61 16,075.95 14.09

FIRE Station #2 O&M-1: Install Energy Saving Fluorescent Lamps

$86 $260 3.03 1,088.61 0.95

FIRE Station #2 O&M-2: Lower Apparatus Room Temperature

$465 $420 0.90 5,886.08 5.16


$50 $0 0.00 632.91 0.55

FIRE Station #2 O&M-5: Change Thermostat Setback Schedule

$46 $1,060 23.04 582.28 0.51

FIRE Station #2 ECM-2: Convert Misc. Incandescent fixtures to Fluorescent

$230 $930 4.04 2,911.39 2.55

FIRE Station #2 ECM-3: Install New Door-Case I

$312 $4,500 14.42 3,949.37 3.46

FIRE Station #2 ECM-5: Add Insulation to Attic

$248 $1,100 4.44 3,139.24 2.75

FIRE Station #2 ECM-7: Install High Efficiency Boilers

$1,620 $15,946 9.84 20,506.33 17.98

FIRE Station #2 ECM-8: Install Insulated Window Panels

$165 $10,000 60.61 2,088.61 1.83

FIRE Station #3 O&M-2: Modify $179 $180 1.01 2,265.82 1.99

340


Energy Savings




controls on Unit Ventilators


$188 $478 2.54 2,379.75 2.09


$494 $461 0.93 6,253.16 5.48

FIRE Station #3 O&M-6: Repair Weatherstipping

$51 $860 16.86 645.57 0.57

FIRE Station #3 ECM-1: Convert Night Lights

$338 $420 1.24 4,278.48 3.75

FIRE Station #3 ECM-2: Install Outdoor Hot Water Pump Cutoff

$150 $480 3.20 1,898.73 1.66

FIRE Station #3 ECM-3: Install Night Setback System

$147 $1,780 12.11 1,860.76 1.63

FIRE Station #3 ECM-4: Repair/Replace/Insulate Roof

$478 $0 0.00 6,050.63 5.30

FIRE Station #3 ECM-5: Replace Boiler $698 $9,546 13.68 8,835.44 7.75FIRE Station #3 ECM-6: Convert Misc.

Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$56 $570 10.18 708.86 0.62


$76 $180 2.37 962.03 0.84

FIRE Station #4 O&M-2: Replace Thermostats

$88 $546 6.20 1,113.92 0.98

FIRE Station #4 O&M-4: Limit Hot Water Use in Apparatus Room

$50 $0 0.00 632.91 0.55

FIRE Station #4 ADD : Install Boiler Controls

$300 $575 1.92 3,797.47 3.33


$47 $0 0.00 594.94 0.52

FIRE Station #4 O&M-6: Repair Door/Weatherstripping

$24 $138 5.75 303.80 0.27

FIRE Station #4 O&M-7: Repair Kitchen Exhaust Damper

$112 $24 0.21 1,417.72 1.24

FIRE Station #4 ECM-1: Repair/Replace/Insulate Roof

$500 $18,000 36.00 6,329.11 5.55

FIRE Station #6 O&M-1: Lower Domestic Hot Water Temperature

$23 $0 0.00 291.14 0.26

FIRE Station #6 O&M-2: Install Night Light

$478 $270 0.56 6,050.63 5.30

FIRE Station #6 O&M-3: Adjust Overhead Doors

$570 $800 1.40 7,215.19 6.32

FIRE Station #6 O&M-4: Install Night Setback System

$346 $528 1.53 4,379.75 3.84


$668 $240 0.36 8,455.70 7.41

341


Energy Savings





$25 $50 2.00 316.46 0.28

FIRE Station #6 ECM-2: Replace Apparatus Rm. Lights with High Pressure Sodium

$708 $2,500 3.53 8,962.03 7.86

FIRE Station #6 ECM-3: Insulate Overhead Doors

$472 $5,500 11.65 5,974.68 5.24

FIRE Station #6 ECM-4: Replace Exit Signs

$92 $570 6.20 1,164.56 1.02

FIRE Station #6 ECM-5: Replace Incandescents with Fluorescents

$810 $5,248 6.48 10,253.16 8.99

GARAGE Maint Bldg O&M-1: Install Valve on Compressor

$137 $300 2.19 1,734.18 1.52

GARAGE Maint Bldg O&M-2: Replace Lens $91 $120 1.32 1,151.90 1.01GARAGE Maint Bldg O&M-5: Reduce Light

Levels $273 $168 0.62 3,455.70 3.03

GARAGE Maint Bldg O&M-6: Install Energy Saving Lamps

$500 $660 1.32 6,329.11 5.55

GARAGE Maint Bldg O&M-7: Install Thermostat Setback System

$2,350 $1,865 0.79 29,746.84 26.08

GARAGE Maint Bldg ECM-1: Replace Four Overhead Doors

$914 $11,415 12.49 11,569.62 10.14

GARAGE Maint Bldg ECM-2: Convert Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$182 $570 3.13 2,303.80 2.02

GARAGE Maint Bldg ECM-3: Construct Hatch

$23 $450 19.57 291.14 0.26

GARAGE Maint Bldg ECM-4: Replace Exit Signs

$200 $720 3.60 2,531.65 2.22

GARAGE Maint Bldg ECM-5: Install New Unit Heaters

$387 $6,737 17.41 4,898.73 4.29

GARAGE Maint Bldg ECM-6: Convert Outside Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$109 $420 3.85 1,379.75 1.21

GARAGE Maint Bldg ECM-9: Replace High Bay Lights

$556 $6,539 11.76 7,035.70 6.17

GARAGE Pub Works O&M-1: Repair/Weatherstrip Doors

$1,000 $700 0.70 12,658.23 11.10

GARAGE Pub Works ECM-1: Convert Outside Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$55 $210 3.82 696.20 0.61

GARAGE Pub Works ECM-2: Convert Interior Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$700 $5,280 7.54 8,860.76 7.77

PARKS Bryant Com O&M-2: Repair Weatherstripping

$87 $550 6.32 1,101.27 0.97

PARKS Bryant Com O&M-3: Install Programmable Thermostats

$349 $759 2.17 4,417.72 3.87

PARKS Bryant Com O&M-4: Lower $2 $0 0.00 25.32 0.02

342


Energy Savings




Domestic Water Temperature

PARKS Bryant Com O&M-5: Install Energy Saving Fluorescent Lamps

$50 $310 6.19 632.91 0.55

PARKS Bryant Com ECM-1: Replace Exit Signs

$61 $720 11.80 772.15 0.68

PARKS Bryant Com ECM-2: Install Auto Flue Dampers

$81 $510 6.30 1,025.32 0.90

PARKS Buhr O&M-1: Weatherstrip Doors/New Door

$284 $1,450 5.11 3,594.94 3.15

PARKS Buhr O&M-5: Use Energy Saving Lamps

$64 $103 1.61 810.13 0.71

PARKS Buhr O&M-6: Install Timers to Juice and Video Machines

$64 $144 2.25 810.13 0.71

PARKS Buhr O&M-7: Lower Domestic Hot Water Temperature

$182 $0 0.00 2,303.80 2.02

PARKS Buhr ECM-1: Install Security Light

$239 $720 3.01 3,025.32 2.65

PARKS Buhr ECM-2: Install Setback Thermostats

$458 $3,379 7.38 5,797.47 5.08

PARKS Buhr ECM-3: Install Outdoor Hot Water Pump Cutoff

$147 $480 3.27 1,860.76 1.63

PARKS Buhr ECM-4: Convert Incandescent Lights to Fluorescent

$883 $14,377 16.28 11,177.22 9.80

PARKS Buhr ECM-6: Replace Exit Signs

$28 $540 19.29 354.43 0.31

PARKS Buhr ECM-7: Repair/Insulate Roof

$550 $32,520 59.13 6,962.03 6.10

PARKS Buhr ECM-8: Replace Glass with Liner Panels

$112 $1,070 9.55 1,417.72 1.24

PARKS Buhr ECM-9: Install Solar Pool Heating System

$1,542 $29,699 19.26 19,518.99 17.11

PARKS Buhr ECM-10: Install Condenser System

$15,050 $63,600 4.23 190,506.33 167.00

PARKS Senior Cent O&M-1: Lower Domestic Hot Water Temperature

$25 $0 0.00 316.46 0.28

PARKS Senior Cent ECM-2: Insulate Pipes $19 $108 5.68 240.51 0.21PARKS Senior Cent ECM-3: Replace

Double Doors $75 $1,300 17.33 949.37 0.83

PARKS Senior Cent ECM-4: Replace Exit Signs

$56 $660 11.79 708.86 0.62

PARKS Cultural Arts Bldg.

O&M-2: Reduce Lighting Levels

$162 $415 2.56 2,050.63 1.80


O&M-5: Install Energy Saving Lamps

$100 $455 4.55 1,265.82 1.11


O&M-7: Weatherstrip Doors

$72 $500 6.94 911.39 0.80


ECM-1: Replace Thermostats

$100 $533 5.33 1,265.82 1.11

343


Energy Savings





ECM-2: Install Low Leakage Damper

$100 $155 1.55 1,265.82 1.11


ECM-3: Convert Outside Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$200 $540 2.70 2,531.65 2.22

PARKS Cultural Arts Bldg

ADD : Install Ceiling Fans

$80 $450 5.63 1,012.66 0.89


ECM-4: Replace Exit Signs

$57 $660 11.58 721.52 0.63


ECM-5: Insulate Walls $865 $12,925 14.94 10,949.37 9.60


ECM-6: Convert Dance Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$412 $6,720 16.31 5,215.19 4.57

PARKS Fuller Pool Facility

O&M-1: Lower Temperature/Install Programmable Thermostats

$1,500 $2,275 1.52 18,987.34 16.64


O&M-2: Install Energy Saving Fluorescent Lights

$37 $439 11.87 468.35 0.41


ECM-1: Replace Defective Door

$71 $650 9.15 898.73 0.79


ECM-3: Replace Perimeter Lights with High Pressure Sodium

$326 $1,986 6.09 4,126.58 3.62


ECM-4: Convert Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$539 $4,342 8.06 6,822.78 5.98



$112 $1,470 13.13 1,417.72 1.24


ECM-9: Install Solar Pool Heating System

$2,150 $35,569 16.54 27,215.19 23.86


ECM-10: Repair & Insulate Roof

300.0 $40,200 134.00 3,797.47 3.33

PARKS Huron Hill Maintenance Barn


$20 $90 4.50 253.16 0.22


O&M-3: Reduce Hot Water Temperature

$39 $0 0.00 493.67 0.43


O&M-4: Insulate Hot Water Pipe

$3 $36 12.00 37.97 0.03



$71 $250 3.52 898.73 0.79


O&M-6: Install Photocell

$29 $78 2.69 367.09 0.32

PARKS Leslie Golf Club House

O&M-3: Install Programmable Thermostats

$262 $480 1.83 3,316.46 2.91


O&M-4: Lower Hot Water Temperature

$6 $0 0.00 75.95 0.07

344


Energy Savings





O&M-7: Insulate Hot Water Pipe

$6 $42 7.00 75.95 0.07


ECM-4: Convert Outside Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$56 $420 7.50 708.86 0.62


ECM-7: Insulate Roof $130 $4,985 38.35 1,645.57 1.44

PARKS Mack Pool Facility


$173 $240 1.39 2,189.87 1.92


O&M-4: Control Exhaust Fans

$100 $1,800 18.00 1,265.82 1.11


O&M-6: Install Night Thermostat Setback

$1,720 $3,600 2.09 21,772.15 19.09


ECM-1: Insulate Door Frames

$28 $200 7.14 354.43 0.31


ECM-2: Replace/Repair/Insulate Roof

$4,696 $50,750 10.81 59,443.04 52.11


ECM-3: Install Pool Blanket

$1,649 $19,900 12.07 20,873.42 18.30


ECM-4: Convert Heating System

$3,706 $30,577 8.25 46,911.39 41.12


ECM-5: Replace Outside Light with High Pressure Sodium

$64 $420 6.56 810.13 0.71



$118 $1,560 13.22 1,493.67 1.31

PARKS Northside Community Center

O&M-2: Repair Weatherstripping

$48 $100 2.08 607.59 0.53


ECM-1: Install Programmable Thermostats

$150 $1,117 7.45 1,898.73 1.66



$58 $660 11.38 734.18 0.64


ECM-4: Replace Hall Lights

$68 $325 4.78 860.76 0.75


ECM-5: Install Flue Dampers

$30 $960 32.00 379.75 0.33

PARKS Allmindinger ECM-1: Weatherstrip Doors

$73 $275 3.77 924.05 0.81

PARKS Allmindinger ECM-2: Install New Heat System/Operate at Lower Temperature

$256 $2,732 10.67 3,240.51 2.84

PARKS Allmindinger ECM-3: Convert Incandescent Lights to Fluorescent

$27 $728 26.96 341.77 0.30

PARKS Argo Canoe Livery

ECM-1: Install Energy Saving Lamps

$10 $44 4.44 126.58 0.11


ADD: Install Photo Cell $50 $500 10.00 632.91 0.55

345


Energy Savings





ECM-2: Convert Interior Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$194 $852 4.39 2,455.70 2.15

PARKS Burns Park ECM-1: Convert Interior Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$150 $1,386 9.24 1,898.73 1.66

PARKS Burns Park ECM-2: Weatherstrip Doors

$126 $425 3.37 1,594.94 1.40

PARKS Burns Park ADD: Install Photo-cell $100 $314 3.14 1,265.82 1.11PARKS Burns Park ECM-3: Convert

Building Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$238 $522 2.19 3,012.66 2.64

PARKS Burns Park ECM-4: Add Insulation to Roof

$68 $402 5.91 860.76 0.75

PARKS Burns Park ECM-5: Install New Heat System/Operate at Lower Temperature

$444 $2,452 5.52 5,620.25 4.93

PARKS Burns Park ECM-6: Install Insulated Overhead Door

$32 $1,250 39.06 405.06 0.36

PARKS Liberty Plaza ECM-1: Convert Pole Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$273 $1,800 6.59 3,455.70 3.03

PARKS Northside Park Shelter

ECM-1: Weatherstrip Doors

$99 $275 2.78 1,253.16 1.10


ECM-3: Insulate Hot Water Pipes

$10 $36 3.60 126.58 0.11


ECM-4: Convert Interior Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$30 $636 21.20 379.75 0.33


ECM-5: Install New Heat System/Operate at Lower Temperature

$284 $2,452 8.63 3,594.94 3.15

PARKS Scheffler Park ECM-1: Convert Interior Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$35 $288 8.23 443.04 0.39

PARKS Scheffler Park ECM-2: Install New Thermostat/Lower Building Temperature

$212 $273 1.29 2,683.54 2.35

PARKS West Park ECM-2: Convert Interior Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$145 $522 3.60 1,835.44 1.61

PARKS West Park ECM-3: Install New Thermostat/Lower Building Temperature

$388 $600 1.55 4,911.39 4.31

PARKS West Park ADD : Install Photo-cell

$100 $372 3.72 1,265.82 1.11

PARKS West Park ECM-4: Install New Furnace

$331 $2,329 7.04 4,189.87 3.67

PARKS Wheeler ECM-1: Weatherstrip Doors

$64 $250 3.91 810.13 0.71

PARKS Wheeler ECM-2: Install Energy Saving Lamps

$10 $44 4.44 126.58 0.11

346


Energy Savings




PARKS Wheeler ECM-3: Convert Interior Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$30 $216 7.20 379.75 0.33

PARKS Wheeler ECM-4: Convert Site Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$386 $3,216 8.33 4,886.08 4.28

PARKS Wheeler ECM-5: Install New Thermostat/Lower Building Temperature

$147 $600 4.08 1,860.76 1.63

PARKS Wheeler ECM-7: Install High-Efficiency Furnace

$97 $1,817 18.73 1,227.85 1.08

PARKS Vet's Park Shelter

ADD : Convert Outside Lights to HPS

$100 $685 6.85 1,265.82 1.11

PARKS Veterans Pool and Ice Fac.


$581 $2,055 3.54 7,354.43 6.45


O&M-2: Install Clock on Pump

$92 $180 1.96 1,164.56 1.02


O&M-6: Install Timers $70 $95 1.36 886.08 0.78


O&M-7: Lower Hot Water Temperature

$395 $0 0.00 5,000.00 4.38


ECM-1: Install High Efficiency Lights in Rink

$3,000 $10,800 3.60 37,974.68 33.29


ECM-2: Install Exit Signs

$248 $1,342 5.41 3,139.24 2.75


ECM-3: Install Outdoor Pump Cutoff

$130 $878 6.75 1,645.57 1.44


ECM-4: Convert Exterior Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$1,049 $3,498 3.33 13,278.48 11.64


ECM-5: Install Programmable Thermostats

$494 $1,344 2.72 6,253.16 5.48


ECM-6: Convert Incandescent Lamps to Fluorescent

$1,362 $7,639 5.61 17,240.51 15.11


ECM-7: Install New Sign Light

$92 $400 4.35 1,164.56 1.02


ECM-10: Convert Parking Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$350 $5,760 16.46 4,430.38 3.88


ECM-12: Install Solar Pool Heating System

$1,825 $35,569 19.49 23,101.27 20.25

PURCH City Hall ECM-1: Power Factor Correction

$1,363 $4,560 3.35 17,253.16 15.12

PURCH City Hall O&M-1: Natural Gas Chiller

$11,000 $188,719 17.16 139,240.51 122.06

TRANS Airport Administration Bldg.

O&M-1: Repair Ceiling Insulation

$41 $225 5.49 518.99 0.45

347


Energy Savings





O&M-2: Install Programmable Thermostats

$304 $529 1.74 3,848.10 3.37


O&M-3: Install Fan Switch on Lights

$145 $120 0.83 1,835.44 1.61


O&M-4: Lower Domestic Hot Water Temperature

$64 $0 0.00 810.13 0.71



$54 $118 2.18 683.54 0.60


ECM-2: Insulate Metal Doors

$35 $175 5.00 443.04 0.39


ECM-4: Convert Waiting Room Lights to Fluorescent

$200 $720 3.60 2,531.65 2.22


ECM-5: Convert Perimiter Lights to High Pressure Sodium

$282 $1,672 5.93 3,569.62 3.13


ECM-6: Install Destratifying Fan

$40 $240 6.00 506.33 0.44


ECM-7: Insulate Atrium Ceiling

$211 $4,200 19.91 2,670.89 2.34

TRANS Airport Hangars/Lighting

ECM-1: Replace Hangar Lights with Metal Halide lights

$3,000 $30,592 10.20 37,974.68 33.29

TRANS Airport Maintenance Facility

O&M-1: Install Setback Thermostats

$637 $600 0.94 8,063.29 7.07


ECM-1: Weatherstrip Doors

$199 $400 2.01 2,518.99 2.21


ECM-2: Partition Work Area

$841 $4,705 5.59 10,645.57 9.33


ECM-3: Replace Outside Lights w/High Pressure Sodium

$109 $420 3.85 1,379.75 1.21


ECM-4: Replace Sectional Garage door

$129 $6,980 54.11 1,632.91 1.43


ECM-5: Install High Efficiency Furnace

$257 $4,545 17.68 3,253.16 2.85

TRANS Maynard Parking Structure

O&M-1: Convert Lighting to HPS

$48,527 $157,929 3.25 614,265.82 538.47

TRANS Street Lighting Retrofits

ECM-1: Convert Municipal Street Lts to High Pressure Sodium

$1,600 $3,355 2.10 20,253.16 17.75

348


Energy Savings




TRANS Street Lighting Retrofits

ECM-2: Convert Edison Owned Street Lts to High Pressure Sodium

$13,073 $29,760 2.28 165,481.01 145.06

Annual Savings: $161,917 $1,074,108 2,049,580.00 1796.66

349

APPENDIX N: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS COEFFICIENTS This appendix details how GHG coefficient factors were used to convert a given quantity from an energy carrier (electricity, natural gas, petroleum) into an equivalent GHG emission. Coefficients detailed in this appendix include the associated upstream process energy such as raw materials extraction, mining, and transportation fuels among other associated upstream processes.

1. Electricity Generation from DTE 0.0008766 MTCO2e/MWh

This value is based on the total fuel cycle energy of fossil fuels. It includes combustion energy at the power plants, plus upstream processes including the energy needed to extract and process fuels. Methodology For Estimating GHG the Coefficient Step 1: Assuming that 1.0 MWh of electricity reaches the final consumer, the total

combustion energy at the power plant was calculated as follows: [1.0 MWh / (1 – 0.092)] × 10,500 Btu/kWh = 11,564 kBtu

Assumptions: Distribution & Transmission loss 9.2% 334

Heat rate at power plant 10,500 Btu/kWh Step 2: The mixture of fossil fuels consumed by DTE’s electricity generation is shown in

the Table N-1. The primary resource energy (combustion energy) was calculated for each fuel type.

Table N-1: Fuel Mixture of Detroit Edison (2001)

Fuel Type Fraction (%)335 Primary Resource Energy (kBtu) Coal 76.7 8,870 Natural Gas 3.2 370 Petroleum 0.6 69 Total 9,309

Step 3: Pre-combustion energy can be aggregated into primary resource energy (combustion

energy), to quantify total fuel cycle energy. Total fuel cycle energy was calculated for each type of fuel and is indicated in Table N-2.

334 Annual Energy Review 1997, Table 8.1. 335 DTE website <http://www.dteenergy.com/community/environmental/fuelMix.html>.

350

Table N-2: Total Fuel Cycle Energy for Three Fuel Types Used by DTE

Fuel Type Conversion Factor336

Pre-combustion Energy (kBtu)

Total Fuel Cycle Energy

(kBtu) Coal 0.284 M Btu / 1000 lbs 203 9,073 Natural Gas 0.125 M Btu / 1000 cuft 45 415 Petroleum 25.7 M Btu / 1000 gal 12 81 Total 260 9,569

Example of calculation for pre-combustion energy of coal (shown in Table N-2)

The ratio between pre-combustion energy and combustion energy

= 0.284 MMBtu/1000 lbs (from the table above) = 0.284 MMBtu / (24.8/2) MMBtu

= (0.284x2 MMBtu) / 24.8 MMBtu = 0.568 / 24.8

where 1000 lbs = 0.5 short ton 1 short ton = 24.8 MMBtu of coal337

Pre-combustion energy for 5,990 kBtu of coal is;

8,870 kBtu x (0.568/24.8) = 203 kBtu

Therefore, the total fuel cycle energy for coal = pre-combustion energy + combustion energy = 203 + 8,870 = 9,073 kBtu

Step 4: Once total fuel cycle energy is evaluated, CO2 emissions can be calculated from the

using equation:

CO2 emissions = Total fuel cycle energy × Carbon Content Coefficient × Fraction Oxidized × (44/12)

Final CO2 emission coefficient = CO2 emission from coal + CO2 emission from natural gas + CO2 emission from

petroleum = 876.64 kgCO2eq/MWh = 0.0008766 MTCO2e/kWh

336 Franklin Associates 1992. 337 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000 Final Version, April 2002, Table W-1, W-2.

351

Table N-3: Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Three Fuel Types Used by DTE

Fuel Type

Carbon Content Coefficient338

(kg Carbon/MMBtu) Fraction Oxidized339

*2 CO2 Emissions

(kg) Coal (utility coal) 25.76 0.99 848.41 Natural Gas 14.47 0.995 21.91 Petroleum (residual fuel) 21.49 0.99 6.32

Total CO2 Emissions (kg/MWh)

876.64

338 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000 Final Version, April 2002. 339 Fraction oxidized represents carbon that does not oxidize during combustion process.

352

2. Electricity Generation from the CPP 0.0006896 MTCO2e/kWh The University of Michigan CPP’s primary fuel sources is natural gas. The natural gas is used to operate boilers and gas turbines. Generally, natural gas has lower carbon intensity, so GHG emissions from the CPP tends to be relatively low compared to coal and oil fired power plants. The coefficient of electricity generation for the CPP is based on the total fuel cycle energy of fossil fuels that are used for combustion energy at power plants, plus all upstream processes including the energy for extraction and the processing of fuels. Methodology for estimating GHG coefficient Step 1: Assuming that 1.0 MWh of electricity reaches the final consumer, the total

combustion energy at the power plant was calculated as follows:

[1.0 MWh / (1 – 0.092)] × 10,500 Btu/kWh = 11,564 kBtu

Assumptions: Distribution & Transmission loss 9.2% Heat rate at power plant 10,500 Btu/kWh Step 2: The fossil fuel consumption mixture for the CCP’s electricity generation is shown in

the Table N-4. The primary resource energy (combustion energy) was calculated by fuel type.

Table N-4: Fuel Mixture of CPP (Average between 1996 and 1999) Fuel Type Fraction (%)340 Primary Resource Energy (kBtu) Coal 0 0 Natural Gas 98.7 11,414 Petroleum 1.3 150 Total 11564

Step 3: Pre-combustion energy can be aggregated into primary resource energy (combustion

energy), to quantify total fuel cycle energy. Total fuel cycle energy was calculated for each type of fuel and is indicated in Table N-5.

340 UM Utilities website <http://www.plantops.umich.edu/utilities/Utilities/CentralPowerPlant/>.

353

Table N-5: Total Fuel Cycle Energy for Two Fuel Types Used at the Central Power Plant

Fuel Type Conversion Factor341

Pre-combustion Energy (kBtu)

Total Fuel Cycle Energy (kBtu)

Natural Gas

0.125 MMBtu / ,1000 cuft 1,389 12,803

Petroleum

25.7 MMBtu / 1,000 gal 26 176

Total

1,415 12,979

Step 4: Once total fuel cycle energy is evaluated, CO2 emissions can be calculated using the following equation.

CO2 emissions = Total fuel cycle energy × Carbon Content Coefficient × Fraction Oxidized × (44/12)

Final CO2 emission coefficient = CO2 emission from Natural Gas + CO2 emission from Petroleum = 689.6 kgCO2e/MWh

Table N-6: Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Two Fuel Types Used at the Central Power Plant

Fuel Type

Carbon Content Coefficient

(kg Carbon/million Btu)342 Fraction

Oxidized343 CO2 Emissions

(kg) Natural Gas 14.47 0.995 675.9 Petroleum (Residual fuel) 21.49 0.99 13.7

Total CO2 Emissions (kg/MWh)

689.6

341 Franklin Associates 1992. 342 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2000 Final Version, April 2002. 343 Fraction oxidized represents carbon that does not oxidize during combustion process.

354

3. Emissions Coefficient for Natural Gas 0.0604 (MTCO2e/mcf)

This number is derived from the GREET344 model and is 16.04 Tg Carbon/QBtu. Using the conversion factor of 44/12 to convert carbon into carbon dioxide, 58.81 kgCO2 e/MMBtu NG is calculated as follows:

16.04 Tg Carbon/QBtu x (44/12) = 58.81 kg CO2e/MMBtuNG345 = 0.0604 MTCO2e/mcf

4. Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficient for Gasoline 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallon Two types of petroleum were considered as transportation fuels: gasoline and diesel fuel. GHG coefficients are slightly different between the two fuel types.346 However, the total number of VMT was calculated and included all types of vehicles. The Team considered the fuel economies for each vehicle type when calculating VMT. The Team used the same GHG emissions coefficient for diesel and gasoline fueled vehicles.

This value is based on the GREET model. Using the GREET model, the Team calculated that a passenger vehicle with a fuel economy of 22.4 mile per gallon operating on conventional gasoline will emit 390 grams of CO2, 0.084 grams of Methane (CH4), and 0.028 gram of Nitrous Oxide (N2O) for each mile of driving operation. Employing a global warming potential for CH4 of 23 and 296 for N2O, greenhouse gas emissions coefficient can be calculated as follows:

390 + (0.084 x 23) + (0.028 x 296) = 400.22 grams CO2e/mile = 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallon347 = 71.72 [kgCO2e/MMBtu gasoline 5. Greenhouse Gas Emission Coefficient for Municipal Solid Waste

Please refer to Appendix G.

344 GREET stands for: Greenhouse gases Regulated Emissions and Energy use in Transportation. The GREET model employs graphical user interface to calculate energy efficiencies and emissions for different transportation fuels and vehicles technologies based an default assumptions. It was developed by Argonne National Laboratory. 345 MMBtu NG = Metric Million Btu of Natural Gas. 346 According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, emission coefficient for diesel are 161.386 lbs CO2 per million Btu (=73.21 kgCO2/million Btu), whereas that of motor gasoline is 156.425 lbs CO2 per million Btu (=70.94 kgCO2/million Btu) <http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/factors.html>. 347 0.00897 MTCO2e/gallon corresponds to 71.72 kg CO2e/MMBtu gasoline (conversion factor: 1 gallon of gasoline = 5.253/42 MMBtu).

355

APPENDIX O: GREET MODEL INPUTS, ASSUMPTIONS AND OUTPUTS Passenger and Light Duty Truck 2: Comparing Dedicated and Bi-Fuel CNG with Equivalent CG Vehicles

Table O-1: Pathway Selection

Conventional Gasoline Vehicle Technology

Spark Ignition Engine Pathway Options

Conventional Gasoline O2 Content (%): 0.4 Conventional Gasoline Sulfur Level (ppm): 340 Conventional Gasoline Oxygenate: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether

Compressed Natural Gasoline Vehicle Technology

Bi-Fuel Spark Ignition engine Dedicated Spark Ignition engine

Pathway Options CNG Feedstock Source: North America Natural Gas

Electricity Pathway Options

NG CC Turbine for NG Plants (%): 20 Advanced Technology Share: Advanced Coal Technology for Coal Plants (%): 5

Marginal Generation Mix Residual Oil (%): 1 Natural Gas (%): 14.9 Coal (%): 53.8 Nuclear Power (%): 18 Others (%): 12.3

Average Generation Mix Residual Oil (%): 1 Natural Gas (%): 14.9 Coal (%): 53.8 Nuclear Power (%): 18 Others (%): 12.3

356

Table O-2: Fuel Production Assumptions

Natural Gas Items Assumptions NA NG Recovery Efficiency (%) 97.5% NA NG Processing Efficiency (%) 97.5%

CNG Assumptions NG Compression Efficiency: NG Compressors (%) 93.0% NG Compression Efficiency: Electric Compressors (%) 97.0%

Electricity Items Assumptions Residual Oil Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 35.0% Residual Oil Utitity Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Combined Cycle Turbine Efficiency (%) 55.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 32.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.5% Advanced Coal Technology for Power Generation (%) 41.5% Electricity Transmission and Distribution Loss (%) 8.0%

Petroleum Items Assumptions Crude Recovery Efficiency (%) 97.7% CG Refining Efficiency (%) 85.5%

357

Table O-3: Vehicle Operation Assumptions

Baseline Vehicles Items Gasoline Car Diesel Car Gasoline Equivalent MPG 22.4 27.4 Exhaust VOC g/mile 0.08 0.08 Evaporative VOC g/mile 0.127 0 CO g/mile 5.517 1.07 NOx g/mile 0.275 0.6 Exhaust PM10 g/mile 0.012 0.1 Brake and Tire Wearing PM10 g/mile 0.021 0.021 CH4 g/mile 0.084 0.011 N2O g/mile 0.028 0.016

MPG and Emission Ratios: AFV/GV

Items SI Vehicle: Bi-fuel

CNGV SI Vehicle:

Dedicated CNGV Gasoline Equivalent MPG 90.0% 95.0% Exhaust VOC g/mile 60.0% 40.0% Evaporative VOC g/mile 50.0% 10.0% CO g/mile 80.0% 80.0% NOx g/mile 100.0% 90.0% Exhaust PM10 g/mile 10.0% 5.0% Brake and Tire Wearing PM10 g/mile 100.0% 100.0% CH4 g/mile 1000.0% 1000.0% N2O g/mile 60.0% 80.0%

35

8

Tab

le O

-4: F

uel T

rans

port

atio

n A

ssum

ptio

ns

Feed

stoc

k an

d Fu

el

Fe

edst

ock

NG

T

rans

mis

sion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

D

istr

ibut

ion

Fu

el/F

eeds

tock

Pi

pelin

e

Oce

an T

anke

r B

arge

Pi

pelin

e

Rai

l T

ruck

T

ruck

N

G-B

ased

Fue

l M

ode

Shar

e

100.

0%

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

CN

G

Dis

tanc

e

750

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

N/A

N

/A

Petr

oleu

m

Mod

e Sh

are

20.0

%

4.0%

73

.0%

7.

0%

10

0.0%

C

G

Dis

tanc

e

1,

700

520

400

800

30

359

Passenger Vehicles: Comparing Convention Gasoline to Hybrid Electric Vehicles


Federal Reformulated Gasoline Vehicle Technology

Spark Ignition Engine Grid Independent Hybrid Electric Vehicle engine

Pathway Options FRFG O2 Content (%): 2.3 FRFG Sulfur Level (ppm): 150 FRFG Oxygenate: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether


Petroleum Items Assumptions Crude Recovery Efficiency (%) 97.7% CG Refining Efficiency (%) 85.5% FRFG Refining Efficiency (%) 86.0% CARFG Refining Efficiency (%) 85.5% Crude Recovery Efficiency (%) 97.7% LSD Refining Efficiency (%) 87.0% Crude Recovery Efficiency (%) 97.7% CD Refining Efficiency (%) 89.0%

Ethanol Items Assumptions CO2 Emissions from Land use Change by Corn Farming (g/bushel) 195 Corn Farming Energy Use (Btu/bushel) 23,000 Ethanol Production Energy Use: Dry Mill (Btu/gallon) 39,000 Ethanol Production Energy Use: Wet Mill (Btu/gallon) 37,000

Electricity Items Assumptions Residual Oil Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 35.0% Residual Oil Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Combined Cycle Turbine Efficiency (%) 55.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 32.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.5% Advanced Coal Technology for Power Generation (%) 41.5% Electricity Transmission and Distribution Loss (%) 8.0%

36

0

Tab

le O

-7: F

uel T

rans

port

atio

n A

ssum

ptio

ns

Feed

stoc

k an

d Fu

el

Feed

stoc

k N

G

Tra

nsm

issi

on

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Dis

trib

utio

n

Fuel

/Fee

dsto

ck

Pipe

line

O

cean

Tan

ker

Bar

ge

Pipe

line

R

ail

Tru

ck

Tru

ck

Petr

oleu

m

Mod

e Sh

are

20.0

%

4.0%

73

.0%

7.

0%

10

0.0%

C

G

Dis

tanc

e

1,

700

520

400

800

30

M

ode

Shar

e

20

.0%

4.

0%

73.0

%

7.0%

100.

0%

FRFG

D

ista

nce

1,70

0 52

0 40

0 80

0

30

Mod

e Sh

are

0.0%

0.

0%

95.0

%

5.0%

100.

0%

CA

RFG

D

ista

nce

3,90

0 20

0 15

0 25

0

30

Mod

e Sh

are

40

.0%

0.

0%

40.0

%

20.0

%

E

than

ol

Dis

tanc

e

520

600

800

80

Oce

an T

anke

r

Item

s

Oce

an

Tan

ker

Size

(t

ons)

Cru

de O

il

1,14

3,00

0

Gas

olin

e

150,

000

361

Table O-8: Vehicle Operating Assumptions


Items SI Vehicle:

FRFG SI Vehicle:

CARFG GI HEV: FRFG Gasoline Equivalent MPG 100.0% 100.0% 140.0% Exhaust VOC 90.0% 90.0% 90.0% Evaporative VOC 70.0% 70.0% 60.0% CO 80.0% 80.0% 80.0% NOx 95.0% 95.0% 100.0% Exhaust PM10 95.0% 95.0% 120.0% Brake and Tire Wearing PM10 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CH4 92.0% 92.0% 100.0% N2O 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

362

Light Duty Truck 1: Comparing Convention Diesel to Biodiesel


Low Sulfur Diesel Vehicle Technology

Compression-Ignition, Direct Injection Pathway Options

Low-Sulfur Diesel Sulfur Level (ppm): 30 Low-Sulfur Diesel Location for Use: United States

Electricity

Pathway Options NG CC Turbine for NG Plants (%): 30 Advanced Technology Share: Advanced Coal Technology for Coal Plants (%): 20



Conventional Diesel Vehicle Technology


Conventional Diesel Sulfur Level (ppm): 350 Conventional Diesel Location for Use: United States

Biodiesel

Vehicle Technology Compression-Ignition, Direct Injection

Pathway Options Soybean Farming Soy Diesel (%): 33.6 Soybean Farming, Co-Products (%): 66.4 Soy Oil Extraction, Soy Diesel (%): 33.6 Soy Oil Extraction, Co-Products (%): 66.4 Soy Oil Transesterification, Soy Diesel (%): 70.1 Soy Oil Transesterification, Co-Products (%): 29.9

363

Table O-10: Vehicle Simulation Options

Vehicle Simulation Options Type of Gasoline and Diesel for Blending with Alternative Fuels

Biodiesel Low Sulfur Diesel Share of BD for CIDI engine (%) 0 Biodiesel Conventional Diesel Share of BD for CIDI engine (%) 20 Biodiesel Low Sulfur Diesel Share of BD for CIDI engine (%) 80 Biodiesel Low Sulfur Diesel Share of BD for CIDI engine (%) 100


Electricity Items Assumptions Residual Oil Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 35.0% Residual Oil Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Combined Cycle Turbine Efficiency (%) 55.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 32.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.5% Advanced Coal Technology for Power Generation (%) 41.5% Electricity Transmission and Distribution Loss (%) 8.0%

36

4

Tab

le O

-12:

Fue

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ass

umpt

ions

Feed

stoc

k an

d Fu

el

Fe

edst

ock

NG

T

rans

mis

sion

T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n D

istr

ibut

ion

Fu

el/F

eeds

tock

Pipe

line

O

cean

Tan

ker

Bar

ge

Pipe

line

R

ail

Tru

ck

Tru

ck

Petr

oleu

m

Mod

e Sh

are

57.0

%

1.0%

10

0.0%

0.

0%

0.0%

Cru

de fo

r U

.S. A

vera

ge

Dis

tanc

e

5,

080

500

750

800

30

M

ode

Shar

e

16

.0%

6.

0%

75.0

%

7.0%

100.

0%

LSD

D

ista

nce

1,45

0 52

0 40

0 80

0

30

Mod

e Sh

are

16.0

%

6.0%

75

.0%

7.

0%

10

0.0%

C

D

Dis

tanc

e

1,

450

520

400

800

30

.

Bio

Ene

rgy

M

ode

Shar

e

8.00

%

63.0

0%

29.0

0%

10

0.00

%

Bio

dies

el

Dis

tanc

e

520

400

800

30

Oce

an T

anke

r

Item

s O

cean

Tan

ker

Size

(ton

s)

C

rude

Oil

1,

143,

000

365


Baseline Vehicles Items Gasoline LDT1 Diesel LDT1 Gasoline Equivalent MPG 18 21.8 Exhaust VOC 0.062 0.08 Evaporative VOC 0.063 0 CO 2.759 5.518 NOx 0.036 0.135 Exhaust PM10 0.01 0.02 Brake and Tire Wearing PM10 0.021 0.021 CH4 0.065 0.014 N2O 0.033 0.024


Items CIDI Vehicle:

RFD CIDI Vehicle: BD Gasoline Equivalent MPG 121.1% 121.1% Exhaust VOC 100.0% Evaporative VOC CO 100.0% NOx 100.0% Exhaust PM10 90.0% Brake and Tire Wearing PM10 100.0% CH4 100.0% N2O 100.0%

366

Table O-14: Light Duty Trucks 1: Well-to-Wheel Energy Consumption and Emissions

CIDI Vehicle: Low-Sulfur Diesel CIDI Vehicle: BD20 Btu/mile or grams/mile Btu/mile or grams/mile


Operation Item Feedstock Fuel Vehicle

OperationTotal Energy 215 886 5,172 Total Energy 270 1,012 5,172Fossil Fuels 207 875 5,172 Fossil Fuels 261 995 4,210Petroleum 65 447 5,172 Petroleum 115 382 4,210CO2 21 64 418 CO2 -54 68 419CH4 0.471 0.069 0.014 CH4 0.393 0.109 0.014N2O 0.000 0.001 0.024 N2O 0.004 0.001 0.024GHGs 31 66 425 GHGs -45 70 426VOC: Total 0.016 0.027 0.080 VOC: Total 0.019 0.094 0.080CO: Total 0.039 0.031 5.518 CO: Total 0.057 0.053 5.518NOx: Total 0.108 0.085 0.135 NOx: Total 0.131 0.127 0.135PM10: Total 0.003 0.012 0.041 PM10: Total 0.004 0.012 0.039SOx: Total 0.018 0.070 0.000 SOx: Total 0.019 0.066 0.000VOC: Urban 0.001 0.011 0.080 VOC: Urban 0.002 0.010 0.080CO: Urban 0.002 0.016 5.518 CO: Urban 0.003 0.013 5.518NOx: Urban 0.003 0.031 0.135 NOx: Urban 0.005 0.027 0.135PM10: Urban 0.000 0.007 0.041 PM10: Urban 0.000 0.006 0.039SOx: Urban 0.001 0.036 0.000 SOx: Urban 0.003 0.030 0.000

CIDI Vehicle: BD80 CIDI Vehicle: Conventional Diesel

Btu/mile or grams/mile Btu/mile or grams/mile


Operation Item Feedstock Fuel Vehicle

OperationTotal Energy 448 1,419 5,172 Total Energy 236.0606 804.53289 5612.2449Fossil Fuels 435 1,384 1,110 Fossil Fuels 226.90232 794.20483 5612.2449Petroleum 274 174 1,110 Petroleum 70.876423 406.45735 5612.2449CO2 -296 79 422 CO2 22.67184 58.492706 451.36943CH4 0.144 0.237 0.014 CH4 0.5106419 0.0630483 0.014N2O 0.014 0.002 0.024 N2O 0.0004334 0.0009355 0.024GHGs -289 85 429 GHGs 33.529683 60.106736 459.10343VOC: Total 0.026 0.310 0.080 VOC: Total 0.0177875 0.028106 0.091CO: Total 0.114 0.123 5.518 CO: Total 0.0443689 0.029373 1.139NOx: Total 0.205 0.264 0.135 NOx: Total 0.1213929 0.0895185 0.6PM10: Total 0.008 0.010 0.039 PM10: Total 0.0037156 0.011436 0.121SOx: Total 0.022 0.052 0.000 SOx: Total 0.0249544 0.0765072 0.099055VOC: Urban 0.004 0.006 0.080 VOC: Urban 0 0.0117378 0.091CO: Urban 0.006 0.005 5.518 CO: Urban 0 0.0144884 1.139NOx: Urban 0.012 0.011 0.135 NOx: Urban 0 0.0327567 0.6

PM10: Urban 0.002 0.002 0.039PM10: Urban 0.0011103 0.0062071 0.121

SOx: Urban 0.009 0.010 0.000 SOx: Urban 0.0024747 0.03779 0.099055

367

CIDI Vehicle: BD100 Btu/mile or grams/mile


OperationTotal Energy 510 1,564 5,172Fossil Fuels 497 1,523 0Petroleum 331 99 0CO2 -383 84 423CH4 0.055 0.283 0.014N2O 0.017 0.002 0.024GHGs -377 90 430VOC: Total 0.029 0.387 0.080CO: Total 0.134 0.147 5.518NOx: Total 0.231 0.314 0.135PM10: Total 0.009 0.009 0.039SOx: Total 0.023 0.047 0.000VOC: Urban 0.004 0.005 0.080CO: Urban 0.007 0.002 5.518NOx: Urban 0.014 0.006 0.135PM10: Urban 0.002 0.000 0.039SOx: Urban 0.011 0.002 0.000

368

Heavy Duty Vehicles: City Transit Buses Using Low-sulfur Diesel348


Low Sulfur Diesel Vehicle Technology


Low-Sulfur Diesel Sulfur Level (ppm): 30 Low-Sulfur Diesel Location for Use: United States

Electricity Pathway Options

NG CC Turbine for NG Plants (%): 30 Advanced Technology Share: Advanced Coal Technology for Coal Plants (%): 20



348 GREET 1.6 beta is designed to model light duty vehicles. With guidance from Argonne National Labs, the Team revised some assumption made when modeling vehicle emissions to approximate the well to wheels emissions of a city transit bus.

369


Petroleum Items Assumptions Crude Recovery Efficiency (%) 97.7% LSD Refining Efficiency (%) 87.0%

Electricity Items Assumptions Residual Oil Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 35.0% Residual Oil Utitity Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Current (%) 34.0% NG Simple Cycle Turbine Efficiency, Future (%) 35.0% NG Combined Cycle Turbine Efficiency (%) 55.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Current (%) 32.0% Coal Utility Boiler Efficiency, Future (%) 35.5% Advanced Coal Technology for Power Generation (%) 41.5% Electricity Transmission and Distribution Loss (%) 8.0%

37

0

Tab

le O

-17:

Fue

l Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Ass

umpt

ions

Feed

stoc

k an

d Fu

el

Fe

edst

ock

NG

T

rans

mis

sion

T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n T

rans

port

atio

n D

istr

ibut

ion

Fuel

/Fee

dsto

ck

Pi

pelin

e

Oce

an T

anke

r

Bar

ge

Pipe

line

R

ail

Tru

ck

Tru

ck

Petr

oleu

m

Mod

e Sh

are

57

.0%

1.

0%

100.

0%

0.0%

0.

0%

C

rude

for

U.S

. A

vera

ge

Dis

tanc

e

5,

080

500

750

800

30

M

ode

Shar

e

16.0

%

6.0%

75

.0%

7.

0%

10

0.0%

L

SD

Dis

tanc

e

1,

450

520

400

800

30

O

cean

Tan

ker

Item

s

Oce

an

Tan

ker

Size

(ton

s)

C

rude

Oil

1,

143,

000

371


Baseline Vehicles

Items Gasoline

LDT2 Diesel LDT2 Gasoline Equivalent MPG 15.4 18.9 Exhaust VOC 0.08 0.112 Evaporative VOC 0.078 0 CO 5.518 5.518 NOx 0.135 0.18 Exhaust PM10 0.02 0.02 Brake and Tire Wearing PM10 0.021 0.021 CH4 0.091 0.017 N2O 0.04 0.032


Items CIDI Vehicle:

RFD Gasoline Equivalent MPG 25.0% Exhuast VOC Evaporative VOC CO NOx Exhuast PM10 Brake and Tire Wearing PM10 CH4 N2O

372

Table O-19: Transit Bus: Well to Wheels Energy Consumption and Emissions

CIDI Vehicle: Low-Sulfur Diesel Btu/mile or grams/mile


Operation Total Energy 1,218 5,018 29,284 Fossil Fuels 1,170 4,953 29,284 Petroleum 370 2,531 29,284 CO2 117 364 2,365 CH4 2.665 0.409 0.017 N2O 0.002 0.006 0.032 GHGs 174 374 2,375 VOC: Total 0.092 0.154 0.112 CO: Total 0.221 0.178 5.518 NOx: Total 0.611 0.479 0.180 PM10: Total 0.019 0.070 0.041 SOx: Total 0.103 0.396 0.000 VOC: Urban 0.006 0.065 0.112 CO: Urban 0.013 0.090 5.518 NOx: Urban 0.016 0.178 0.180 PM10: Urban 0.001 0.038 0.041 SOx: Urban 0.004 0.205 0.000

37

3

A

PPE

ND

IX P

: IN

VE

NT

OR

Y O

F A

NN

AR

BO

R’S

FU

EL-

CO

NSU

MIN

G V

EH

ICL

ES

AN

D D

EVIC

ES

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

CO

MPR

ESS

ED

NA

TU

RA

L G

AS

9242

45

C

NG

VA

N

DO

DG

E 20

01

2001

C

NG

17

9.4

9243

45

C

NG

VA

N

DO

DG

E 20

01

2001

C

NG

28

1.3

3221

73

C

NG

VA

N

FOR

D

2001

20

01

CN

G

1,35

5.5

3222

73

C

NG

VA

N

FOR

D

2001

20

01

CN

G

559.

9

3220

76

C

NG

VA

N

FOR

D

2001

20

01

CN

G

1,48

2.2

No

Dat

a CN

G V

AN

D

OD

GE

2002

20

02

CN

G

No

Dat

a

No

Dat

a C

NG

VA

N

FOR

D

2002

20

02

CN

G

No

Dat

a

No

Dat

a C

NG

VA

N

FOR

D

2002

20

02

CN

G

No

Dat

a

No

Dat

a C

NG

VA

N

20

02

2002

C

NG

N

o D

ata

1256

B

ob

F150

PU

FO

RD

20

00

2000

C

NG

49

8.1

D

IESE

L

19

19

F-35

0 1

TON

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1997

2/

27/1

998

DS

854.

51,

079.

01,

010.

145

2

306

31

E 35

0 1

TON

VA

N

FOR

D

1999

19

99

DS

28.1

10

5.6

914

1090

32

EN

GIN

E #1

SP

AR

TAN

1/

1/19

91

8/31

/199

2 D

S 1,

039.

51,

313.

01,

433.

557

8,15

7

1091

32

EN

GIN

E #3

SU

TPH

EN

1/1/

1982

8/

31/1

992

DS

5.2

1,48

2.0

27.2

1042

32

EN

GIN

E #3

1999

19

99

DS

1,18

6.1

1,

388.

3-2

7,71

2

1092

32

EN

GIN

E #5

SU

TPH

EN

1982

19

82

DS

242.

21,

884.

019

4.7

113,

793

1098

32

EN

GIN

E #7

SU

TPH

EN

1977

19

77

DS

44.1

124.

025

.8

1089

32

LA

DD

ER #

2

1986

19

86

DS

237.

61,

347.

037

4.6

1043

32

LA

DD

ER #

5

1999

19

99

DS

1,72

5.4

1,

866.

341

9,59

3

0 32

N

ot o

n li

0 0

0 D

S

114.

048

.2

1093

32

R

ESC

UE

EM-1

FO

RD

19

92

8/31

/199

2 D

S 2,

022.

472

0.0

1,49

0.8

23,0

90

37

4

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

1095

32

TO

WER

#1

0 19

96

1996

D

S 1,

688.

71,

825.

01,

935.

3

0 40

0

0 0

0 D

S

220.

015

8.0

4,84

4

0 40

44

4D

DEE

RE

86

0 D

S

1,09

6.0

73.0

15

0 40

58

0D

CA

SE

83

D

S

28.0

361.

040

9

0 40

D

EMPS

TER

FO

RD

1/

1/19

76

9/13

/197

6 D

S

443.

010

.0

0 40

F

700

FOR

D

1/1/

1984

9/

1/19

84

DS

1,

840.

015

5.1

147

0 40

F8

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1985

5/

1/19

85

DS

1,

735.

038

9.9

100

0 40

F8

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1986

7/

21/1

986

DS

2,

132.

01,

364.

470

5

0 40

F8

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1987

8/

31/1

987

DS

2,

435.

01,

036.

756

1

0 40

F8

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1989

6/

28/1

989

DS

1,

228.

012

9.9

117,

814

0 40

LE

AC

H P

EL

ELG

IN

1/1/

1988

3/

1/19

88

DS

25

8.0

39.9

46

0 40

LT

8000

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1985

5/

1/19

85

DS

2,

038.

011

9.2

53

4502

41

1

TON

DU

MP

CH

EV

2001

20

01

DS

157.

1

4248

41

F-

47 1

TO

N

FOR

D

1/1/

1989

6/

27/1

989

DS

99.1

174.

023

1.9

186

4501

42

1

TON

DU

MP

CH

EV

2001

20

01

DS

373.

3

4781

42

35

00 T

REN

CH

ER

DIT

CH

WIT

CH

19

92

1992

D

S 8.

310

.017

.848

4573

42

5

YD

DU

MP

FREI

GH

TLIN

ER

2001

20

01

DS

2,03

6.5

1,

581.

382

4574

42

5

YD

DU

MP

FREI

GH

TLIN

ER

2001

20

01

DS

1,10

3.3

1,

081.

439

0

4575

42

5

YD

DU

MP

FREI

GH

TLIN

ER

2001

20

01

DS

1,58

5.4

1,

058.

9-1

2

4772

42

92

4G L

OA

DER

C

AT

2000

20

00

DS

1,53

9.3

1,

612.

61,

117

4958

42

A

ERIO

L TA

CK

TA

NK

A

ERIO

L 19

97

1997

D

S 1.

1

4529

42

D

EMPS

TER

FO

RD

1/

1/19

80

9/25

/199

8 D

S 43

1.4

467.

063

9.2

8,44

1

4527

42

D

EMPS

TER

REA

RLD

FO

RD

1/

1/19

78

9/25

/199

8 D

S 74

4.9

148.

071

8.4

-116

4611

42

F3

50 U

TILI

TY L

IFT

TRU

CK

FOR

D

1/1/

1986

7/

21/1

986

DS

244.

741

2.0

281.

828

7

4610

42

F7

00 S

IGN

TR

UCK

W

CO

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1983

2/

1/19

84

DS

149.

472

.014

4.4

-803

37

5

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

4565

42

F8

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1989

6/

28/1

989

DS

721.

82,

323.

01,

334.

95,

326

4566

42

F8

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1993

6/

3/19

93

DS

1,03

0.8

2,13

4.0

2,31

6.7

863

4613

42

F8

00 IO

WA

MO

LD

CR

AN

E FO

RD

1/

1/19

90

11/2

0/90

D

S 1,

037.

61,

811.

01,

219.

679

2

4602

42

F8

00 L

IFTA

LL

AER

IAL

TRU

CK

FO

RD

1/

1/19

97

2/14

/199

7 D

S 68

2.3

1,79

1.0

1,09

2.3

965

4570

42

L-

8513

5 Y

D D

UM

P ST

ERLI

NG

20

00

2000

D

S 2,

024.

2

2,72

5.1

846

4571

42

L-

8513

5 Y

D D

UM

P ST

ERLI

NG

20

00

2000

D

S 2,

002.

1

2,14

9.8

796

4572

42

L-

8513

5 Y

D D

UM

P ST

ERLI

NG

20

00

2000

D

S 1,

187.

2

2,14

3.4

679

4771

42

L9

0 LO

AD

ER

MIC

HIG

AN

19

92

5/1/

1992

D

S 68

1.7

982.

01,

121.

271

3

4524

42

LE

AF

TRU

CK

FO

RD

19

96

1996

D

S 66

4.4

4554

42

LN

8000

DU

MP

TRU

CK

FO

RD

19

90

1990

D

S 1,

045.

8

2,28

9.3

3,04

1

4555

42

LN

8000

DU

MP

TRU

CK

FO

RD

19

90

1990

D

S 50

9.7

2,

158.

11,

006

4525

42

LN

-800

0 LE

AF

TRU

CK

REA

RLD

FO

RD

19

93

1993

D

S 62

3.2

53

9.9

-1,2

24

4526

42

LN

-800

0 LE

AF

TRU

CK

REA

RLD

FO

RD

19

93

1993

D

S 61

3.4

61

0.0

334

4594

42

LT

8000

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1995

5/

12/1

995

DS

1,80

4.9

2,08

8.0

2,40

3.7

1,10

0

4595

42

LT

8000

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1996

6/

28/1

996

DS

1,59

3.1

2,82

7.0

2,41

8.7

1,04

3

4597

42

LT

8000

DU

MP

FOR

D

1/1/

1991

6/

30/1

991

DS

624.

82,

511.

02,

521.

81,

023

4802

42

LT

L590

0 TR

AC

TOR

FO

RD

19

97

1997

D

S 1,

943.

32,

412.

02,

971.

382

6

4887

42

PA

VER

LE

E-B

OY

19

99

1999

D

S 20

8.4

11

.62,

167

4740

42

PE

LIC

AN

SW

EEPE

R E

LGIN

1/

1/19

91

5/22

/199

1 D

S 1,

181.

098

8.0

426.

52,

561

4741

42

PE

LIC

AN

SW

EEPE

R E

LGIN

1/

1/19

92

8/10

/199

2 D

S 97

7.6

599.

01,

420.

766

4

4742

42

PE

LIC

AN

SW

EEPE

R E

LGIN

1/

1/19

96

6/26

/199

6 D

S 88

4.3

1,22

6.0

1,55

7.2

284

4743

42

PE

LIC

AN

SW

EEPE

R E

LGIN

1/

1/19

97

9/26

/199

7 D

S 1,

956.

72,

131.

01,

264.

354

5

4744

42

PE

LIC

AN

SW

EEPE

R E

LGIN

20

00

2000

D

S 1,

480.

3

345.

415

2

4758

42

PE

LIC

AN

SW

EEPE

R E

LGIN

1/

1/19

88

3/1/

1988

D

S 18

4.7

313.

011

2.1

72

37

6

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

4745

42

PE

LIC

AN

SW

EEPE

R E

LGIN

20

01

2001

D

S 93

4.1

4818

42

Q

185D

JE A

IR

CO

MPR

ESSO

R

LER

OY

19

95

1995

D

S 20

2.1

85.0

178.

511

0

4614

42

SA

VA

NA

VA

N W

A

ERIA

L U

NIT

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

6/1/

98

DS

1,22

7.4

1,04

6.0

1,13

5.9

1,22

0

4596

42

TA

ND

EM L

T 10

YD

D

UM

P ST

ERLI

NG

20

02

2002

D

S 20

4.4

4884

42

W

1000

F A

SPH

ALT

M

ILL

WIR

TGEN

19

98

1998

D

S 11

7.1

29

1.6

301

6532

60

1

TON

DU

MP

CH

EV

2001

20

01

DS

86.0

0 60

25

0

91

0 D

S

50.0

16.2

26

6886

60

32

2D 7

2IN

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

89

1989

D

S 25

0.1

157.

085

.9-1

,553

6887

60

32

2D 7

2IN

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

89

1989

D

S 25

.926

.012

3.2

-2,8

40

6888

60

32

2D 7

2IN

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

89

1989

D

S 14

0.6

83.0

174.

72,

294

6889

60

32

5D 7

2IN

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

93

1993

D

S 64

.584

.042

.5

6890

60

32

5D 7

2IN

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

93

1993

D

S 10

4.1

130.

010

3.3

193

6891

60

32

5D 7

2IN

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

97

1997

D

S 16

3.3

133.

023

3.7

214

6892

60

32

5D 7

2IN

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

97

1997

D

S 18

8.4

164.

023

6.5

514

6530

60

5

YD

DU

MP

STER

LIN

G

2000

20

00

DS

480.

4

702.

828

2

6531

60

5

YD

DU

MP

STER

LIN

G

2000

20

00

DS

701.

2

669.

024

9

6752

60

58

0D 1

6IN

RO

TAR

Y

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

92

1992

D

S 77

8.8

773.

099

3.6

521

6753

60

58

0D 1

6IN

RO

TAR

Y

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

92

1992

D

S 98

7.4

746.

087

3.5

538

6754

60

58

0D 1

6IN

RO

TAR

Y

MO

WER

TO

RO

19

95

1995

D

S 1,

054.

31,

111.

01,

065.

846

7

6782

60

58

0K

LOA

DER

/BA

CK

HO

E CA

SE

1/1/

1991

2/

24/1

999

DS

217.

014

0.0

435.

4-6

94

6775

60

58

5XL

UTI

LITY

TR

AC

TOR

C

ASE

19

90

1990

D

S 26

9.2

670.

028

1.8

268

6603

60

A

CTE

RR

ST

ERLI

NG

20

02

2002

D

S 47

2.7

6774

60

B

AC

KH

OE

CA

SE

1982

19

82

DS

88.7

318.

094

.757

37

7

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

6781

60

C

500

TRA

CTO

R

HO

LDER

19

90

1990

D

S 56

.995

.016

0.1

-4

6614

60

C

-60

W H

I RA

NG

ER

GM

C

1/1/

1998

5/

18/1

999

DS

716.

871

.01,

061.

782

8

6523

60

C

8500

FLA

TBED

D

UM

P C

HEV

1/

1/19

98

2/3/

1998

D

S 59

5.7

966.

01,

467.

483

7

6921

60

C

HIP

PER

V

ERM

EER

19

97

1997

D

S 58

.513

8.0

122.

5-2

,916

6985

60

C

HIP

PER

V

ERM

EER

19

97

1997

D

S 20

.565

.021

7.4

-590

6911

60

C

HIP

PER

B

AN

DIT

20

00

2000

D

S 72

5.0

53

5.1

341

6777

60

C

X60

TR

AC

TOR

C

ASE

19

98

1998

D

S 88

6.6

364.

049

8.1

398

6779

60

C

X60

TR

AC

TOR

C

ASE

20

00

2000

D

S 34

6.1

348.

061

0.2

551

6612

60

D

7000

TEC

O H

IGH

LI

FT

GM

C

1/1/

1988

6/

1/19

88

DS

291.

21,

011.

054

0.7

-692

6604

60

D

UM

P W

CH

IPPE

R

FREI

GH

TLIN

ER

2001

20

01

DS

1,29

0.3

1,

486.

134

1

6605

60

D

UM

P W

CH

IPPE

R

FREI

GH

TLIN

ER

2001

20

01

DS

1,29

4.2

1,

205.

651

6621

60

F-

47 H

AU

L-A

LL

REF

USE

FO

RD

1/

1/19

91

4/26

/199

1 D

S 11

2.5

481.

041

1.0

-5,1

56

6691

60

F7

00 T

REE

SPA

DE

FOR

D

1/1/

1982

8/

12/1

998

DS

69.4

39.0

191.

010

5

6519

60

F8

00 D

UM

P W

C

HIP

PER

FO

RD

1/

1/19

85

11/1

/198

5 D

S 18

3.8

989.

090

1.0

642

6520

60

F8

00 S

CR

AP

TRU

CK

FO

RD

1/

1/19

86

7/1/

1986

D

S 81

.31,

168.

041

1.9

329

6522

60

F8

00 W

HO

OK

FO

RD

1/1/

1998

12

/29/

98

DS

229.

095

7.0

844.

5-1

,429

6513

60

FL

ATB

ED D

UM

P FO

RD

1/

1/19

82

3/3/

1982

D

S 30

8.5

368.

020

7.4

5,71

3

6521

60

H

D35

00 1

TO

N

DU

MP

GM

C

1/1/

1994

11

/4/1

994

DS

648.

833

5.0

675.

551

8

6613

60

H

D35

00 W

HIG

H

RA

NG

ER

GM

C/T

EREX

1/

1/19

99

2/13

/199

9 D

S 63

.111

2.0

214.

216

6

6524

60

H

OO

K A

ND

GO

FR

EIG

HTL

INER

20

00

2000

D

S 98

4.1

19

6.8

127

6609

60

L8

000

W P

REN

TIC

E LL

FO

RD

1/

1/19

83

12/1

/198

2 D

S 1,

378.

51,

232.

01,

166.

699

4

6610

60

L8

000

W P

REN

TIC

E LL

FO

RD

1/

1/19

92

6/26

/199

2 D

S 1,

132.

21,

376.

01,

022.

618

4

6762

60

LO

AD

ER

JOH

N D

EER

E 19

86

1986

D

S 49

5.6

40

9.7

241

6761

60

M

OW

ER

JOH

N D

EER

E 19

72

1972

D

S 65

.5

102.

2-6

,441

37

8

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

6935

60

ST

UM

P G

RIN

DER

V

ERM

EER

19

98

1998

D

S 14

3.6

115.

022

5.2

80

6778

60

TR

AC

TOR

C

ASE

19

84

1984

D

S 16

.0

18.8

-787

6763

60

TR

AC

TOR

K

AB

OTA

20

02

2002

D

S 60

.0

6773

60

TR

AC

TOR

FO

RD

19

80

1980

D

S 38

.1

6615

60

TR

UCK

W H

I R

AN

GER

C

HEV

20

01

2001

D

S 1,

185.

4

148.

771

6776

60

U

NIL

OA

DER

C

ASE

19

94

1994

D

S 76

.815

7.0

84.5

85

6788

60

U

TILI

TY T

RA

CTO

R

FOR

D

1/1/

1991

12

/1/1

991

DS

72.4

223.

016

2.6

105

6622

60

W

AY

NE

REF

USE

PA

CK

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1993

4/

8/19

94

DS

1,58

7.8

1,03

8.0

1,48

0.9

1,38

0

8779

71

11

00 P

RTB

L TU

B

GR

ND

R

MO

RB

AR

K

1991

19

91

DS

2,72

1.9

2,54

2.0

4,15

6.1

789

8777

71

54

4E L

OA

DER

J

DEE

RE

1/1/

1987

12

/5/1

988

DS

1,58

3.3

1,79

4.0

1,31

4.4

-8,7

38

8778

71

54

4H L

OA

DER

J

DEE

RE

1/1/

1998

11

/3/1

998

DS

2,59

0.3

1,81

7.0

2,92

6.9

2,11

4

8692

71

C

OM

BO

REC

YC

LE

LOD

AL

2001

20

01

DS

9.4

8658

71

EV

O 3

800

SID

ELO

AD

ER

LOD

AL

1/1/

1990

6/

11/1

990

DS

29.4

2,05

0.0

52.9

23

8660

71

EV

O 3

800

SID

ELO

AD

ER

LOD

AL

1/1/

1991

6/

19/1

991

DS

1,22

6.2

2,15

3.0

2,03

9.8

1,37

5

8661

71

EV

O 3

800

SID

ELO

AD

ER

LOD

AL

1/1/

1991

6/

19/1

991

DS

213.

12,

203.

01,

987.

315

,327

8659

71

EV

O 3

800T

SI

DEL

OA

DER

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

91

6/6/

1991

D

S 3,

939.

32,

264.

02,

526.

11,

279

0 71

EV

O D

S-38

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

86

2/4/

1986

D

S

100.

020

.04,

460

8664

71

EV

O D

S-38

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

92

4/21

/199

2 D

S 50

8.2

1,61

1.0

2,76

7.9

1,36

3

8665

71

EV

O D

S-38

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

92

4/21

/199

2 D

S 2,

648.

32,

715.

01,

954.

2-4

,037

8654

71

EV

O D

S380

0 SI

DEL

OA

DER

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

89

8/9/

1989

D

S 1,

103.

11,

116.

052

4.2

6,70

7

8655

71

EV

O D

S380

0 SI

DEL

OA

DER

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

89

8/22

/198

9 D

S 48

2.1

541.

026

6.0

999

8662

71

EV

O D

S380

0 SI

DEL

OA

DER

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

91

7/19

/199

1 D

S 3,

002.

71,

739.

099

4.4

-9,9

30

8663

71

EV

O D

S380

0 LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

91

8/2/

1991

D

S 2,

495.

872

4.0

2,09

6.4

10,9

17

37

9

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

SID

ELO

AD

ER

8668

71

EV

O T

25

LOD

AL

1/1/

1997

8/

29/1

997

DS

3,93

4.5

4,25

0.0

3,96

5.7

1,63

3

8669

71

EV

O T

25

LOD

AL

1/1/

1997

9/

3/19

97

DS

4,24

7.4

4,34

0.0

4,02

2.1

1,62

5

8670

71

EV

O T

25

LOD

AL

1999

19

99

DS

2,35

4.9

0.0

3,72

7.5

9,40

1

8671

71

EV

O T

25

LOD

AL

2000

20

00

DS

3,39

2.6

3,

395.

51,

703

8672

71

EV

O T

25

LOD

AL

2000

20

00

DS

4,20

9.1

0.0

3,77

6.1

-8,3

72

8666

71

EV

O T

-25

LOD

AL

1/1/

1997

5/

2/19

97

DS

3,48

3.0

3,68

3.0

4,51

5.1

6,01

0

8667

71

EV

O T

-25

LOD

AL

1/1/

1997

5/

16/1

997

DS

3,70

0.1

4,19

0.0

3,21

9.4

1,34

0

8527

71

EZ

PAC

K

FRO

NTL

OA

D

MA

CK

20

01

2001

D

S 5,

602.

8

1,02

6.4

198

8528

71

EZ

PAC

K

FRO

NTL

OA

D

MA

CK

20

01

2001

D

S 5,

250.

0

579.

435

8918

71

F-

2560

72I

N M

OW

ER K

ubot

a 19

98

1999

D

S 18

6.2

77.0

145.

518

6

8919

71

F-

2560

72I

N M

OW

ER K

ubot

a 19

99

1999

D

S 10

8.3

28.0

177.

2-4

67

0 71

F7

00

FOR

D

1984

DS

163.

51,

625

8556

71

F7

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1984

19

84

DS

311.

2

245.

430

2

8563

71

F7

00 5

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

1988

19

88

DS

262.

0

1,72

2.6

484

8597

71

F8

00

FOR

D

1/1/

1989

19

89

DS

314.

170

5.0

496.

75,

352

8598

71

L8

000

FOR

D

1/1/

1991

19

91

DS

616.

61,

049.

087

7.8

87,6

74

8519

71

LO

DA

L TC

1 M

AC

K

1/1/

1988

8/

8/19

88

DS

217.

11,

665.

045

8.9

3,11

0

8526

71

LO

DA

L TC

1 M

AC

K

2000

20

00

DS

4,61

1.4

0.0

4,52

3.9

1,27

1

8523

71

M

R68

8P D

EMPS

TER

MA

CK

1/

1/19

91

1/8/

1991

D

S 95

7.2

847.

071

5.9

-9,3

09

8521

71

M

R68

8S

MA

CK

1/

1/19

95

10/1

8/95

D

S 51

.66,

229.

02,

053.

5-7

,929

8524

71

M

R68

8S

MA

CK

1/

1/19

91

7/22

/199

1 D

S 2,

149.

03,

001.

06,

056.

31,

301

8525

71

M

R68

8S

MA

CK

1/

1/19

93

6/28

/199

3 D

S 58

4.3

4,52

4.0

1,79

6.5

-6,9

55

8530

71

M

R68

8S D

EMPS

TER

MA

CK

1/

1/19

98

10/3

1/98

D

S 5,

053.

24,

395.

05,

118.

81,

807

8909

71

PU

MP

GO

RM

AN

N-R

UPP

1990

19

90

DS

29.1

8780

71

SC

AR

AB

WIN

DR

OW

19

91

1991

D

S 3,

648.

61,

920.

03,

236.

3-1

,887

38

0

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

TUR

N

8782

71

SL

E824

0 TR

AC

TOR

FO

RD

1/

1/19

93

6/28

/199

3 D

S 18

2.1

423.

034

9.9

156

8606

71

ST

AK

E TR

CK

W

LIFT

GA

TE

FOR

D

1/1/

1987

8/

3/19

87

DS

80.1

430.

033

4.3

-1,5

31

8689

71

T2

5 C

OM

BO

R

ECY

CLE

LO

DA

L 1/

1/19

97

4/14

/199

7 D

S 1,

555.

933

9.0

538.

9-3

,256

8520

71

TC

-103

4SC

M

AC

K

1/1/

1991

8/

21/1

990

DS

397.

53,

490.

05,

243.

79,

108

2605

75

FR

EIG

HTL

INER

FR

EIG

HTL

INER

19

99

1999

D

S 68

.0

3606

75

TC

7D04

2 PI

TMA

N

CR

AN

E G

MC

1/

1/19

85

11/1

/199

2 D

S 48

.210

8.0

84.2

56,4

45

2613

76

21

12-0

6 PV

AC

TOR

FO

RD

1/

1/19

96

4/26

/199

6 D

S 2,

389.

42,

572.

03,

409.

71,

102

2611

76

21

12-J

6F V

AC

TOR

ST

ERLI

NG

1/

1/19

98

1/19

/199

9 D

S 3,

537.

21,

587.

04,

020.

897

0

2554

76

35

00 S

L 1

TON

D

UM

P G

MC

1/

1/19

95

2/3/

1995

D

S 96

2.2

1,19

5.0

1,11

9.9

8,50

2

2969

76

4I

N T

RA

SH

PUM

P/TR

AIL

ER

19

98

1998

D

S 20

.0

20.0

3591

76

5

YD

DU

MP

STER

LIN

G

2002

20

02

DS

425.

1

2770

76

58

0 SU

PER

LO

AD

ER/B

KH

OE

CASE

1/

1/19

94

10/2

7/19

9 D

S 15

0.1

462.

023

6.9

246

2773

76

58

0 SU

PER

LO

AD

ER/B

KH

OE

CASE

1/

1/19

99

12/1

7/19

9 D

S 44

9.5

309.

053

1.4

364

3773

76

58

0 SU

PER

LO

AD

ER/B

KH

OE

CASE

1/

1/19

94

10/2

6/19

9 D

S 30

1.0

543.

047

5.5

392

3774

76

58

0 SU

PER

LO

AD

ER/B

KH

OE

CASE

1/

1/19

98

12/1

2/19

9 D

S 36

2.7

642.

057

6.1

-728

3771

76

62

1ZF

LOA

DER

C

ASE

1/

1/19

92

11/2

0/92

D

S 97

3.3

1,30

8.0

1,00

3.1

513

2817

76

A

IR C

OM

PRES

SOR

IN

GER

SOLL

19

99

1999

D

S 90

.845

.072

.446

3801

76

A

IR C

OM

PRES

SOR

IN

GER

SOLL

19

96

1996

D

S 92

.514

1.0

84.5

38

3809

76

A

IR C

OM

PRES

SOR

IN

GER

SOLL

19

96

1996

D

S 14

.014

3.0

12.5

12

3810

76

A

IR C

OM

PRES

SOR

IN

GER

SOLL

19

96

1996

D

S 97

.111

0.0

142.

593

3811

76

A

IR C

OM

PRES

SOR

JO

HN

DEE

RE

2000

20

00

DS

86.7

14

0.0

558

2607

76

C

7H04

2 M

AIN

B

REA

K T

RU

CK

G

MC

19

98

1998

D

S 22

0.3

17

0.1

345

38

1

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

3772

76

C

ASE

580

S LO

AD

-B

KH

OE

CA

SE

1/1/

1993

19

94

DS

156.

672

.040

0.2

292

0 76

L8

000

FOR

D

1/1/

1993

3/

17/1

993

DS

1,

100.

027

6.9

44,4

12

2553

76

L8

000

5YD

DU

JP

FOR

D

1/1/

1993

3/

19/1

993

DS

145.

61,

041.

048

6.2

-1,5

54

3590

76

L8

513

5-7

YD

DU

MP

STER

LIN

G

1999

19

99

DS

465.

9

1,13

4.7

-5,9

96

2556

76

L-

8513

5-7

YD

DU

MP

STER

LIN

G

1/1/

1999

3/

12/1

999

DS

752.

523

8.0

1,17

1.3

-1,3

35

2610

76

LN

-800

0 V

AC

TOR

FO

RD

1/

1/19

93

2/3/

1993

D

S 76

1.7

1,45

0.0

1,05

8.8

434

2502

76

LT

8513

TA

ND

EM

10Y

D D

UM

P FO

RD

1/

1/19

97

6/30

/199

7 D

S 1,

121.

52,

256.

01,

548.

9-1

9,52

6

2850

76

M

INIE

XC

AV

ATO

R

YA

NM

AR

20

02

2002

D

S 65

.2

2557

76

ST

ERLI

NG

5 Y

D

DU

MP

STER

LIN

G

2002

20

02

DS

325.

4

1555

76

TA

ND

EM L

T 10

YD

D

UM

P FO

RD

1/

1/19

96

12/1

2/96

D

S 1,

401.

62,

252.

01,

409.

769

1

1888

91

12

H R

OA

D G

RA

DER

CA

TER

PILL

1/

1/19

99

5/24

/199

9 D

S 1,

414.

554

.02,

511.

487

6

4603

91

F7

50 H

I-RA

NG

ER 1

FO

RD

20

00

2000

D

S 1,

063.

4

1,32

9.6

882

1900

91

FO

RK

LIFT

C

LAR

K

1977

19

77

DS

84.7

36

.7

1602

91

H

D35

00 1

TO

N

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

6/

30/1

998

DS

277.

126

5.0

387.

7-7

35

1902

91

H

YD

RO

BLA

STER

G

RA

FFIT

19

97

1997

D

S 14

.9

1800

91

IN

GER

SOLL

AIR

CO

MP

JOH

N D

EER

E 19

99

0 D

S 50

.861

.039

.928

18

94

CO

MM

CTR

FU

EL

CD

0

2000

20

00

DS

48.9

581.

045

6.0

33,5

81

6861

63

G

RO

UN

DM

AST

ER

TORO

19

99

1999

D

S 10

2.3

76

.626

3

6862

63

G

RO

UN

DM

AST

ER

TORO

19

99

1999

D

S 31

.4

91.6

2,75

5

4500

HD

3500

1 T

ON

D

UM

P G

MC

1/

1/19

98

6/26

/199

8 D

S 1,

132.

277

8.0

752.

261

9

0

Not

on

li 0

0 0

DS

17

4.0

55.8

4,90

9U

NL

EA

DE

D G

ASO

LIN

E

0 2

TEM

PO

FOR

D

1/1/

1993

3/

2/19

93

UL

66

.015

5.8

2,81

0

1002

2

WIN

DST

AR

FO

RD

20

01

2001

U

L 27

2.0

531.

020

6.7

445

38

2

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

1260

13

C

AR

GO

VA

N

GM

C

1992

19

92

UL

208.

1

165.

01,

923

1114

13

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1999

4/

13/1

999

UL

115.

151

.016

3.5

3,66

5

1115

13

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

00

4/13

/00

UL

140.

027

.014

9.6

3,43

0

1116

13

FO

CU

S FO

RD

6/

22/0

5 6/

22/0

5 U

L 14

1.7

13

5.9

-4,8

21

1112

13

LU

MIN

A

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

3/

30/1

998

UL

137.

819

3.0

205.

76,

712

1113

13

LU

MIN

A

CH

EV

1/1/

98

4/14

/98

UL

567.

021

3.0

212.

16,

467

1201

13

M

INIV

AN

G

MC

19

86

1986

U

L 7.

2

1255

13

SI

ERR

A 1

/2 T

ON

PU

GM

C

1/1/

1991

3/

1/19

91

UL

243.

262

9.0

224.

3-5

6,55

8

1125

13

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1995

5/

9/19

95

UL

89.2

208.

012

0.2

2,17

6

1126

13

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

2/

22/1

996

UL

74.1

185.

011

6.7

2,16

9

1258

15

V

AN

--SA

LMER

ON

G

MC

19

86

1986

U

L 72

.7

94.9

16,4

16

13

19

ECO

NO

LIN

E FO

RD

1/1/

1996

10

/26/

96

UL

751.

059

8.0

748.

98,

187

14

19

F-25

0 4X

4 PU

FO

RD

1/

1/19

96

11/2

0/96

U

L 29

2.7

836.

038

6.5

-9,2

23

0 19

R

AN

GER

XL

FOR

D

1/1/

1991

11

/1/1

990

UL

31

6.0

263.

1-2

3,04

3

29

19

SIER

RA

4X

G

MC

1/

1/19

92

3/18

/199

2 U

L 36

1.9

618.

046

8.4

268

27

19

TEM

PO

FOR

D

1/1/

1992

3/

18/1

992

UL

10.2

38.0

21.6

1,24

0

0 19

V

AN

DU

RA

2

GM

C 1/

1/19

88

3/28

/198

8 U

L

494.

016

0.0

-27,

031

199

20

CA

PRIC

E C

HEV

1/

1/19

94

7/18

/199

4 U

L 7.

190

9.0

811.

213

,786

34

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

36

615

UL

1,09

3.5

85

5.2

8,11

8

35

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

36

824

UL

2,56

4.2

1,

552.

716

,034

36

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

36

817

UL

2,44

4.4

1,

478.

414

,122

37

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

36

817

UL

2,71

7.4

1,

237.

110

,822

38

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

36

906

UL

2,73

5.1

1,

093.

710

,428

41

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1997

9/

23/1

997

UL

358.

01,

460.

02,

191.

825

,500

0 20

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

97

10/1

4/19

9 U

L

1,84

8.0

692.

2-3

7,91

0

43

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1997

10

/14/

199

UL

12.6

1,63

5.0

1,12

3.4

11,1

71

38

3

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

44

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1997

10

/14/

199

UL

792.

51,

886.

01,

925.

126

,173

0 20

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

97

10/1

4/19

9 U

L

1,83

9.0

292.

62,

769

0 20

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

98

5/11

/199

8 U

L

2,63

1.0

842.

19,

022

58

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

5/

11/1

998

UL

1,11

2.3

1,14

3.0

1,16

3.9

1,23

7

0 20

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

98

5/11

/199

8 U

L

2,57

6.0

185.

11,

788

62

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1996

2/

25/1

997

UL

753.

91,

305.

01,

285.

414

,265

72

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

6/

26/1

998

UL

1,01

8.3

1,11

5.0

1,39

7.5

32,3

90

73

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

9/

3/19

98

UL

2,20

2.3

865.

01,

054.

18,

164

75

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

9/

15/1

998

UL

829.

61,

814.

02,

619.

226

,562

90

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1999

11

/18/

199

UL

2,76

2.4

1,54

6.0

2,60

8.5

25,0

65

92

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

1,35

7.0

2,

735.

327

,526

93

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

2,93

0.7

2,

347.

523

,277

94

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

3,23

6.9

1,

460.

220

,127

95

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

1,78

5.8

1,

649.

41,

751

96

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

2,12

3.2

1,

843.

919

,313

98

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1997

9/

3/19

97

UL

1,24

2.7

1,55

1.0

1,40

2.4

1,44

0

99

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1999

36

403

UL

2,38

1.8

2,

260.

624

,404

181

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

9/

29/1

998

UL

1,34

1.8

1,11

4.0

2,33

8.3

23,8

37

182

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

11

/9/1

998

UL

1,11

8.7

754.

03,

407.

339

,141

183

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

2/

16/1

999

UL

1,52

7.6

309.

01,

429.

813

,280

184

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

4/

3/19

99

UL

291.

569

0.0

2,56

5.0

32,2

63

186

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1999

4/

21/1

999

UL

1,96

8.8

483.

02,

275.

122

,962

187

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1999

4/

23/1

999

UL

2,17

1.8

242.

02,

563.

530

,103

188

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

2,74

1.1

2,

912.

928

,850

189

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

1,50

0.0

3,

074.

326

,493

190

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

1,79

9.1

2,

558.

425

,968

38

4

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

39

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

UL

2,19

5.7

82

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

1,83

2.3

83

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

567.

0

84

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

105.

4

85

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

283.

7

86

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

129.

5

185

20

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

1,78

7.3

214

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 19

99

1999

U

L 22

.6

215

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 19

99

1999

U

L 9.

9

216

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 19

99

1999

U

L 34

.0

217

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 19

99

1999

U

L 15

.2

218

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 19

99

1999

U

L 26

.4

219

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 19

99

1999

U

L 7.

7

220

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 20

01

2001

U

L 57

.1

221

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 20

01

2001

U

L 65

.2

222

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 20

01

2001

U

L 74

.8

223

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 20

01

2001

U

L 12

9.8

224

20

Mot

or C

ycle

H

AR

L 20

01

2001

U

L 10

3.7

80

20

IMPA

LA

CH

EV

2001

UL

933.

1

11.2

81

20

IMPA

LA

CH

EV

2001

UL

1,06

8.0

14

.0

322

20

PRIS

ON

ER T

RA

NS

VA

N

CH

EV

2000

36

600

UL

663.

2

781.

27,

702

329

20

TAH

OE

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

730.

9

20.0

0 20

TA

UR

US

GL

FOR

D

1/1/

1992

8/

25/1

992

UL

27

1.0

10.5

4,45

7

0 20

TA

UR

US

GL

FOR

D

1/1/

1992

8/

1/19

92

UL

42

3.0

10.0

441

302

20

VA

ND

UR

A

GM

C 1/

1/19

93

8/17

/199

3 U

L 73

.912

2.0

129.

096

2

317

31

CA

RG

O V

AN

D

OD

GE

1998

19

98

UL

19.5

38

5

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

172

31

CA

MA

RO

C

HEV

19

96

1996

U

L 50

5.0

400

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1996

1/

2/19

96

UL

529.

919

.041

9.8

5,10

2

0 31

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

19

96

1996

U

L

147.

010

1.9

1,17

0

0 31

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

19

96

3610

0 U

L

24

2.0

4,84

7

0 31

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

96

1/20

/199

9 U

L

77.0

162.

41,

809

483

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1/1/

1997

4/

12/1

999

UL

28.7

47.0

193.

22,

819

484

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1997

19

97

UL

17.3

31

1.0

4,16

6

485

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1997

19

97

UL

16.2

33

9.4

4,63

9

0 31

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

19

97

1997

U

L

33

8.0

63,5

67

487

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1997

19

97

UL

310.

0

317.

23,

503

490

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

5,63

7.0

12

4.1

1,03

8

491

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1998

19

98

UL

13.3

43

.933

9

492

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1998

19

98

UL

11.1

1,

175.

832

,006

493

31

CR

OW

N V

IC

FOR

D

1998

19

98

UL

16.8

1,

663.

916

,638

328

31

EXPE

DIT

ION

4X

4 FO

RD

20

01

3664

4 U

L 1,

566.

0

1,18

0.6

475

168

31

GR

AN

D A

M

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1995

8/

25/1

995

UL

38.4

368.

032

9.6

7,75

3

130

31

GR

AN

D P

RIX

PO

NTI

AC

19

98

1998

U

L 45

3.0

32

8.6

6,08

8

170

31

GR

AN

D P

RIX

PO

NTI

AC

1/

1/19

99

4/21

/199

9 U

L 47

3.2

45.0

398.

57,

045

160

31

GR

AN

D P

RIX

PO

NTI

AC

19

99

1999

U

L 65

0.5

163

31

GR

AN

D P

RIX

PO

NTI

AC

19

94

1994

U

L 27

.5

122

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

2000

20

00

UL

737.

2

645.

119

,165

123

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

2000

20

00

UL

423.

8

412.

39,

085

124

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

2000

20

00

UL

401.

5

451.

88,

191

125

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

2000

20

00

UL

344.

1

284.

35,

029

141

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1997

7/

22/1

997

UL

576.

149

3.0

566.

39,

744

142

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1997

7/

22/1

997

UL

358.

751

0.0

450.

810

,248

38

6

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

120

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

1999

19

99

UL

431.

9

121

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

2000

20

00

UL

478.

2

402

31

INTR

EPID

D

OD

GE

2002

20

02

UL

346.

8

133

31

LUM

INA

C

HEV

1/

1/19

98

4/14

/199

8 U

L 25

7.9

317.

027

0.9

7,77

4

134

31

LUM

INA

C

HEV

1/

1/19

98

4/14

/199

8 U

L 31

6.5

288.

058

8.9

15,8

45

173

31

LUM

INA

C

HEV

19

97

1997

U

L 26

8.4

347.

033

7.1

7,42

1

174

31

LUM

INA

C

HEV

1/

1/19

97

3/10

/199

7 U

L 29

4.1

273.

024

4.3

3,94

9

132

31

MER

CU

RY

FO

RD

19

98

1998

U

L 54

1.2

171

31

MO

NTE

CA

RLO

C

HEV

1/

1/19

96

4/26

/199

6 U

L 14

6.1

445.

078

1.9

16,7

16

401

31

MO

NTE

CA

RLO

C

HEV

1/

1/19

98

6/18

/199

8 U

L 75

7.9

450.

097

8.0

24,3

95

131

31

MO

NTE

CA

RLO

C

HEV

19

98

1998

U

L 69

9.6

201

31

S-10

C

HEV

20

01

2001

U

L 59

9.4

13

.9

202

31

S-10

C

HEV

20

01

2001

U

L 59

0.3

13

.0

318

31

SIER

RA

.5 T

ON

EX

T C

AB

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

5/8/

1998

U

L 1,

242.

11,

209.

01,

629.

11,

562

0 31

SU

BU

RB

AN

G

MC

1/

1/19

91

5/29

/199

1 U

L

798.

013

.8

127

31

TAU

RU

S FO

RD

20

00

2000

U

L 94

.0

147

31

TAU

RU

S FO

RD

19

90

1990

U

L 27

.9

126

31

TAU

RU

S

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

796.

2

167

31

THU

ND

ERB

IRD

FO

RD

19

95

1995

U

L 23

.3

305

31

VEN

TUR

E C

HEV

19

99

1999

U

L 52

9.3

40

9.5

7,26

9

304

31

WIN

DST

AR

FO

RD

1/

1/19

98

10/2

/199

8 U

L 37

5.1

92.0

466.

214

,675

140

31

C

HEV

19

96

1996

U

L 91

1.2

1001

32

#1

001

CH

EV

1/1/

1988

19

88

UL

499.

438

1.0

439.

77,

607

1018

32

3/

4 TO

N P

U

FOR

D

1987

19

87

UL

8.5

1021

32

C

AR

AV

AN

D

OD

GE

1999

19

99

UL

478.

0

816.

216

,271

1020

32

C

AR

AV

AN

D

OD

GE

1999

19

99

UL

281.

2

442.

17,

670

38

7

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

112

32

CIE

RA

O

LDS

1995

19

95

UL

123.

249

4.0

390.

5-6

9,38

8

1000

32

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

99

1/8/

1999

U

L 10

7.7

183.

018

6.5

41,1

64

1041

32

EX

PED

ITIO

N 4

X4

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

1,05

6.8

1,

593.

9-2

4,06

4

113

32

JEEP

CH

ERO

KEE

JE

EP

2000

20

00

UL

298.

01,

290.

014

3.0

144,

555

106

32

MIN

IVA

N

FOR

D

1994

19

94

UL

309.

999

5.0

435.

97,

856

111

32

P30

STEP

VA

N

CH

EV

1989

19

89

UL

90.4

62.0

66.5

-22,

512

1019

32

PU

FO

RD

19

93

1993

U

L 1,

196.

21,

106.

01,

106.

537

,140

1096

32

SI

ERR

A #

1 G

MC

1/

1/19

97

6/25

/199

7 U

L 1,

086.

81,

134.

01,

120.

632

,694

1003

32

SU

BU

RB

AN

G

MC

19

92

1992

U

L 37

8.3

1,06

1.0

1,13

6.1

15,4

62

1004

32

SU

BU

RB

AN

G

MC

19

86

1986

U

L 13

9.5

581.

023

7.9

1,45

5

1017

32

SU

BU

RB

AN

C

HEV

19

89

1989

U

L 22

.468

0.0

788.

512

,149

0 32

SU

BU

RB

AN

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

12/3

0/19

9 U

L

449.

057

8.0

62,0

00

1044

32

SU

BU

RB

AN

C

HEV

20

01

2001

U

L 70

4.8

42

4.1

-39

1007

32

V

AN

FO

RD

19

90

1990

U

L 12

9.6

793.

064

.7-4

95

5106

33

A

CC

LAIM

PL

YM

OU

TH

1991

UL

95.7

16

2.2

2,70

8

5202

33

A

ERO

STA

R

FOR

D

1/1/

1995

11

/17/

95

UL

397.

477

2.0

596.

557

0

5102

33

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL

188.

624

1.0

232.

332

7

5103

33

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

3/

3/19

98

UL

274.

036

5.0

353.

049

5

5104

33

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

3/

30/1

998

UL

227.

427

2.0

281.

346

6

5105

33

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1999

4/

13/1

999

UL

389.

256

.047

5.9

643

5107

33

FO

CU

S FO

RD

20

00

2000

U

L 28

9.7

37

5.9

531

5108

33

FO

CU

S FO

RD

20

00

2000

U

L 19

8.9

27

0.2

-96,

668

5109

33

N

EON

D

OD

GE

2001

20

01

UL

89.9

29

.144

7

5211

33

S-

10 4

x2

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

713.

8

14.7

5212

33

S-

10 4

x2

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

367.

8

14.4

5210

33

S-

10 4

x2

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

402.

2

38

8

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

5204

33

S-

10 E

XTE

ND

C

HEV

1/

1/19

97

4/1/

1997

U

L 76

4.2

825.

075

9.1

808

5205

33

S-

10 E

XTE

ND

C

HEV

1/

1/19

97

4/1/

1999

U

L 28

8.4

443.

032

7.9

324

5206

33

S-

10 E

XTE

ND

C

HEV

1/

1/19

97

4/1/

1997

U

L 55

5.8

584.

049

8.6

554

5207

33

S-

10 E

XTE

ND

C

HEV

1/

1/19

98

5/4/

1998

U

L 52

8.3

722.

063

0.8

1,83

9

5208

33

S-

10 E

XTE

ND

C

HEV

1/

1/19

99

5/24

/199

9 U

L 51

6.2

102.

091

4.6

217

5209

33

S-

10 E

XTE

ND

C

HEV

1/

1/19

99

5/24

/199

9 U

L 41

4.2

105.

085

0.1

836

5203

33

SI

ERR

A 1

/2 T

ON

PU

GM

C

1/1/

1996

5/

15/1

996

UL

464.

563

7.0

562.

465

4

5201

33

SO

NO

MA

1/2

TO

N

PU

GM

C

1/1/

1995

6/

23/1

995

UL

286.

937

9.0

404.

941

4

0 33

SU

NB

IRD

PO

NTI

AC

1/

1/19

94

3/7/

1994

U

L

410.

031

7.0

7,70

3

5199

33

SU

NB

IRD

PO

NTI

AC

1/

1/19

94

3/4/

1994

U

L 15

3.8

459.

047

3.9

60,5

42

0 33

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1995

5/

9/19

95

UL

28

.024

7.2

387

0 33

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

2/

22/1

996

UL

22

9.0

154.

223

9

0 40

F-

700/

4E-

FOR

D

1/1/

1982

8/

1/19

82

UL

1,

073.

013

.0

4143

40

SU

NB

IRD

L

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1993

5/

14/1

993

UL

49.0

250.

035

9.3

668

4210

41

A

ERO

STA

R

FOR

D

1/1/

1995

11

/17/

199

UL

96.6

217.

013

2.0

176

4268

41

A

STR

O

CH

EV

1/1/

1996

7/

22/1

996

UL

527.

456

3.0

746.

01,

197

4258

41

A

STR

O V

AN

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

179.

9

4150

41

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL

269.

042

6.0

323.

556

7

4151

41

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL

500.

058

3.0

560.

91,

000

4155

41

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

3/

30/1

998

UL

92.1

190.

050

.861

4001

41

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

19

97

1997

U

L 31

6.2

4156

41

FO

CU

S F

OR

D

2000

20

00

UL

155.

6

155.

336

5

4255

41

K

2500

SIE

RR

A

GM

C

1/1/

1991

6/

26/1

991

UL

81.8

1,23

2.0

165.

314

0

4256

41

K

2500

SIE

RR

A

GM

C

6/26

/199

1 6/

26/1

991

UL

410.

178

0.0

778.

162

8

4257

41

K

2500

SIE

RR

A

GM

C

2000

UL

682.

7

988.

073

8

4030

41

M

ALI

BU

C

HEV

1/

1/19

99

4/13

/199

9 U

L 74

.49.

012

7.1

1,93

9

38

9

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

4152

41

N

EON

D

OD

GE

2001

20

01

UL

283.

9

49.7

75

4153

41

N

EON

D

OD

GE

2001

20

01

UL

202.

3

18.6

4154

41

N

EON

D

OD

GE

2001

20

01

UL

281.

7

18.1

15

4290

41

S-

10

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

4/

1/19

97

UL

872.

838

1.0

648.

291

0

4254

41

SA

VA

NA

G

MC

99

UL

671.

3

856.

11,

042

4001

41

SU

NFI

RE

PON

T 95

UL

314.

229

9

4144

41

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1995

5/

9/19

95

UL

132.

720

0.0

167.

232

3

4145

41

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1995

5/

9/19

95

UL

76.8

178.

018

1.7

384

4146

41

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

2/

22/1

996

UL

12.8

225.

044

.3-3

06

4147

41

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

2/

22/1

996

UL

190.

522

9.0

234.

059

1

4148

41

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

5/

28/1

996

UL

50.0

270.

026

0.3

520

4149

41

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

5/

28/1

996

UL

111.

731

1.0

338.

354

2

4211

41

W

IND

STA

R

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

5/

5/19

98

UL

656.

148

7.0

917.

71,

311

4212

41

W

IND

STA

R

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

6/

2/19

98

UL

204.

328

2.0

340.

25,

664

4247

42

1/

2 TO

N W

LI

FTG

ATE

G

MC

19

92

1992

U

L 43

0.1

14

2.8

38,7

54

4259

42

25

00 4

X2

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

609.

6

4271

42

3/

4 TO

N W

DU

MPE

R G

MC

1/

1/19

98

6/5/

1998

U

L 60

5.7

623.

065

3.4

682

4243

42

A

STR

O

CH

EV

1/1/

1996

7/

22/1

996

UL

13.3

100.

072

.662

4269

42

A

STR

O M

INIV

AN

C

HEV

1/

1/19

97

11/1

/97

UL

621.

370

8.0

540.

158

0

4134

42

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

96

6/9/

1999

U

L 38

8.7

69.0

390.

737

4

4135

42

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

19

97

1997

U

L 29

5.9

35

7.3

298

4277

42

D

AK

OTA

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1996

2/

9/19

96

UL

496.

634

8.0

469.

7-2

6,37

3

4201

42

D

AK

OTA

1/2

TO

N

PU

DO

DG

E 1/

1/19

95

6/23

/199

5 U

L 63

5.9

509.

076

5.8

799

4200

42

R

AN

GER

1/2

TO

N P

U FO

RD

1/

1/19

95

6/23

/199

5 U

L 56

0.4

294.

051

7.1

560

4278

42

S-

10

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

4/

1/19

97

UL

653.

767

5.0

802.

858

5

4279

42

S-

10 E

XTE

C

HEV

1/

1/19

98

4/14

/199

8 U

L 98

3.8

996.

01,

055.

981

8

39

0

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

4270

42

SA

VA

NA

G

MC

1/

1/19

97

6/17

/199

7 U

L 19

7.5

284.

019

0.5

154

4275

42

SI

ERR

A 3

/4 T

ON

PU

GM

C

1/1/

1992

4/

13/1

992

UL

121.

884

8.0

611.

336

2

4246

42

SI

ERR

A C

- G

MC

1/

1/19

89

5/14

/199

6 U

L 48

.629

8.0

153.

018

1

0 42

SU

NB

IRD

L

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1993

5/

14/1

993

UL

13

4.0

127.

222

8

4100

42

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1995

5/

9/19

95

UL

49.0

202.

089

.2-1

6,53

5

4260

42

V

AN

WIT

H S

TAH

L B

OD

Y

GM

C

2000

20

00

UL

694.

6

304.

91,

807

9210

45

B

-150

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1992

2/

10/1

992

UL

204.

579

1.0

128.

492

9211

45

B

-150

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1992

2/

11/1

992

UL

459.

056

8.0

575.

355

4

9214

45

B

-150

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1994

3/

11/1

994

UL

427.

130

9.0

582.

654

9

9215

45

B

-150

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1994

3/

11/1

994

UL

441.

736

2.0

622.

353

3

9216

45

B

2500

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1997

6/

17/1

997

UL

497.

469

6.0

448.

267

0

9230

45

C

AR

GO

VA

N

GM

C

1999

19

99

UL

21.9

23

9.7

282

9231

45

C

AR

GO

VA

N

GM

C

1999

19

99

UL

374.

2

396.

238

6

9007

45

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL

122.

212

1.0

109.

27,

640

9008

45

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

3/

30/1

998

UL

122.

814

3.0

105.

9-3

,645

0 45

E-

150

FOR

D

1/1/

1988

4/

1/19

88

UL

25

1.0

40.2

-816

9213

45

G

10 S

POR

TSV

AN

C

HEV

1/

1/19

93

6/18

/199

3 U

L 13

2.2

522.

013

6.9

1,34

3

9217

45

R

AM

150

0 D

OD

GE

1/1/

1998

2/

26/1

998

UL

231.

038

9.0

219.

723

0

9218

45

R

AM

150

0 D

OD

GE

1/1/

1998

3/

5/19

98

UL

167.

935

4.0

215.

225

8

0 45

R

AM

B15

0 D

OD

GE

1/1/

1991

6/

17/1

997

UL

57

2.0

9.2

70

9220

45

S-

10

CH

EV

1/1/

1996

6/

28/1

996

UL

198.

116

8.0

388.

4-1

0,51

7

9006

45

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

5/

28/1

996

UL

112.

612

4.0

116.

68,

688

0 60

25

0 R

AM

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1990

7/

1/19

90

UL

69

9.0

659.

45,

525

0 60

5F

I-52P

HI

FOR

D

1/1/

1981

9/

1/19

81

UL

1,

204.

093

1.8

520

6255

60

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

94

9/19

/199

4 U

L 37

4.1

385.

043

8.4

459

6004

60

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL

52.5

67.0

111.

82,

125

39

1

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

6226

60

C

LUB

WA

GO

FO

RD

1/

1/19

92

3/18

/199

2 U

L 24

8.6

681.

027

2.3

-45,

016

6212

60

C

LUB

WA

GO

N

FORD

1/

1/19

97

6/23

/199

7 U

L 16

3.8

293.

015

1.6

3,00

5

6227

60

E-

350

FOR

D

1/1/

1997

7/

12/1

997

UL

165.

750

9.0

454.

427

5

0 60

F2

50 4

X4

FOR

D

1/1/

1993

3/

18/1

993

UL

96

.016

.0-3

,489

6939

60

IC

E R

ESU

RFA

CER

ZA

MB

ON

I 83

83

U

L 66

.919

3.0

100.

517

,804

6000

60

IM

PALA

C

HEV

20

00

2000

U

L 15

8.7

26

8.1

5,99

2

6264

60

S-

10

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

4/

1/19

97

UL

174.

718

8.0

173.

957

4

6200

60

S-

10

CH

EV

1/1/

1994

1/

31/1

994

UL

128.

445

.013

2.1

130

6206

60

SI

ERR

A 4

X

GM

C

1/1/

1992

2/

14/1

992

UL

236.

239

0.0

341.

9-1

5,27

5

6110

60

SU

NB

IRD

PO

NTI

AC

19

93

1993

U

L 16

3.7

19

9.0

2,30

2

0 60

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

2/

22/1

996

UL

1,

116.

01,

218.

51,

802

6214

60

SU

PER

WA

G

FOR

D

1/1/

1995

4/

18/1

995

UL

514.

183

1.0

507.

923

,299

6228

60

V

AN

C

HEV

20

00

2000

U

L 30

4.7

43

3.2

-1,2

05

7203

62

C

-150

0 1/

G

MC

1/

1/19

90

4/16

/199

0 U

L 39

1.0

438.

022

2.9

2,48

8

7204

62

F2

50 4

X4

FOR

D

1/1/

1993

8/

20/1

993

UL

707.

771

5.0

908.

65,

214

7212

62

M

INIV

AN

FO

RD

19

98

1998

U

L 33

.7

7284

62

R

AM

B15

0 D

OD

GE

1/1/

1991

19

91

UL

196.

592

.033

8.9

2,91

1

6205

71

1/

2 TO

N P

U

CH

EV

1/1/

1981

12

/1/1

981

UL

157.

121

5.0

211.

984

6274

71

15

00 4

X2

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

362.

8

8249

71

1-

TON

4X

4 C

HEV

1/

1/19

97

4/9/

1997

U

L 42

6.2

449.

066

3.3

542

6275

71

25

00 4

X2

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

652.

6

6.9

8265

71

2W

D P

U 1

TO

N

GM

C

1999

19

99

UL

823.

5

776.

659

1

6300

71

3

WH

EEL

CA

RT

CU

SHM

AN

19

85

1985

U

L 27

.124

.012

.53,

886

6271

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

FO

RD

19

99

1999

U

L 41

0.1

49

2.3

388

6247

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

90

4/1/

1990

U

L 15

9.1

563.

028

9.1

83

6249

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

GM

C

1/1/

1992

2/

18/1

992

UL

310.

234

7.0

323.

120

7

39

2

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

TON

6256

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

95

8/8/

1995

U

L 28

9.4

231.

081

9.4

-16,

533

6257

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

96

4/23

/199

6 U

L 73

8.9

824.

01,

133.

61,

400

6258

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

96

5/14

/199

6 U

L 68

2.0

446.

065

0.2

588

6260

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

96

5/14

/199

6 U

L 56

5.8

369.

046

3.9

476

6265

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

97

4/17

/199

7 U

L 79

0.3

625.

075

6.6

33,6

78

6267

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

5/19

/199

8 U

L 91

6.6

559.

083

9.6

865

6268

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

5/19

/199

8 U

L 1,

802.

666

2.0

1,15

0.6

161

6269

71

C

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

G

MC

1/

1/19

99

5/4/

1999

U

L 13

6.2

66.0

293.

524

2

6262

71

C

2500

SIE

RR

A E

XT

CA

B 4

X2

GM

C

1995

19

95

UL

696.

2

226.

02,

464

8100

71

C

AV

ALI

ER

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL

165.

221

6.0

168.

12,

925

6832

71

CH

AIN

SAW

12

MC

710

CH

AIN

SAW

20

00

2000

U

L 42

.922

.022

.654

3

6833

71

C

HA

INSA

W 5

H

OM

LIT

2000

20

00

UL

45.7

17.0

44.5

8109

71

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

1/

1/19

97

6/5/

1999

U

L 45

.651

.034

7.1

-13

6104

71

C

RO

WN

VIC

FO

RD

19

97

1997

U

L 19

7.4

24

4.9

229

6272

71

F1

50

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

549.

0

762.

265

4

6273

71

F2

50 4

X4

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

995.

9

6103

71

FO

CU

S FO

RD

20

00

2000

U

L 29

0.8

38

2.9

-717

6266

71

K

1500

SIE

RR

A 1

/2

TON

4X

4 G

MC

1/

1/19

98

10/2

1/98

U

L 84

5.4

836.

090

3.0

10,9

58

6252

71

K

2500

SIE

RR

A

GM

C

1/1/

1992

2/

14/1

992

UL

27.8

892.

098

1.2

939

6259

71

K

2500

SIE

RR

A 3

/4

TON

G

MC

20

00

2000

U

L 68

5.8

64.0

1,03

0.0

685

6270

71

K

2500

SIE

RR

A 3

/4

TON

G

MC

19

99

1999

U

L 86

1.8

1,

178.

146

2

39

3

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

8203

71

PA

SSEN

GER

VA

N

DO

DG

E 19

91

1991

U

L 42

7.9

1,

049.

5-4

0,29

4

8910

71

PR

OLI

NE

4 M

OW

ER T

OR

O

1994

19

94

UL

53.2

0.0

48.8

-108

8911

71

PR

OLI

NE

4 M

OW

ER T

OR

O

1994

19

94

UL

5.8

6207

71

R

AM

150

0 D

OD

GE

1/1/

1995

6/

28/1

995

UL

1,58

8.8

6616

71

R

AM

350

STA

KE

TRU

CK

DO

DG

E 1/

1/19

92

3/6/

1992

U

L 33

2.6

460.

036

2.7

205

8263

71

S-

10

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

4/

1/19

97

UL

522.

91,

001.

086

1.0

905

6263

71

S-

10

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

4/

1/19

97

UL

299.

567

7.0

491.

041

6

6208

71

S-

10 4

X2

CH

EV

2001

20

01

UL

1,59

0.5

8264

71

S-

10 E

XTE

ND

C

HEV

1/

1/19

98

4/14

/199

8 U

L 81

2.9

1,15

3.0

1,06

2.6

1,03

6

6238

71

SA

VA

NA

W S

TAH

L B

OD

Y

GM

C

1/1/

1998

9/

14/1

998

UL

690.

753

7.0

873.

659

3

6204

71

SI

ERR

A 2

500

GM

C

1/1/

1996

2/

16/1

996

UL

197.

823

6.0

246.

518

5

6253

71

SI

ERR

A 3

500

1 TO

N

GM

C

1/1/

1994

3/

25/1

994

UL

426.

296

9.0

904.

353

6

6254

71

SI

ERR

A 3

500

1 TO

N

GM

C

1/1/

1994

3/

25/1

994

UL

1,06

0.7

797.

087

2.8

408

6101

71

SU

NFI

RE

PON

TIA

C

1/1/

1996

2/

22/1

996

UL

433.

197

8.0

1,11

2.9

1,24

2

6415

71

TRA

ILER

W

ELD

ER/G

ENER

AT

OR

1996

19

96

UL

5.8

5.

7

8602

71

U

TILI

TY T

RU

CK

FO

RD

19

85

1985

U

L 29

.117

0.0

221.

7-1

,887

6224

71

V

ENTU

RE

CH

EV

1999

19

99

UL

204.

2

291.

3-5

,348

8202

71

W

IND

STA

R

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

5/

27/1

998

UL

277.

733

4.0

226.

5-4

,571

6996

71

W

OR

KM

AST

ER

TOR

O

1979

19

79

UL

20.2

59.0

51.8

188

3913

73

92

4738

72I

N M

OW

ER H

UST

LER

19

99

1999

U

L 12

4.9

13

6.2

11,7

64

3200

73

E-

150

FOR

D

1/1/

1996

3/

1/19

96

UL

449.

02,

062.

02,

220.

823

,172

3262

73

F2

50 W

UTI

LITY

B

OD

Y

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

920.

9

923.

57,

786

3164

73

LU

MIN

A

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

4/

15/1

998

UL

602.

763

.040

0.7

11,3

40

3210

73

SA

VA

NA

G

MC

1/

1/19

97

4/22

/199

7 U

L 71

6.2

845.

058

8.8

6,52

6

39

4

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

3211

73

SA

VA

NA

G

MC

1/

1/19

97

4/22

/199

7 U

L 58

8.3

1,04

7.0

1,07

9.4

10,6

46

2271

73

SI

ERR

A 3

/4 T

ON

W

TMY

GA

TE

GM

C

1/1/

1998

5/

6/19

98

UL

1,33

8.4

1,22

1.0

1,44

5.2

15,3

98

3162

73

SU

NFI

RE

S PO

NTI

AC

1/

1/19

96

3/26

/199

6 U

L 28

8.7

276.

028

2.3

7,47

3

3160

73

TE

MPO

FO

RD

1/

1/19

91

11/5

/199

1 U

L 14

4.7

24.0

24.6

451

3291

73

V

AN

DU

RA

G

MC

1/1/

1994

2/

14/1

994

UL

232.

897

0.0

1,01

9.0

11,6

33

3292

73

V

AN

DU

RA

G

MC

1/1/

1994

2/

14/1

994

UL

177.

71,

055.

01,

245.

214

,806

3285

74

1/

2 TO

N P

U

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

409.

7

0 74

35

00

CH

EV

1/1/

1994

8/

5/19

94

UL

1,

370.

013

.710

0

0 74

35

00

CH

EV

1/1/

1994

8/

5/19

94

UL

1,

297.

098

.780

9

3283

74

C

AR

AV

AN

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1997

5/

7/19

97

UL

309.

823

7.0

333.

52,

101

3261

74

F2

50 W

UTI

LITY

B

OD

Y

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

634.

9

1,03

1.4

8,63

7

3203

74

F2

50 X

L FO

RD

19

99

1999

U

L 63

4.7

87

1.0

5,94

9

3165

74

LU

MIN

A

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

4/

15/1

998

UL

294.

423

9.0

211.

05,

460

3920

74

M

OW

ER

KU

TKW

IK

1994

19

94

UL

27.7

21.0

49.8

121

2270

75

25

00 4

X4

W C

RA

NE

GM

C

1/1/

1998

8/

11/1

998

UL

531.

552

9.0

672.

45,

683

2232

75

C

AR

AV

AN

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1997

5/

7/19

97

UL

248.

537

2.0

325.

75,

124

2259

75

C

AR

AV

AN

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1997

5/

7/19

97

UL

195.

917

7.0

194.

33,

537

2106

75

LU

MIN

A

CH

EV

1/1/

1998

4/

15/1

998

UL

290.

630

3.0

341.

67,

806

0 75

N

ot o

n lis

t 0

0 0

UL

21

4.0

398.

3

2247

75

SI

ERR

A 2

500

GM

C

1/1/

1997

2/

24/1

997

UL

303.

551

1.0

484.

93,

929

0 75

SI

ERR

A 3

500

GM

C

1/1/

1994

3/

25/1

994

UL

56

4.0

178.

11,

117

0 75

SI

ERR

A 3

500

GM

C

1/1/

1994

3/

25/1

994

UL

15

6.0

27.1

204

3284

76

1

TON

PU

W

UTI

LITY

BO

DY

FO

RD

2001

20

01

UL

1,23

1.0

98

.752

9

2273

76

25

00 3

/4 T

ON

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

5/6/

1998

U

L 90

1.7

767.

089

5.9

6,01

0

3201

76

25

00 3

/4 T

ON

G

MC

1/

1/19

96

3/19

/199

6 U

L 38

1.3

741.

080

8.9

10,3

04

39

5

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

3202

76

25

00 3

/4 T

ON

G

MC

1/

1/19

96

3/19

/199

6 U

L 61

7.3

144.

01,

013.

86,

855

0 76

35

00SL

G

MC

1/

1/19

92

6/11

/199

2 U

L

245.

092

.658

4

0 76

35

00SL

G

MC

1/

1/19

92

6/11

/199

2 U

L

549.

011

1.1

572

2276

76

4X

4 W

UTI

LITY

B

OD

Y

FOR

D

1999

19

99

UL

1,57

8.1

2,

016.

99,

715

3272

76

C

AR

AV

AN

D

OD

GE

1/1/

1997

5/

7/19

97

UL

239.

932

7.0

342.

05,

457

2946

76

C

EMEN

T LO

AD

ER

MIN

ILO

AD

ER

1998

19

98

UL

10.0

9.0

10.7

0

3260

76

F1

50X

L FO

RD

20

00

2000

U

L 1,

090.

6

1,27

0.8

14,8

14

3230

76

F-

250

FOR

D

1/1/

99

5/5/

1999

U

L

131.

044

8.5

4,94

8

3231

76

F-

250

FOR

D

1/1/

1999

5/

4/19

99

UL

463.

339

.050

2.8

5,73

2

2275

76

F-

250

3/4

TON

PU

FO

RD

1/

1/19

99

5/13

/199

9 U

L 79

2.0

72.0

1,05

9.0

13,5

45

3263

76

F2

50 4

X2

FOR

D

2001

20

01

UL

432.

9

2277

76

F2

50X

L SU

PER

CA

B

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

1,17

0.5

1,

064.

414

,782

2503

76

F3

50 3

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

477.

6

226.

81,

307

2504

76

F3

50 3

YD

DU

MP

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

489.

8

388.

42,

024

2278

76

F3

50 4

X4

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL

169.

5

220.

71,

570

2616

76

F-

450X

L R

OD

DER

FO

RD

20

00

2000

U

L 1,

564.

7

1,36

2.7

876

2615

76

G

C31

605

CH

EV

1/1/

1994

2/

17/1

994

UL

1,03

6.8

964.

01,

114.

993

9

2945

76

M

INIM

IXX

C

EMEN

TMIX

ER

MIN

IMIX

X

1998

19

98

UL

10.0

23.0

3.5

0

0 76

N

ot o

n li

0 0

0 U

L

1,34

6.0

33.1

13

2268

76

SI

ERR

A 2

500

EXT

CA

B P

U

GM

C

1/1/

1996

3/

19/1

996

UL

220.

61,

777.

034

7.1

2,62

2

2269

76

SI

ERR

A 2

500

EXT

CA

B P

U

GM

C

1/1/

1996

3/

19/1

996

UL

226.

91,

392.

045

8.0

3,47

2

2272

76

SI

ERR

A 3

/4 T

ON

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

5/6/

1998

U

L 39

1.4

1,36

8.0

1,05

9.1

-26,

306

2274

76

SI

ERR

A 3

/4 T

ON

G

MC

1/

1/19

98

5/6/

1998

U

L 46

3.6

1,56

5.0

1,23

7.1

6,81

3

0 76

SI

ERR

A 3

5 G

MC

1/

1/19

94

3/25

/199

4 U

L

1,45

9.0

361.

4-4

0,25

9

0 76

SI

ERR

A 3

5 G

MC

1/

1/19

94

3/25

/199

4 U

L

646.

023

6.8

1,23

6

39

6

VE

H #

D

EPT

M

OD

EL

M

NFC

TR

M

NFC

T

DA

TE

PU

RC

H

DA

TE

FU

EL

TYPE

GA

LLO

NS

FY20

01

GA

LLO

NS

1998

G

AL

LON

S FY

2000

M

ILE

S 20

00-

2001

0 76

SI

ERR

A C

2 G

MC

1/

1/19

95

2/3/

1995

U

L

563.

063

1.8

431

3299

76

SI

ERR

A C

2 G

MC

1/

1/19

95

2/3/

1995

U

L 55

0.3

512.

061

7.3

-33,

048

0 91

C

-60

1 TO

N

CH

EV

1998

19

88

UL

10

9.0

49.4

4

1105

91

C

IER

A

OLD

S 19

88

1988

U

L 52

.2

1262

91

SI

ERR

A

GM

C

1/1/

1996

5/

14/1

996

UL

614.

276

4.0

699.

250

9

1901

91

TU

G

MO

LIN

E 19

66

1966

U

L 21

.6

42.0

57

1202

91

W

IND

STA

R

FOR

D

1996

19

96

UL

288.

5

305.

07,

782

1259

1/2

TON

PU

G

MC

19

91

1991

U

L

14

2.4

25

0 C

omm

C

ente

r N

ot o

n lis

t 0

0 0

UL

83

.030

.129

,412

3 H

OU

S C

OM

SI

ERR

A P

U

GM

C

1999

19

99

UL

606.

9

715.

148

9

25

Hou

sing

C

omm

R

AM

150

0 D

OD

GE

1992

19

92

UL

413.

5

304.

6-3

0,20

0

24

Hou

sing

C

omm

V

AN

G

MC

20

00

2000

U

L 41

8.3

32

0.1

141

17

Nei

ghbo

r Se

nior

s N

ot o

n lis

t 0

2000

20

00

UL

2,96

1.8

1,69

4.0

3,00

2.3

34,3

43

0

3000

FO

RD

19

73

1974

U

L

0.0

19.9

-3,3

61B

I-FU

EL

9001

45

C

ON

TOU

R B

IFU

EL

CN

G

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

7/

10/1

998

UL/

CN

G

57.3

129.

039

.64,

483

3232

76

B

I-FU

EL P

U

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL/

LPG

33

2.7

23

2.8

8,79

9

2279

76

F1

50 B

IFU

EL P

U

FOR

D

2000

20

00

UL/

LPG

51

9.2

27

1.8

10,8

21

3002

73

LU

MIN

A

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL/

CN

G

193.

429

.014

.53,

359

3163

74

LU

MIN

A

CH

EV

1/1/

1997

3/

10/1

997

UL

103.

995

.012

7.1

3,69

1

1101

91

C

ON

TOU

R B

IFU

EL

CN

G

FOR

D

1/1/

1998

7/

10/1

998

UL/

CN

G

57.6

58.0

69.2

1,47

2

Tot

al

350,

524.

328

3,15

0.0

384,

732.

72,

915,

076.

0

39

7

APP

EN

DIX

Q: A

NN

AR

BO

R L

AN

DFI

LL

GA

S R

ECO

VER

Y D

ATA

*

Land

fill g

as c

alcu

latio

ns a

ssum

e an

avg

. of 5

00 b

tu/c

f. **

Sub

stitu

tion

valu

es b

ased

on

DTE

ave

rage

CO

2/MW

H (1

995-

2000

).

CO

2e

1996

*L

andf

ill

Gas

(c

uft/m

o)

MM

Btu

/m

o Fl

are

(MM

Btu

/mo)

E

lect

rici

ty

(MW

h/m

o)In

com

eC

H4

(ton

s)

MT

CO

2e

Flar

e R

ecap

ture

**

Fuel

Sub

.T

otal

O

ct

21,6

60,0

00

10,8

30

10,8

30

454.

86

9,49

0.72

56

6.41

9,

490.

72

8,

924.

31

Nov

19

,608

,000

9,

804

9,80

4

41

1.77

8,

591.

60

512.

75

8,59

1.60

8,07

8.85

D

ec

21,0

78,0

00

10,5

39

10,5

39

442.

64

9,23

5.70

55

1.19

9,

235.

70

8,

684.

51

1996

Tot

al

118,

410,

641

31,1

73

31,1

73

- $

- 1,

309.

27

27,3

18.0

2 1,

630.

35

27,3

18.0

2 -

25,6

87.6

7 G

rand

Tot

al 1

18,4

10,6

41

31,1

73

31,1

73

- $

- 1,

309.

27

27,3

18.0

2

27,3

18.0

2

25,6

87.6

7

CO

2e

1997

*Lan

dfill

G

as

(cuf

t/mo)

M

MB

tu

/mo

Flar

e

(MM

Btu

/mo)

E

lect

rici

ty

(MW

h/m

o)In

com

eC

H4

(ton

s)

MT

CO

2e

Flar

e R

ecap

ture

**

Fuel

Sub

.T

otal

Ja

n

22,0

58,0

00

11,0

29

11,0

29

463.

22

9,66

5.11

57

6.82

9,

665.

11

9,

088.

29

Feb

24,6

24,0

00

12,3

12

12,3

12

517.

10

10,7

89.4

5 64

3.92

10

,789

.45

10

,145

.53

Mar

19

,564

,000

9,

782

9,78

2

41

0.84

8,

572.

32

511.

60

8,57

2.32

8,06

0.72

A

pr

25,4

04,0

00

12,7

02

12,7

02

533.

48

11,1

31.2

2 66

4.31

11

,131

.22

10

,466

.90

May

31

,840

,000

15

,920

15

,920

66

8.64

13

,951

.27

832.

62

13,9

51.2

7

13,1

18.6

5 Ju

n 19

,868

,000

9,

934

9,93

4

41

7.23

8,

705.

52

519.

55

8,70

5.52

8,18

5.97

Ju

l 23

,312

,000

11

,656

11

,656

48

9.55

10

,214

.57

609.

61

10,2

14.5

7

9,60

4.96

A

ug

24,4

94,0

00

12,2

47

12,2

47

514.

37

10,7

32.4

9 64

0.52

10

,732

.49

10

,091

.97

Sep

18,2

38,0

00

9,11

9 9,

119

383.

00

7,99

1.31

47

6.92

7,

991.

31

7,

514.

38

Oct

19

,456

,000

9,

728

9,72

8

40

8.58

8,

525.

00

508.

77

8,52

5.00

8,01

6.22

N

ov

18,1

12,0

00

9,05

6 9,

056

380.

35

7,93

6.10

47

3.63

7,

936.

10

7,

462.

47

Dec

19

,610

,000

9,

805

9,80

5

41

1.81

8,

592.

47

512.

80

8,59

2.47

8,07

9.67

19

97 T

otal

50

6,30

2,06

5 13

3,29

0 13

3,29

0 -

$ -

5,59

8.18

11

6,80

6.81

6,

971.

07

116,

806.

81

- 10

9,83

5.74

G

rand

Tot

al 6

24,7

12,7

06

164,

463

164,

463

9-

$ -

6,90

7.45

14

4,12

4.83

6,

971.

07

144,

124.

83

- 13

5,52

3.41

39

8

C

O2e

19

98

*Lan

dfill

G

as

(cuf

t/mo)

M

MB

tu

/mo

Flar

e (M

MB

tu/m

o)

Ele

ctri

city

(M

Wh/

mo)

Inco

me

CH

4 (t

ons)

M

TC

O2e

Fl

are

Rec

aptu

re

**Fu

el S

ub.

Tot

al

Jan

22

,566

,000

11

,283

11

,283

47

3.89

9,

887.

70

590.

10

9,88

7.70

9,29

7.60

Fe

b 20

,016

,000

10

,008

10

,008

42

0.34

8,

770.

37

523.

42

8,77

0.37

8,24

6.95

M

ar

22,0

92,0

00

11,0

46

11,0

46

463.

93

9,68

0.01

57

7.71

9,

680.

01

9,

102.

30

Apr

22

,510

,000

11

,255

618.

00

$34,

246.

00

472.

71

9,86

3.16

9,86

3.16

50

9.42

10

,372

.58

May

21

,612

,000

10

,806

590.

40

$30,

527.

00

453.

85

9,46

9.69

9,46

9.69

48

6.67

9,

956.

35

Jun

15,7

78,0

00

7,88

9

416.

60

$22,

956.

00

331.

34

6,91

3.41

6,91

3.41

34

3.40

7,

256.

82

Jul

21,6

48,0

00

10,8

24

78

7.30

$4

3,56

3.00

45

4.61

9,

485.

46

9,

485.

46

648.

97

10,1

34.4

3 A

ug

20,5

06,0

00

10,2

53

70

9.10

$3

9,77

3.00

43

0.63

8,

985.

07

8,

985.

07

584.

51

9,56

9.58

Se

p 22

,494

,000

11

,247

386.

90

$48,

004.

00

472.

37

9,85

6.15

9,85

6.15

31

8.92

10

,175

.07

Oct

22

,100

,000

11

,050

885.

80

$49,

925.

00

464.

10

9,68

3.51

9,68

3.51

73

0.16

10

,413

.68

Nov

17

,460

,000

8,

730

70

2.00

$3

9,36

5.00

36

6.66

7,

650.

41

7,

650.

41

578.

66

8,22

9.07

D

ec

14,8

64,0

00

7,43

2

591.

10

$32,

987.

00

312.

14

6,51

2.93

6,51

2.93

48

7.24

7,

000.

17

1998

Tot

al

243,

646,

000

121,

823

5,

687.

20

$341

,346

.00

5,11

6.57

10

6,75

7.87

1,

691.

23

106,

757.

87

4,68

7.96

10

9,75

4.60

G

rand

Tot

al

868,

358,

706

286,

286

164,

463

5,68

7.20

$3

41,3

46.0

0 12

,024

.01

250,

882.

69

8,66

2.29

25

0,88

2.69

4,

687.

96

245,

278.

01

39

9

C

O2e

19

99

*Lan

dfill

G

as

(cuf

t/mo)

M

MB

tu

/mo

Flar

e (M

MB

tu/m

o)E

lect

rici

ty

(MW

h/m

o)In

com

e

CH

4 (t

ons)

M

TC

O2e

Fl

are

Rec

aptu

re**

Fuel

Su

b.

Tot

al

Jan

12

,054

,000

6,

027

47

4.00

$2

6,25

8.00

25

3.13

5,

281.

68

5,

281.

68

390.

72

5,67

2.39

Fe

b 17

,922

,000

8,

961

71

5.40

$4

0,13

9.00

37

6.36

7,

852.

85

7,

852.

85

589.

70

8,44

2.55

M

ar

22,1

60,0

00

11,0

80

88

6.40

$4

9,97

0.00

46

5.36

9,

709.

80

9,

709.

80

730.

66

10,4

40.4

6 A

pr

20,7

60,0

00

10,3

80

83

1.50

$4

6,37

2.50

43

5.96

9,

096.

37

9,

096.

37

685.

41

9,78

1.77

M

ay

16,2

90,0

00

8,14

5

653.

60

$37,

022.

78

342.

09

7,13

7.76

7,13

7.76

53

8.76

7,

676.

52

Jun

14,5

68,0

00

7,28

4

583.

60

$32,

556.

98

305.

93

6,38

3.23

6,38

3.23

48

1.06

6,

864.

29

Jul

12,7

22,0

00

6,36

1

267.

16

5,57

4.37

5,57

4.37

-

5,57

4.37

A

ug

12,1

06,0

00

6,05

3

254.

23

5,30

4.46

5,30

4.46

-

5,30

4.46

Se

p 14

,070

,000

7,

035

29

5.47

6,

165.

02

6,

165.

02

- 6,

165.

02

Oct

10

,078

,000

5,

039

28

3.20

$1

5,28

5.00

21

1.64

4,

415.

86

4,

415.

86

233.

44

4,64

9.30

N

ov

11,8

58,0

00

5,92

9

460.

50

$25,

477.

90

249.

02

5,19

5.80

5,19

5.80

37

9.59

5,

575.

39

Dec

15

,202

,000

7,

601

52

6.90

$2

9,29

8.52

31

9.24

6,

661.

03

6,

661.

03

434.

32

7,09

5.35

1999

Tot

al

179,

790,

000

89,8

95

5,

415.

10

$302

,380

.68

3,77

5.59

78

,778

.21

- 78

,778

.21

4,46

3.67

83

,241

.88

Gra

nd T

otal

1,04

8,14

8,70

6 37

6,18

1 16

4,46

3 11

,102

.30

$643

,726

.68

15,7

99.6

0 32

9,66

0.91

8,

662.

29

329,

660.

919,

151.

63

328,

519.

89

40

0

C

O2e

20

00

*Lan

dfill

Gas

(c

uft/m

o)

MM

Btu

/m

o

Flar

e (M

MB

tu/m

o)

Ele

ctri

city

M

Wh/

mo

Inco

me

CH

4 (to

ns)

MT

CO

2e

Flar

e R

ecap

ture

**

Fuel

Su

b.

Tot

al

Jan

14

,120

,000

7,

060

47

4.00

$2

6,25

8.00

29

6.52

6,

186.

93

6,

186.

93

390.

72

6,57

7.65

Fe

b 12

,840

,000

6,

420

26

9.64

5,

626.

08

5,

626.

08

- 5,

626.

08

Mar

14

,396

,000

7,

198

57

6.00

$3

2,10

5.00

30

2.32

6,

307.

87

6,

307.

87

474.

80

6,78

2.66

A

pr

14,0

16,0

00

7,00

8

561.

00

$31,

230.

00

294.

34

6,14

1.36

6,14

1.36

46

2.43

6,

603.

79

May

13

,356

,000

6,

678

53

5.00

$2

9,72

4.00

28

0.48

5,

852.

17

5,

852.

17

441.

00

6,29

3.17

Ju

n 13

,840

,000

6,

920

55

4.00

$3

0,83

7.00

29

0.64

6,

064.

24

6,

064.

24

456.

66

6,52

0.91

Ju

l 14

,590

,000

7,

295

58

4.00

$3

2,56

2.00

30

6.39

6,

392.

87

6,

392.

87

481.

39

6,87

4.26

A

ug

14,5

70,0

00

7,28

5 2,

493

582.

00

$32,

496.

00

305.

97

6,38

4.11

13

0.38

6,

384.

11

479.

74

6,73

3.47

Se

p 14

,358

,000

7,

179

3,40

2 57

3.00

$3

1,98

0.00

30

1.52

6,

291.

22

177.

92

6,29

1.22

47

2.32

6,

585.

61

Oct

14

,718

,000

7,

359

3,22

9 58

9.00

$3

2,88

5.00

30

9.08

6,

448.

96

168.

88

6,44

8.96

48

5.51

6,

765.

59

Nov

12

,846

,000

6,

423

1,54

0

26

9.77

5,

628.

71

80.5

4 5,

628.

71

- 5,

548.

16

Dec

-

-

- -

2000

Tot

al

153,

650,

000

76,8

25

10,6

64

5,02

8.00

$2

80,0

77.0

03,

226.

65

67,3

24.5

0 55

7.73

67

,324

.50

4,14

4.58

70

,911

.36

Gra

nd T

otal

1,2

01,7

98,7

06

453,

006

453,

577

16,1

30.3

0 $9

23,8

03.6

819

,026

.25

396,

985.

41

9,22

0.02

39

6,98

5.41

13

,296

.21

399,

431.

25

40

1

C

O2e

20

01

*Lan

dfill

Gas

(c

uft/m

o)

MM

Btu

/m

o

Flar

e (M

MB

tu/m

o)

Ele

ctri

city

(M

Wh/

mo)

Inco

me

CH

4 (t

ons)

M

TC

O2e

Fl

are

Rec

aptu

re

**Fu

el

Sub.

T

otal

Ja

n

-

-

-

- -

- Fe

b 12

,812

,249

6,

406

51

2.82

$2

8,48

5.71

26

9.06

5,

613.

92

5,

613.

92

422.

72

6,03

6.63

M

ar

14,3

55,6

09

7,17

8

574.

59

$32,

037.

81

301.

47

6,29

0.17

6,29

0.17

47

3.64

6,

763.

80

Apr

-

-

- -

-

- -

May

14

,264

,217

7,

132

57

0.94

$3

1,82

9.93

29

9.55

6,

250.

12

6,

250.

12

470.

62

6,72

0.74

Ju

n 13

,812

,282

6,

906

55

2.85

$3

0,78

8.09

29

0.06

6,

052.

10

6,

052.

10

455.

71

6,50

7.81

Ju

l 12

,667

,442

6,

334

50

7.02

$2

8,15

4.90

26

6.02

5,

550.

47

5,

550.

47

417.

94

5,96

8.41

A

ug

14,0

08,6

81

7,00

4

560.

71

$31,

242.

22

294.

18

6,13

8.16

6,13

8.16

46

2.19

6,

600.

35

Sep

12,5

39,7

74

6,27

0

501.

91

$27,

859.

20

263.

34

5,49

4.53

5,49

4.53

41

3.73

5,

908.

25

Oct

13

,410

,315

6,

705

53

6.76

$2

9,86

2.73

28

1.62

5,

875.

97

5,

875.

97

442.

45

6,31

8.42

N

ov

12,9

35,1

95

6,46

8

517.

74

$28,

771.

35

271.

64

5,66

7.79

5,66

7.79

42

6.77

6,

094.

56

Dec

13

,391

,353

6,

696

53

6.00

$2

9,81

5.32

28

1.22

5,

867.

66

5,

867.

66

441.

82

6,30

9.48

20

01 T

otal

13

4,19

7,11

9 67

,099

-

5,37

1.33

$2

98,8

47.2

6 2,

818.

14

58,8

00.8

8 -

58,8

00.8

8 4,

427.

59

63,2

28.4

6 G

rand

Tot

al 1

,335

,995

,824

52

0,10

5 45

3,57

7 21

,501

.63

$1,2

22,6

50.9

421

,844

.39

455,

786.

29

9,22

0.02

455,

786.

29

17,7

23.7

946

2,65

9.71

40

2

Flar

e

CO

2e

2002

*L

andf

ill G

as

cuft

/mo

MM

Btu

/m

o (M

MB

tu/m

o)

Ele

ctri

city

(MW

h/m

o)In

com

e C

H4

(ton

s)

MT

CO

2e

Flar

e R

ecap

ture

**

Fuel

Su

b.

Tot

al

Jan

5,

432,

437

2,71

6

217.

44

$11,

501.

25

114.

08

2,38

0.32

2,38

0.32

17

9.23

2,

559.

55

Feb

11,3

18,4

33

5,65

9

453.

03

$25,

045.

06

237.

69

4,95

9.37

4,95

9.37

37

3.43

5,

332.

81

Mar

13

,480

,920

6,

740

53

9.58

$3

0,02

1.87

28

3.10

5,

906.

91

5,

906.

91

444.

78

6,35

1.69

A

pr

12,3

42,0

76

6,17

1

494.

00

$27,

413.

94

259.

18

5,40

7.90

5,40

7.90

40

7.20

5,

815.

11

May

10

,904

,999

5,

452

43

6.48

$2

4,09

7.98

22

9.00

4,

778.

22

4,

778.

22

359.

79

5,13

8.01

Ju

n 13

,036

,031

6,

518

52

1.78

$2

9,00

3.55

27

3.76

5,

711.

97

5,

711.

97

430.

10

6,14

2.07

Ju

l 14

,126

,531

7,

063

56

5.42

$3

1,51

2.95

29

6.66

6,

189.

79

6,

189.

79

466.

08

6,65

5.87

A

ug

14,3

90,8

36

7,19

5

576.

00

$32,

122.

01

302.

21

6,30

5.60

6,30

5.60

47

4.80

6,

780.

40

Sep

13,2

24,0

10

6,61

2

529.

30

$29,

433.

88

277.

70

5,79

4.34

5,79

4.34

43

6.30

6,

230.

64

Oct

12

,941

,192

6,

471

51

7.98

$2

8,78

3.08

27

1.77

5,

670.

42

5,

670.

42

426.

97

6,09

7.39

N

ov

- -

-

-

- -

- D

ec

- -

-

-

- -

- 20

02 T

otal

12

1,19

7,46

5 60

,599

-

4,85

1.01

$2

68,9

35.5

7 2,

545.

15

53,1

04.8

4 -

53,1

04.8

4 3,

998.

69

57,1

03.5

3 G

rand

Tot

al 1

,457

,193

,289

580

,703

45

3,57

7 26

,352

.64

$1,4

91,5

86.5

124

,389

.54

508,

891.

13

9,22

0.02

50

8,89

1.13

21

,722

.48

519,

763.

25

403

APPENDIX R: METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING GHG SAVINGS FROM RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING

The City of Ann Arbor Solid Waste Department provided the Team with the City’s recycling and composting data for the years 1991-2001.349

Table R-1: Tons Recycled and Composted, Ann Arbor: 1991-2000

Year Recycling (tons)

Composting (tons)

1991 7,998.00 4,887.251992 8,414.50 6,783.751993 9,769.50 7,653.751994 10,710.25 8,687.251995 10,769.50 9,868.501996 13,623.00 10,922.001997 13,721.00 14,325.001998 12,796.00 11,514.001999 13,435.00 11,310.002000 14,375.00 11,987.002001 16,042.00 12,681.00

The Solid Waste Department also provided the Team with a material breakdown of recyclable items processed at the Ann Arbor Materials Recovery Facility for one year (fund year 2000-2001). Many communities generate the materials that end up at this facility, so the Team had to assume that the overall material breakdown would be the same as the materials recycled by Ann Arbor’s residents. The Team calculated the prevalence of each material type for the year data was available and assumed it would be the same for all years considered. Percent of total = (total tons of material type/total tons of all materials) x 100

Table R-2: Breakdown of Recycled Materials

Material Type Total Tons FY 2000-2001

Percent of Total Recycled Material

ONP #8 13,292.55 46.33%OCC 4,757.28 16.58%OCC\Mix 0.00 0.00%Mixed Paper 2,171.94 7.57%Office Paper 1,122.94 3.91%Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00%Glass - Flint 550.40 1.92%Glass – Green 364.19 1.27%

349 The Team did not evaluate GHG emissions savings from source reduction (i.e. less materials consumed through material reuse, etc.)

404

Material Type Total Tons FY 2000-2001

Percent of Total Recycled Material

Glass – Amber 123.70 0.43% Glass – Mixed 2,741.36 9.56% Plastic – PET 499.33 1.74% Plastic - HDPE Natural 507.74 1.77% Plastic - HDPE Pigmented 288.93 1.01% Plastic - Mixed 0.00 0.00% Aluminum 229.95 0.80% Aluminum Foil 1.38 0.00% Ferrous Metals 913.14 3.18% Aseptic Packaging 19.38 0.07% Scrap Metal 68.50 0.24% Residue 1037.34 3.62%

TOTAL TONS 28,690.05 100.00%

Based on these percentages, the Team estimated the tons of each material recycled annually between 1991-2002 and multiplied each material type by its emissions coefficient provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s WARM Software (see Tables R-2 and R-3). The software calculates the GHG emissions reduction by not including methane emissions from the materials’ decomposition in a landfill and incorporating the associated upstream energy savings by making products from recycled materials, rather than 100% virgin. It is important to note that the software assumes unrealistically, that the materials are made into 100% recycled-content products. Therefore, the Team believes the software overestimates GHG emissions reductions for recycling. Total MTCO2e/Year = MTCO2e/Ton (for each material type) x Tons of Material

Generated/Year (for each material type)

405

Table R-3: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GHG Emissions Coefficients for Recycling and Composting

Material GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Recycled (MTCO2e)

GHG Emissions per Ton of Material Composted (MTCO2e)

Aluminum Cans -15.07 NASteel Cans -1.79 NAGlass -0.28 NAHDPE -1.4 NALDPE -1.71 NAPET -1.55 NACorrugated Cardboard -2.6 NAMagazines/third-class mail -2.7 NANewspaper -3.48 NAOffice Paper -2.48 NAPhonebooks -3.34 NATextbooks -2.74 NADimensional Lumber -2.45 NAMedium Density Fiberboard -2.47 NAFood Scraps NA -0.2Yard Trimmings NA -0.2Grass NA -0.2Leaves NA -0.2Branches NA -0.2Mixed Paper, Broad -2.47 NAMixed Paper, Resid. -2.47 NAMixed Paper, Office -3.05 NAMixed Metals -6.5 NAMixed Plastics -1.51 NAMixed Recyclables -2.8 NAMixed Organics NA -0.2Mixed MSW NA NA

40

6

Tab

le R

-4: E

mis

sion

s Red

uctio

ns fr

om A

nn A

rbor

’s C

ompo

stin

g an

d R

ecyc

ling

Eff

orts

, 199

1-19

93

Mat

eria

ls

% M

akeu

pM

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons

per

Ton

of M

ater

ial

Rec

ycle

d

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

1 M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

992

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

3

ON

P #8

46

.33%

-3.4

8-1

2,89

5.48

-13,

567.

02-1

5,75

1.74

OC

C

16.5

8%-2

.6-3

,448

.12

-3,6

27.6

8-4

,211

.85

Mix

ed P

aper

7.

57%

-2.4

7-1

,495

.53

-1,5

73.4

1-1

,826

.78

Offi

ce P

aper

3.

91%

-2.4

8-7

76.3

5-8

16.7

8-9

48.3

1G

lass

- Fl

int

1.92

%-0

.28

-42.

96-4

5.20

-52.

48G

lass

- G

reen

1.

27%

-0.2

8-2

8.43

-29.

91-3

4.72

Gla

ss -

Am

ber

0.43

%-0

.28

-9.6

6-1

0.16

-11.

79G

lass

- M

ixed

9.

56%

-0.2

8-2

13.9

8-2

25.1

2-2

61.3

8Pl

astic

- PE

T 1.

74%

-1.5

5-2

15.7

6-2

27.0

0-2

63.5

5Pl

astic

- H

DPE

Nat

ural

1.

77%

-1.4

-198

.16

-208

.48

-242

.05

Plas

tic -

HD

PE P

igm

ente

d 1.

01%

-1.4

-112

.76

-118

.64

-137

.74

Alu

min

um

0.80

%-1

5.07

-966

.04

-1,0

16.3

5-1

,180

.02

Ferr

ous M

etal

s 3.

18%

-1.7

9-4

55.6

6-4

79.3

9-5

56.5

8A

sept

ic P

acka

ging

0.

07%

0.00

0.00

0.00

Scra

p M

etal

0.

24%

-6.5

-124

.12

-130

.59

-151

.62

Resi

due

3.62

%0.

000.

000.

00T

OT

AL

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling)

10

0.00

%-2

0,98

3.02

-22,

075.

72-2

5,63

0.61

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s pe

r T

on o

f Mat

eria

l C

ompo

sted

M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

991

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

2 M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

993

-0.2

-977

.45

-135

6.75

-153

0.75

TO

TA

L A

nnua

l Sav

ings

(Com

post

ing)

-977

.45

-135

6.75

-153

0.75

Tota

l Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling

& C

ompo

stin

g)

-21,

960.

47-2

3,43

2.47

-27,

161.

36

40

7

Tab

le R

-5: E

mis

sion

s Red

uctio

ns fr

om A

nn A

rbor

’s C

ompo

stin

g an

d R

ecyc

ling

Eff

orts

, 199

4-19

96

Mat

eria

ls

% M

akeu

pM

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons

per

Ton

of M

ater

ial

Rec

ycle

d

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

4 M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

995

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

6

ON

P #8

46

.33%

-3.4

8-1

7,26

8.55

-17,

364.

08-2

1,96

4.89

OC

C

16.5

8%-2

.6-4

,617

.43

-4,6

42.9

7-5

,873

.18

Mix

ed P

aper

7.

57%

-2.4

7-2

,002

.69

-2,0

13.7

7-2

,547

.34

Offi

ce P

aper

3.

91%

-2.4

8-1

,039

.62

-1,0

45.3

8-1

,322

.36

Gla

ss -

Flin

t 1.

92%

-0.2

8-5

7.53

-57.

85-7

3.18

Gla

ss -

Gre

en

1.27

%-0

.28

-38.

07-3

8.28

-48.

42G

lass

- A

mbe

r 0.

43%

-0.2

8-1

2.93

-13.

00-1

6.45

Gla

ss -

Mix

ed

9.56

%-0

.28

-286

.54

-288

.13

-364

.47

Plas

tic -

PET

1.74

%-1

.55

-288

.93

-290

.53

-367

.50

Plas

tic -

HD

PE N

atur

al

1.77

%-1

.4-2

65.3

6-2

66.8

3-3

37.5

3Pl

astic

- H

DPE

Pig

men

ted

1.01

%-1

.4-1

51.0

0-1

51.8

4-1

92.0

7A

lum

inum

0.

80%

-15.

07-1

,293

.64

-1,3

00.8

0-1

,645

.46

Ferr

ous M

etal

s 3.

18%

-1.7

9-6

10.1

8-6

13.5

6-7

76.1

3A

sept

ic P

acka

ging

0.

07%

0.00

0.00

0.00

Scra

p M

etal

0.

24%

-6.5

-166

.22

-167

.14

-211

.42

Resi

due

3.62

%0.

000.

000.

00T

OT

AL

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling)

10

0.00

%-2

8,09

8.70

-28,

254.

14-3

5,74

0.40

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s pe

r T

on o

f Mat

eria

l C

ompo

sted

M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

994

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

5 M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

996

-0.2

-173

7.45

-197

3.7

-218

4.4

TO

TA

L A

nnua

l Sav

ings

(Com

post

ing)

-173

7.45

-197

3.7

-218

4.4

Tota

l Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling

& C

ompo

stin

g)

-29,

836.

15-3

0,22

7.84

-37,

924.

80

40

8

Tab

le R

-6: E

mis

sion

s Red

uctio

ns fr

om A

nn A

rbor

’s C

ompo

stin

g an

d R

ecyc

ling

Eff

orts

, 199

7-19

99

Mat

eria

ls

% M

akeu

pM

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons

per

Ton

of M

ater

ial

Rec

ycle

d

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

7 M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

998

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

9

ON

P #8

46

.33%

-3.4

8-2

2,12

2.90

-20,

631.

48-2

1,66

1.77

OC

C

16.5

8%-2

.6-5

,915

.43

-5,5

16.6

4-5

,792

.13

Mix

ed P

aper

7.

57%

-2.4

7-2

,565

.66

-2,3

92.7

0-2

,512

.18

Offi

ce P

aper

3.

91%

-2.4

8-1

,331

.87

-1,2

42.0

8-1

,304

.11

Gla

ss -

Flin

t 1.

92%

-0.2

8-7

3.70

-68.

74-7

2.17

Gla

ss -

Gre

en

1.27

%-0

.28

-48.

77-4

5.48

-47.

75G

lass

- A

mbe

r 0.

43%

-0.2

8-1

6.56

-15.

45-1

6.22

Gla

ss -

Mix

ed

9.56

%-0

.28

-367

.10

-342

.35

-359

.44

Plas

tic -

PET

1.74

%-1

.55

-370

.15

-345

.19

-362

.43

Plas

tic -

HD

PE N

atur

al

1.77

%-1

.4-3

39.9

6-3

17.0

4-3

32.8

7Pl

astic

- H

DPE

Pig

men

ted

1.01

%-1

.4-1

93.4

5-1

80.4

1-1

89.4

2A

lum

inum

0.

80%

-15.

07-1

,657

.30

-1,5

45.5

7-1

,622

.76

Ferr

ous M

etal

s 3.

18%

-1.7

9-7

81.7

1-7

29.0

1-7

65.4

1A

sept

ic P

acka

ging

0.

07%

0.00

0.00

0.00

Scra

p M

etal

0.

24%

-6.5

-212

.94

-198

.59

-208

.50

Resi

due

3.62

%0.

000.

000.

00T

OT

AL

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling)

10

0.00

%-3

5,99

7.50

-33,

570.

73-3

5,24

7.17

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s pe

r T

on o

f Mat

eria

l C

ompo

sted

M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

997

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

199

8 M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 1

999

-0.2

-286

5-2

302.

8-2

262

TO

TA

L A

nnua

l Sav

ings

(Com

post

ing)

-286

5-2

302.

8-2

262

Tota

l Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling

& C

ompo

stin

g)

-38,

862.

50-3

5,87

3.53

-37,

509.

17

40

9

Tab

le R

-7: E

mis

sion

s Red

uctio

ns fr

om A

nn A

rbor

’s C

ompo

stin

g an

d R

ecyc

ling

Eff

orts

, 200

0-20

01

Mat

eria

ls

% M

akeu

pM

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons

per

Ton

of M

ater

ial

Rec

ycle

d

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

200

0 M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 2

001

ON

P #8

46

.33%

-3.4

8-2

3,17

7.37

-25,

865.

14O

CC

16

.58%

-2.6

-6,1

97.3

9-6

,916

.07

Mix

ed P

aper

7.

57%

-2.4

7-2

,687

.95

-2,9

99.6

6O

ffice

Pap

er

3.91

%-2

.48

-1,3

95.3

6-1

,557

.17

Gla

ss -

Flin

t 1.

92%

-0.2

8-7

7.22

-86.

17G

lass

- G

reen

1.

27%

-0.2

8-5

1.09

-57.

02G

lass

- A

mbe

r 0.

43%

-0.2

8-1

7.35

-19.

37G

lass

- M

ixed

9.

56%

-0.2

8-3

84.5

9-4

29.1

9Pl

astic

- PE

T 1.

74%

-1.5

5-3

87.7

9-4

32.7

6Pl

astic

- H

DPE

Nat

ural

1.

77%

-1.4

-356

.16

-397

.46

Plas

tic -

HD

PE P

igm

ente

d 1.

01%

-1.4

-202

.67

-226

.18

Alu

min

um

0.80

%-1

5.07

-1,7

36.2

9-1

,937

.64

Ferr

ous M

etal

s 3.

18%

-1.7

9-8

18.9

7-9

13.9

4A

sept

ic P

acka

ging

0.

07%

0.00

0.00

Scra

p M

etal

0.

24%

-6.5

-223

.09

-248

.96

Resi

due

3.62

%0.

000.

00T

OT

AL

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling)

10

0.00

%-3

7,71

3.29

-42,

086.

72

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s pe

r T

on o

f Mat

eria

l C

ompo

sted

M

TC

O2e

Em

issi

ons,

Ann

Arb

or 2

000

MT

CO

2e E

mis

sion

s, A

nn A

rbor

200

1 -0

.2-2

397.

4-2

536.

2T

OT

AL

Ann

ual S

avin

gs (C

ompo

stin

g)-2

397.

4-2

536.

2

Tota

l Ann

ual S

avin

gs (R

ecyc

ling

& C

ompo

stin

g)

-40,

110.

69-4

4,62

2.92

410

411

APPENDIX S: METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING GREENHOUSE GASES ASSOCIATED WITH ANN ARBOR’S LANDFILL GAS RECOVERY FACILITY

Emissions from Methane Flared

1. Flaring data from the Landfill Recovery Facility was measured in MMBtus.

2. Metric tons of CO2 emitted per month were determined by multiplying MMBtu/month by a common conversion factor of 0.0523 metric tons/MMBtu of CO2.350

Reductions from Methane Recaptured

1. Collection data for the Landfill Recovery Facility is measured in MMBtus/month of landfill gas and MWh/month produced by the electricity generation component.

2. Using MMBtus measured, a common conversion factor (employed by the City) of

0.0005 cft/MMBtu was used to find the number of cubic feet (cft) of CH4 collected each month.

3. Tons of CH4 were determined using a common conversion factor of 0.000021 tons/cft

of CH4.351

4. Metric tons of CO2 were calculated by multiplying tons of CH4 by a global warming potential of 23 by 0.90718 metric tons/ton. 352

350 Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Factor, Global Warming Potentials, Unit Conversions, Emissions, and Related Facts November 23, 1998. 351 Ibid. 352 IPCC 3rd Assessment Report 2001.

412

Reduction from Fuel Substitution

1. Electricity generation data from the Landfill Recovery Facility is measured in MWh/month.

2. DTE produces 0.876 metric tons/MWh of CO2 for typical electricity generation.353

MWh/month were multiplied by this factor to determine the typical emissions associated with generating this much electricity per month.

3. Metric tons of CO2 emitted per month were determined by multiplying

MMBTU/month by a common conversion factor of 0.0523 metric tons/MMBTU of CO2.354

4. Metric tons of CO2 avoided by fuel substitution was determined by subtracting the

difference between metric tons CO2 by a typical DTE electricity generation plant and metric tons of CO2 emitted by burning CH4.

Total Emissions Reduction

1. Metric tons of CO2 avoided (total) were determined by adding the emissions reductions from CH4 recapture and fuel substitution, then subtracting the emissions associated with flaring CH4.

353 DTE, <http://dteenergy.com/environment/energizing.html>. 354 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emissions Factor, Global Warming Potentials, Unit Conversions, Emissions, and Related Facts November 23 1998.

413

APPENDIX T: GHGS REDUCED UNDER PROGRESSIVE SCENARIO

Table T-1: GHGs Reduced under Progressive Scenario (Target Year 2020) (MTCO2e)

Year Residential Commercial Industrial Transportation Municipal U of M MSW Total GHGs Reduced

2005 17,121 13,119 10,428 5,583 2,705 14,699 1,514 65,169 2006 34,043 26,355 20,806 7,362 5,428 29,519 3,028 126,540 2007 50,771 39,704 31,140 9,143 8,168 44,451 4,542 187,919 2008 67,311 53,163 41,435 10,925 10,925 59,490 6,055 249,305 2009 83,665 66,728 51,694 12,765 13,698 74,637 7,569 310,757 2010 99,869 80,421 61,939 14,555 16,489 89,808 9,083 372,164 2011 115,909 94,224 72,163 16,338 19,295 105,046 10,597 433,573 2012 131,788 108,135 82,371 18,121 22,117 120,345 12,111 494,990 2013 147,510 122,152 92,566 19,906 24,954 135,700 13,625 556,412 2014 163,080 136,273 102,752 21,692 27,805 151,105 15,138 617,845 2015 178,503 150,494 112,932 23,479 30,670 166,555 16,652 679,285 2016 193,782 164,815 123,111 25,268 33,548 182,045 18,166 740,737 2017 208,921 179,234 133,291 27,058 36,440 197,570 19,680 802,194 2018 223,924 193,747 143,475 28,849 39,344 213,125 21,194 863,659 2019 238,797 208,354 153,669 30,631 42,261 228,703 22,708 925,122 2020 253,496 223,012 163,841 32,424 45,184 244,305 24,222 986,485

Table T-2: GHG Reduced under Progressive Scenario (Target Year 2018) (MTCO2e)355


2005 19,212 14,697 11,678 5,828 3,059 16,500 1,730 72,703 2006 38,143 29,523 23,300 7,852 6,139 33,134 3,460 141,551 2007 56,858 44,476 34,873 9,877 9,237 49,894 5,190 210,406 2008 75,361 59,552 46,402 11,904 12,354 66,775 6,920 279,269 2009 93,654 74,747 57,890 13,989 15,489 83,776 8,651 348,197 2010 111,780 90,084 69,362 16,023 18,645 100,803 10,381 417,079 2011 129,722 105,545 80,812 18,051 21,817 117,906 12,111 485,964 2012 147,482 121,126 92,242 20,079 25,007 135,078 13,841 554,857 2013 165,068 136,825 103,658 22,109 28,214 152,311 15,571 623,756 2014 182,483 152,640 115,064 24,140 31,436 169,601 17,301 692,665 2015 199,732 168,568 126,464 26,172 34,674 186,941 19,031 761,582 2016 216,820 184,606 137,861 28,205 37,928 204,326 20,761 830,509 2017 233,752 200,754 149,260 30,240 41,195 221,750 22,491 899,443 2018 250,530 217,007 160,663 32,276 44,477 239,208 24,222 968,384

355 These numbers are based on the implementation of recommended measures on a slightly more aggressive timeline by 2018 instead of 2020

414

Table T-3: GHG Reduced under Progressive Scenario (Target Year 2015) (MTCO2e)356


2005 23,761 18,124 14,394 6,362 3,831 20,416 2,202 89,089 2006 47,247 36,407 28,719 8,920 7,686 40,997 4,404 174,379 2007 70,465 54,845 42,983 11,479 11,565 61,734 6,606 259,678 2008 93,422 73,435 57,193 14,040 15,467 82,619 8,808 344,984 2009 116,120 92,171 71,352 16,659 19,391 103,652 11,010 430,356 2010 138,611 111,081 85,492 19,228 23,339 124,719 13,212 515,682 2011 160,874 130,142 99,603 21,789 27,310 145,878 15,414 601,010 2012 182,913 149,352 113,690 24,351 31,301 167,122 17,616 686,347 2013 204,736 168,706 127,759 26,915 35,312 188,442 19,818 771,689 2014 226,348 188,203 141,816 29,480 39,344 209,831 22,020 857,042 2015 247,755 207,838 155,864 32,046 43,394 231,283 24,222 942,401

356 These numbers are based on the implementation of recommended measures on a slightly more aggressive timeline by 2015 instead of 2020

41

5

APP

EN

DIX

U: T

AB

LE O

F M

ITIG

ATI

ON

EFF

OR

TS

FRO

M O

TH

ER

CIT

IES

EV

AL

UA

TED

C

ity

UR

L

Burli

ngto

n, V

T ht

tp://

ww

w.b

urlin

gton

elec

tric.

com

/Spe

cial

Topi

cs/R

epor

tmai

n.ht

m

Mad

ison

, WI

http

://w

ww

.ci.m

adis

on.w

i.us/E

nviro

nmen

t/def

ault.

htm

D

ade

Cou

nty,

FL

NA

Br

ookl

ine,

MA

ht

tp://

ww

w.to

wno

fbro

oklin

emas

s.com

/con

serv

atio

n/cl

imat

ech

ange

.htm

l

Fort

Col

lins,

CO

ht

tp://

ww

w.c

i.for

t-col

lins.c

o.us

/clim

atep

rote

ctio

n/

Thes

e re

ports

bel

ow a

re N

OT

refle

cted

in th

e ta

ble

bene

ath

beca

use

they

do

not c

alcu

late

the

spec

ific

amou

nt o

f GH

G e

mis

sion

s red

uctio

n fo

r eac

h m

easu

re.

C

ity

UR

L

Aus

tin, T

X

NA

Po

rtlan

d, O

R ht

tp://

ww

w.su

stai

nabl

epor

tland

.org

/Por

tland

%20

Glo

bal%

20W

arm

ing%

20Pl

an.p

df

Cam

brid

ge, M

A

http

://w

ww

.ci.c

ambr

idge

.ma.

us/~

CD

D/e

nviro

trans

/env

iropl

an/

clim

ate/

plan

/cpp

-fullr

epor

t.pdf

Cat

egor

y M

easu

re

Ben

efit

Sour

ce

Res

iden

tial

Sp

ace

heat

ing

& c

oolin

g In

stall

Ener

gy S

tar h

eatin

g eq

uipm

ent

1400

lbs/

year

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

99

Pr

oper

ly in

sula

te b

uild

ing

shel

l, m

inim

ize

air l

eaka

ge w

ith

the

outd

oors

, par

ticul

arly

at t

he to

p/bo

ttom

of t

he h

eate

d en

velo

pe

It de

pend

s on

site

(sav

e $5

0 to

$10

0 an

d up

to

190

0 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2)

Burli

ngto

n, p

99

Se

lect

hea

ting

syst

em th

at u

ses l

ow c

arbo

n-co

nten

t fue

l (i.e

. na

tura

l gas

) U

p to

460

0 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p99

Re

plac

e m

anua

l the

rmos

tat w

ith a

pro

gram

mab

le m

odel

to

auto

mat

ical

ly p

ract

ice

set-b

ack

at n

ight

and

oth

er c

onve

nien

t tim

es w

ithou

t sac

rific

ing

com

fort

It w

ill sa

ve u

p to

$60

ann

ually

and

up

to

1170

lbs/

year

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

100

In

stall

Ener

gy S

tar w

indo

ws

It w

ill sa

ve u

p to

$80

ann

ually

and

up

to

1400

lbs/

year

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

100

In

stall

Ener

gy S

tar w

indo

w a

ir-co

nditi

onin

g un

its (c

oolin

g)

Up

to $

50 o

f sav

ing

and

330

lbs/

year

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

100

41

6

Se

tting

bac

k ai

r-co

nditi

onin

g te

mpe

ratu

re in

sum

mer

from

to

27 C

° (80

F°)

to 2

8 C°

(82

F°)

1.

96 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/l

iv1.

htm

l)

Setti

ng b

ack

spac

e he

atin

g th

erm

osta

t fro

m to

21

C° (7

0 F°

) to

20

C° (6

8 F°

)

8.55

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

1.ht

ml)

Sh

orte

n on

e ho

ur/d

ay o

f air

cond

ition

ing

units

in su

mm

er

3.36

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

1.ht

ml)

Sh

orte

n on

e ho

ur/d

ay o

f spa

ce h

eatin

g

6.09

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

1.ht

ml)

C

lean

ing

the

air-

filte

r of a

ir-co

nditi

onin

g un

its p

er m

onth

0.

4 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

1.ht

ml)

A

ll th

e m

embe

r of t

he fa

mily

spen

d in

the

sam

e ro

om in

or

der t

o re

duce

hea

ting

and

light

ning

20%

off

240k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.jccc

a.or

g/m

ore/

pam

phle

t/le

afle

t04.

pdf)

Pr

omot

e al

tern

ativ

es to

resi

dent

ial a

ir co

nditi

onin

g (p

lace

men

t of t

rees

on

the

east

and

wes

t sid

es o

f bui

ldin

gs,

pain

ting

build

ings

$ ro

of su

rfac

e a

light

col

or, e

tc)

768

tons

of C

O2 s

avin

g in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p1

02

Wat

er h

eatin

g In

stall

sola

r hot

wat

er h

eatin

g sy

stem

16

00 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2 com

pare

d to

hea

ting

with

nat

ural

gas

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

0

Pu

rcha

se a

hig

h ve

rsus

stan

dard

effi

cien

t wat

er h

eate

r. Se

lect

gas

wat

er h

eate

rs in

stea

d of

ele

ctric

28

00 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p10

1

U

se le

ss h

ot w

ater

A

fam

ily o

f 3 c

ould

con

serv

e ro

ughl

y 10

,400

ga

llons

of w

ater

per

hou

seho

ld p

er y

ear

Burli

ngto

n, p

101

In

stall

non-

aera

ting

low

-flo

w sh

ower

hea

ds

$120

and

180

0 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p10

1

Insta

ll lo

w fl

ow sh

ower

head

Ja

pan

Re

duce

one

min

ute

of ta

king

show

er fo

r all

the

mem

ber o

f th

e fa

mily

6.

61 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/b

at1.

htm

l)

Insta

ll so

lar h

ot w

ater

hea

ting

syst

em

745

tons

of C

O2 s

avin

g in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p43

A

pplia

nce

– Re

frig

erat

or

Buy

Ener

gy S

tar m

odel

28

5 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p10

1

41

7

C

onsi

der r

etiri

ng e

xisti

ng re

frig

erat

ors o

f fre

ezer

s old

er th

an

7 ye

ars,

and

repl

acin

g th

em w

ith a

new

ene

rgy

star

mod

el

Save

$60

and

clo

se to

100

0 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p10

1

D

ecid

e to

unp

lug,

and

get

rid

of a

n ex

tra re

frig

erat

or

Save

$10

0 an

d as

muc

h as

1to

n of

CO

2 per

ye

ar

Burli

ngto

n, p

101

U

se re

frig

erat

or e

ffici

ently

(Do

not b

e lo

aded

with

man

y st

uff)

8.21

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/kit1

.htm

l)

Do

not o

pen

the

door

so fr

eque

ntly

1.

86 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/k

it1.h

tml)

Se

t bac

k re

frige

rato

r tem

pera

ture

in th

e w

inte

r tim

e 9.

22 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/k

it1.h

tml)

Si

te th

e re

frige

rato

r at a

ppro

pria

te p

lace

(do

not i

nsta

ll th

e re

frig

erat

or so

clo

se to

the

wal

l) 6.

42 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/k

it1.h

tml)

App

lianc

e –

clot

h w

ashe

rs &

dry

ers

Buy

Ener

gy S

tar m

odel

Sa

ving

$58

/yea

r of e

nerg

y co

st $

20/y

ear o

f na

tura

l gas

use

mor

e th

an 3

000

gallo

ns o

f w

ater

savi

ng

Burli

ngto

n, p

102

Li

ne d

ry la

undr

y w

hen

poss

ible

. Use

an

extra

spin

cyc

le.

Switc

h fr

om a

n el

ectri

c to

a g

as-fi

red

clot

hes d

ryer

D

ryin

g a

load

of l

aund

ry w

ith a

n el

ectri

c dr

yer c

osts

abo

ut $

0.35

and

resu

lts in

pou

nds

of C

O2 e

mis

sion

s

Burli

ngto

n, p

102

U

se le

ftove

r hot

wat

er fr

om b

atht

ub fo

r lau

ndry

17

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

mor

e/pa

mph

let

/leaf

let0

4.pd

f)

Do

not b

e lo

aded

with

full

laun

dry

( 80

% w

ould

be

effic

ient

) 3.

4 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/bat

2.ht

ml)

App

lianc

e –

Dish

was

hers

Bu

y En

ergy

Sta

r mod

el

$28/

year

of e

nerg

y co

st a

nd 4

10 lb

s/ye

ar o

f C

O2

Burli

ngto

n,p1

03

In

stall

dish

was

her i

n or

der t

o re

duce

the

use

of h

ot w

ater

5.

0 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/kit3

.htm

l) Li

ghtn

ing

Repl

ace

inca

ndes

cent

ligh

t bul

bs w

ith E

nerg

y St

ar sc

rew

-in

com

pact

fluo

resc

ent l

ight

bul

bs

$20/

year

of e

nerg

y sa

ving

280

lbs/

year

of

CO

2 red

uctio

n Bu

rling

ton,

p10

3

41

8

In

stall

effic

ienc

y lig

htin

g fix

ture

s at k

itche

n an

d ba

thro

om

$18/

year

of e

nerg

y sa

ving

185

lbs/

year

of

CO

2 red

uctio

n Bu

rling

ton,

p10

3

In

stall

timer

con

trols

, mot

ion

sens

ors,

dim

mer

switc

hes

Redu

cing

the

use

of fo

ur 6

0-w

att b

ulbs

by

1 ho

ur e

ach

day

resu

lts in

$10

/yea

r ene

rgy

savi

ngs a

nd 1

30 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2

Burli

ngto

n, p

104

Pu

rcha

se C

FL (

fluor

esce

nt li

ght b

ulbs

) tor

chie

re la

mp

Repl

acin

g a

300-

wat

t hal

ogen

torc

hier

e w

ith

a C

FL m

odel

will

resu

lt in

$35

/yea

r of

ener

gy sa

ving

& 5

25 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2

Burli

ngto

n, p

104

Re

plac

e in

cand

esce

nt li

ght b

ulbs

with

scre

wed

-in fl

ores

cent

lig

ht b

ulbs

9.

36 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/l

iv4.

htm

l)

Shor

ten

one

hour

of l

ight

ning

hou

r (in

cand

esce

nt li

ght

bulb

s)

2.37

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

4.ht

ml)

Sh

orte

n on

e ho

ur o

f lig

htni

ng h

our (

fluor

esce

nt li

ght b

ulbs

) 0.

66 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/l

iv4.

htm

l)

All

the

mem

ber o

f the

fam

ily sp

end

in th

e sa

me

room

in

orde

r to

redu

ce li

ghtin

g 20

% o

ff 24

0 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

mor

e/pa

mph

let

/leaf

let0

4.pd

f)

Prom

ote

the

sale

s of c

ompa

ct fl

uore

scen

t bul

bs fo

r re

side

nces

68

2 to

ns o

f CO

2 sav

ing

in 2

010

Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p9

8

C

onve

rt in

cand

esce

nt li

ght b

ulbs

to c

ompa

ct fl

uore

scen

t lig

ht b

ulbs

7,

181

tons

of C

O2 s

avin

g in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p37

TV, V

CR

Buy

Ener

gy S

tar m

odel

$8

/yea

r of e

nerg

y sa

ving

110

lbs/

year

of

CO

2 red

uctio

n Bu

rling

ton,

p10

4

Re

duce

one

hou

r per

day

to w

atch

TV

pro

gram

s 4.

9 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

5.ht

ml)

Se

tting

bac

k br

ight

ness

of T

V m

onito

r to

dark

en

2.08

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

5.ht

ml)

Tu

rn d

own

the

volu

me

on T

V

0.31

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/liv

5.ht

ml)

41

9

Coo

king

Tu

rn o

ff th

e ric

e co

oker

’s sw

itch

to k

eep

it w

orm

31

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

mor

e/pa

mph

let

/leaf

let0

4.pd

f)

Use

mic

row

ave

oven

in p

repa

ring

vegg

ies i

nste

ad o

f boi

led

wat

er

4 kg

/yea

r of C

O2 r

educ

tion

(bro

ccol

i) Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/k

it5.h

tml)

Tr

y no

t to

boil

with

big

ger f

lam

e un

der t

he b

otto

m o

f a p

ot

in o

rder

to sa

ve e

nerg

y.

1.58

kg/

year

of C

O2 r

educ

tion

(to b

oil 1

lite

r of

wat

er)

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/kit6

.htm

l)

O

ther

s Br

ing

your

ow

n sh

oppi

ng b

ag

58 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.jccc

a.or

g/m

ore/

pam

phle

t/le

afle

t04.

pdf)

St

op ru

nnin

g th

e w

ater

whi

le b

rush

ing

teet

h N

A

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

mor

e/pa

mph

let

/leaf

let0

4.pd

f)

Pe

rson

al v

ehic

les u

se

Driv

e yo

ur c

ar o

ne le

ss d

ay a

wee

k $1

10/y

ear i

n op

erat

ion

& m

aint

enan

ce c

ost

1,20

0 lb

s/ye

ar o

f CO

2 red

uctio

n Bu

rling

ton,

tra

nspo

rtatio

n op

portu

nitie

s p1

M

ake

sure

tire

s are

fully

infla

ted

220

lbs/

year

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n,

trans

porta

tion

oppo

rtuni

ties p

2

Kee

p en

gine

tune

d U

p to

1 to

n/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

tra

nspo

rtatio

n op

portu

nitie

s p2

D

o no

t let

eng

ine

idle

N

A

Burli

ngto

n,

trans

porta

tion

oppo

rtuni

ties p

2

Buy

a fu

el-e

ffici

ent c

ar

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

tra

nspo

rtatio

n op

portu

nitie

s p2

Pr

omot

e sa

le o

f fue

l effi

cien

t car

s to

the

publ

ic

14,5

08 to

ns o

f CO

2 sav

ing

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p106

Driv

e le

ss. U

se p

ublic

tran

spor

tatio

n sy

stem

40

.2 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

42

0

.jp/d

ict/c

ar1.

htm

l)

Do

not l

et e

ngin

e id

le

10.4

5 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/car

1.ht

ml)

D

o no

t sud

den

acce

lera

tion

/ Do

not b

urn

rubb

er /

Do

not

gun

18.0

1 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/car

1.ht

ml)

D

o no

t loa

d th

e ca

r with

unn

eces

sary

stuf

f 0.

96 k

g/ye

ar o

f CO

2 Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.ecc

j.or

.jp/d

ict/c

ar1.

htm

l)

Cho

ose

appr

opria

te ro

ute

Savi

ng 3

50cc

of g

asol

ine

Ja

pan

(http

://w

ww

.jccc

a.or

g/m

ore/

pam

phle

t/le

afle

t0

M

ake

sure

tire

s are

fully

infla

ted

9.65

kg/

year

of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.e

ccj.o

r.jp

/dic

t/car

1.ht

ml)

Se

tbac

k th

erm

osta

t of a

utom

obile

air-

cond

ition

ing

NA

Ja

pan

D

o no

t fill

gas

olin

e ta

nk to

full

NA

Ja

pan

In

stall

win

dow

film

s N

A

Japa

n

The

sust

aina

ble

Life

styl

e C

ampa

ign

Redu

cing

ene

rgy

cons

umpt

ion

(gas

& e

lect

ric) b

y 13

%

242

tons

of C

O2 (

Mad

ison

, p7)

M

adis

on, p

34

Re

duce

ann

ual e

lect

ricity

con

sum

ptio

n by

5,3

50 k

Wh

in

coun

ty th

roug

h pr

omot

ion

of e

nerg

y ef

ficie

nt m

easu

res

159,

000

tons

of C

O2

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

35

Sola

r Sys

tem

In

crea

se re

pair

and

insta

llatio

n of

sola

r the

rmal

syst

ems

538

tons

of C

O2 s

avin

g in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p9

9 G

reen

ele

ctric

ity

Purc

hase

of g

reen

ele

ctric

ity su

ch a

s win

d po

wer

, sm

all

hydr

o or

bio

mas

s 53

,245

tons

of C

O2 s

avin

g in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p38

Was

te

Con

duct

hom

e co

mpo

stin

g pr

ogra

m

189

tons

of C

O2 s

avin

g in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p46

C

ool C

omm

uniti

es

Plan

t tre

es a

nd li

ghte

n su

rfac

e co

lors

of s

elec

t ne

ighb

orho

ods a

nd c

omm

erci

al si

tes

3,00

0 to

ns o

f CO

2 D

ade

Cou

nty,

p38

42

1

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Bu

sine

ss V

ehic

les U

se

Inte

rcep

t par

k &

ride

rots

Lo

w ta

rget

= 7

54 to

ns o

f CO

2, h

igh

targ

et =

150

7 to

ns o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p11

8

Ex

pand

par

k &

shut

tle

Low

targ

et =

251

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 5

02 to

ns o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p11

8

Ex

pand

regi

onal

par

k &

ride

lots

Lo

w ta

rget

= 6

25 to

ns o

f CO

2, h

igh

targ

et =

938

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

Fi

xed

rout

e tra

nsit

expa

nsio

n 79

3 to

ns o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p11

8

A

dditi

onal

free

shut

tles f

or b

ig e

vent

1

ton

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

Cha

rlotte

– B

url –

Ess

ex c

omm

uter

rail

1088

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

Empl

oyee

bik

e am

eniti

es

Low

targ

et =

28

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 4

2 to

ns o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p11

8

Fr

ee b

ike

prog

ram

Lo

w ta

rget

= 6

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 1

234

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

Em

ploy

ee p

arki

ng b

uyou

t pro

gram

Lo

w ta

rget

= 4

19 to

ns o

f CO

2, h

igh

targ

et =

837

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

Em

ploy

ee tr

ansit

pas

s Lo

w ta

rget

= 4

19 to

ns o

f CO

2, h

igh

targ

et =

837

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

En

cour

age

tele

com

mut

ing

Low

targ

et =

837

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 1

256

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

M

ulti-

empl

oyer

car

poo

ling

Low

targ

et =

815

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 1

630

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

Bu

sine

ss sp

onso

red

trans

it fo

r cus

tom

ers

Low

targ

et =

549

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 1

099

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

En

cour

age

wal

k to

wor

k (e

mpl

oyee

wel

lnes

s)

Low

targ

et =

59

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 8

8 to

ns o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p11

8

Ex

tend

col

lege

stre

et sh

uttle

Lo

w ta

rget

= 0

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 1

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

In

crea

se a

llow

able

land

use

den

sitie

s Lo

w ta

rget

= 1

675

tons

of C

O2,

hig

h ta

rget

= 3

014

tons

of C

O2

Burli

ngto

n, p

118

Im

prov

e tra

nsit

amen

ities

Lo

w ta

rget

= 6

38 to

ns o

f CO

2, h

igh

targ

et =

170

4 to

ns o

f CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p11

8

U

se p

ublic

tran

spor

tatio

n sy

stem

s whe

n co

mm

utin

g ( 2

da

ys a

wee

k, 8

km re

turn

) 18

5 kg

/yea

r of C

O2

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

mor

e/pa

mph

let/l

eafle

t04.

pdf)

42

2

G

ive

prio

rity

to p

ublic

bus

es in

the

city

are

a to

stim

ulat

e th

e us

e of

par

k &

ride

syst

em

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

abou

t/ze

nkok

u/19

99/3

40.h

tml)

Re

plac

e di

esel

eng

ine

buse

s & tr

ucks

with

env

ironm

enta

l frie

ndly

veh

icle

s suc

h as

ele

ctric

ve

hicl

es)

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

abou

t/ze

nkok

u/19

99/3

40.h

tml)

Eq

uip

Idlin

g St

op a

nd S

tart

Syst

em (I

SS) w

ith

com

mer

cial

veh

icle

s

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.a

sahi

-ne

t.or.j

p/~i

d7y-

mry

m/is

uzu.

pdf)

Alte

rnat

ive

Fuel

V

ehic

les

Use

eth

anol

in e

xisti

ng fl

ex-fu

el v

ehic

les

67 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

, p36

U

se p

ropa

ne c

ity fl

eet v

ehic

les

139

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p2

7

V

MT

VM

T gr

owth

rate

shou

ld n

ot e

xcee

d po

pula

tion

grow

th ra

te

337,

676

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p2

5

Re

duce

veh

icle

mile

s tra

vele

d by

5%

thro

ugho

ut

mix

ed la

nd u

se

179,

000

tons

of C

O2

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

31

Pr

omot

e Te

leco

mm

utin

g

Prom

ote

tele

com

mut

ing

in p

rivat

e bu

sines

s 3,

076

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p2

6 C

omm

uter

rail

Build

tran

spor

tatio

n in

frastr

uctu

re in

the

city

to

acco

mm

odat

e or

impr

ove

acce

ss to

pot

entia

l fut

ure

rail

links

32,5

00 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p51

C

ar S

harin

g Su

ppor

t for

car

shar

ing

prog

ram

26

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p24

Roa

d Im

prov

emen

t D

evel

op ro

ad a

nd h

ighw

ay im

prov

emen

t N

A

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

27

TDM

In

crea

se tr

affic

dem

and

man

agem

ent p

rogr

ams (

car

pool

pro

gram

, rid

esha

ring,

par

k-an

d-rid

e, a

uto

restr

ictio

n zo

ne, e

tc)

62,0

00 to

ns o

f CO

2 D

ade

Cou

nty,

p27

Bicy

cles

Pr

omot

e in

crea

sed

use

of b

icyc

les

151,

000

tons

of C

O2

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

27

42

3

Bui

ldin

g

Li

ghtn

ing

Impr

ove

quan

tity/

qual

ity, m

inim

izin

g us

e of

ele

ctric

al

light

ing

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

5

Re

plac

e in

cand

esce

nt la

mps

; rep

laci

ng a

sing

le 6

0 w

att

inca

ndes

cent

lam

p w

ith a

15

wat

t flu

ores

cent

lam

p

$4/y

ear o

f ele

ctric

ity &

60

lbs/

year

of

CO

2 Bu

rling

ton,

p10

5

U

pgra

de fl

uore

scen

t lig

htni

ng fi

xtur

es

Redu

ce e

mis

sion

s by

roug

hly

20%

per

fix

ture

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

5

Re

plac

e hi

gh w

atta

ge in

cand

esce

nt o

r mer

cury

vap

or

outd

oor l

ight

ning

and

secu

rity

light

ning

with

hig

h ef

ficie

ncy

light

ning

Ener

gy c

onsu

mpt

ion

can

be re

duce

d by

as m

uch

as 8

0% to

90%

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

6

In

stall

light

ning

con

trol u

nit s

uch

as o

ccup

ancy

se

nsor

s and

pho

toce

ll co

ntro

ls

Savi

ng e

nerg

y fr

om 2

5% to

mor

e th

an

50%

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

6

Li

ghtin

g up

grad

e in

city

bui

ldin

g 25

7 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

for 1

992

- 19

98

Fort

Col

lins,

p34

To

wn

build

ing

light

ing

retro

fits (

fluor

esce

nt b

ulbs

, oc

cupa

ncy

sens

ors)

1,

300

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p31

Spac

e H

eatin

g &

C

oolin

g U

pgra

de o

r ins

tall

insu

latio

n. R

educ

e or

elim

inat

e ex

cess

ive

air i

nfilt

ratio

n. C

lear

ly a

nd p

rope

rly d

efin

e th

e he

ated

env

elop

e

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

6

In

stall

ener

gy e

ffici

ent w

indo

ws o

r win

dow

film

s or

othe

r win

dow

trea

tmen

t N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

106

Pe

rfor

m m

anuf

actu

rer r

ecom

men

ded

mai

nten

ance

and

pe

rfor

man

ce te

stin

g on

exi

stin

g he

atin

g an

d co

olin

g sy

stem

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

6

Ex

amin

e hea

ting

& c

oolin

g di

strib

utio

n sy

stem

for

ener

gy sa

ving

s opp

ortu

nitie

s N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

107

Sw

itch

to p

rimar

y sp

ace

heat

ing

fuel

s with

low

er

emis

sion

s of G

HG

N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

107

Im

prov

e ef

ficie

ncy

of v

entil

atio

n sy

stem

, ins

tall

heat

re

cove

ry v

entil

ator

s(H

RV)

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

7

In

stall

auto

mat

ic se

tbac

k th

erm

osta

ts o

r oth

er e

nerg

y sy

stem

man

agem

ent c

ontro

ls

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

7

En

ergy

Effi

cien

t win

dow

insta

llatio

n

1,72

4 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

32

H

eatin

g &

coo

ling

effic

ienc

y m

easu

res

NA

Br

ookl

ine,

p33

42

4

W

ater

Hea

ting

Impl

emen

t hot

wat

er a

nd g

ener

al w

ater

con

serv

atio

n m

easu

res

Redu

ces e

nerg

y bi

lls &

GH

G

emis

sion

s Bu

rling

ton,

p10

7

Re

duce

hot

wat

er te

mpe

ratu

res (

dow

n to

120

F°)

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

7

Insu

late

ele

ctric

wat

er h

eate

rs &

hot

wat

er d

istri

butio

n pi

pes

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

7

In

vest

in a

n en

ergy

effi

cien

t or s

olar

wat

er h

eatin

g sy

stem

N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

108

W

aste

wat

er re

-circ

ulat

ion

or re

-pro

cess

ing

N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

108

Refr

iger

atio

n an

d O

ther

A

pplia

nces

Bu

y En

ergy

Sta

r lab

eled

pro

duct

le

ss th

an h

alf o

f ene

rgy

redu

ctio

n Bu

rling

ton,

p10

8

Tu

rn o

ff un

-nee

ded

copi

ers &

prin

ters

dur

ing

non-

busi

ness

hou

rs

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

8

C

onsi

der c

ontro

lling

any

"in

stant

-on"

ele

ctro

nic

equi

pmen

t with

a p

ower

strip

& it

s tog

gle

switc

h N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

109

C

omm

erci

al F

ood

Serv

ice

Site

hea

t pro

duci

ng a

pplia

nces

aw

ay fr

om re

frig

erat

ion

equi

pmen

t dr

amat

ical

ly e

nerg

y re

duce

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

9

In

stall

an "

outd

oor a

ir ec

onom

izer

" for

wal

k-in

coo

lers

N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

109

U

se in

sula

ted

door

s ins

tead

of "

anti-

swea

t" h

eate

rs o

n di

spla

y-co

oler

doo

rs

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

p10

9

In

stead

of a

utom

atic

ally

supp

lyin

g gl

asse

s of w

ater

to

all r

esta

uran

t cus

tom

ers,

ask

if ea

ch w

ould

like

one

. N

A

Burli

ngto

n, p

109

Mot

ors

Impl

emen

t pro

toco

l to

inst

all p

rem

ium

effi

cien

cy

mot

ors a

t tim

es o

f rep

lace

men

t, an

d an

alyz

e m

otor

s la

rger

than

1hp

for p

rope

r siz

ing

and

effic

ienc

y,

repl

ace

whe

re c

ost-e

ffec

tive

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Mun

icip

al

Opp

ortu

nitie

s p4

Build

ing

Retro

fits

Retro

fit 1

5 la

rges

t ene

rgy-

usin

g bu

ildin

gs to

Ene

rgy

Star

requ

irem

ents

41

08 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

, p33

Gre

en B

uild

ing

Intro

duce

gre

en b

uild

ing

cons

ider

atio

n in

new

bui

ldin

g de

sign

25

9 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

, p33

Es

tabl

ishin

g a

prog

ram

for b

uild

ers t

o in

tegr

ate

envi

ronm

enta

l fea

ture

s int

o th

e de

sign

and

co

nstru

ctio

n of

new

com

mer

cial

bui

ldin

gs

3,18

6 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p70

Es

tabl

ishin

g a

prog

ram

for b

uild

ers t

o in

tegr

ate

eniro

nmen

talf

eat

resi

nto

the

desi

gnan

d1,

665

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p7

6

42

5

envi

ronm

enta

l fea

ture

s int

o th

e de

sign

and

co

nstru

ctio

n of

new

resi

dent

ial b

uild

ings

Re

new

able

Ene

rgy

A

dd re

new

able

ene

rgy

sour

ce to

one

mor

e ci

ty

build

ing

26 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

, p34

Ener

gy c

ode

for N

ew

Con

struc

tion

Requ

ire b

uild

ers t

o co

nsid

er e

nerg

y sa

ving

alte

rnat

ives

th

roug

hout

con

struc

tion

40,4

36 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p29

Redu

cing

Tot

al E

nerg

y U

se

Redu

ce e

nerg

y us

e in

city

gov

ernm

ent b

uild

ings

by

15%

per

gro

ss sq

uare

foot

3,

129

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p2

9

Ener

gy T

rain

ing

Giv

e tra

inin

g op

portu

nitie

s on

ener

gy e

ffici

ency

co

nstru

ctio

n fo

r loc

al h

omeb

uild

ers

20,8

40 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p75

PV P

anel

s In

stall

sola

r pho

tovo

ltaic

pan

els o

n m

unic

ipal

bu

ildin

gs

17 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

36

Re

side

ntia

l and

com

mer

cial

use

of s

olar

ele

ctric

ity

6,28

0 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

42

G

reen

Lig

hts P

rogr

am

Initi

ate

the

gree

n lig

hts p

rogr

ams a

nd in

tegr

ate

with

ot

her c

ount

y bu

ildin

g re

trofit

s for

a 2

0% in

crea

se in

ef

ficie

ncy

145,

000

tons

of C

O2

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

34

Com

mer

cial

Rene

wab

le E

nerg

y Su

pplie

s D

evel

op s

olar

hot

wat

er sy

stem

and

pho

tovo

ltaic

te

chno

logy

(PV

) N

A

Burli

ngto

n, C

omm

erci

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

6 So

lid W

aste

Re

duce

org

anic

was

te, w

hich

pro

duce

s the

gre

enho

use

gas m

etha

ne. C

ut d

own

embo

died

ene

rgy,

whi

ch is

the

ener

gy n

eede

d to

pro

duce

the

law

mat

eria

ls re

quire

d to

m

anuf

actu

re a

pro

duct

.

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Com

mer

cial

op

portu

nitie

s p7

Bu

sine

ss re

cycl

ing

41,7

35 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p36

Recy

clin

g Pr

oduc

ts

Buy

recy

cled

pro

duct

s N

A

Burli

ngto

n, C

omm

erci

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

5

42

6

Clim

ate

Neu

tral P

rodu

cts

Dev

elop

env

ironm

enta

l frie

ndly

pro

duct

s N

A

Burli

ngto

n, C

omm

erci

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

5

In

stitu

tiona

l

Biom

ass-

fuel

ed D

istri

ct

Ener

gy S

yste

m

The

deve

lopm

ent o

f a b

iom

ass-

fuel

ed d

istri

ct e

nerg

y sy

stem

N

A

Burli

ngto

n, In

stitu

tiona

l op

portu

nitie

s p2

Gre

en F

leet

s D

evel

op a

nd o

pera

te c

limat

e-fr

iend

ly tr

ansp

orta

tion

fleet

s N

A

Burli

ngto

n, In

stitu

tiona

l op

portu

nitie

s p3

Build

ing

& O

pera

tion

See

"bui

ldin

g" se

ctio

n ab

ove

Publ

ic O

utre

ach

and

Educ

atio

n En

cour

age

educ

atio

n an

d ac

tiviti

es to

rais

e aw

aren

ess

of g

loba

l war

min

g an

d op

portu

nitie

s for

clim

ate

prot

ectio

n

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Insti

tutio

nal

oppo

rtuni

ties p

5

Elec

trici

ty D

istri

butio

n Sy

stem

Impr

ovem

ent

Impr

ove

elec

trici

ty d

istri

butio

n sy

stem

to k

eep

distr

ibut

ion

loss

es lo

w e

ven

as p

opul

atio

n gr

owth

ne

cess

itate

s sys

tem

exp

ansio

n

15,1

89 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p30

C

ogen

erat

ion

Purc

hase

the

com

bine

d cy

cle

coge

nera

tion

plan

t and

pr

omot

e us

e of

cog

ener

atio

n fo

r oth

er a

ppro

pria

te

com

mer

cial

app

licat

ion

NA

D

ade

Cou

nty,

p34

Indu

stri

al

En

ergy

Effi

cien

cy

Incr

ease

ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y su

ch a

s lig

htni

ng, m

otor

ef

ficie

ncy,

bui

ldin

g sh

ell i

mpr

ovem

ent,

wat

er

cons

erva

tion,

recy

clin

g, p

ollu

tion

prev

entio

n

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Indu

stria

l op

portu

nitie

s p4

Clim

ate

Neu

tral P

rodu

cts

Dev

elop

env

ironm

enta

l frie

ndly

pro

duct

s, pr

oces

s, or

fa

cilit

ies

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Indu

stria

l op

portu

nitie

s p5

42

7

Was

te R

educ

tion

Recy

clin

g, re

use

N

A

Burli

ngto

n, In

dustr

ial

oppo

rtuni

ties p

6

Fuel

Sw

itchi

ng

Switc

h to

com

bine

d he

at a

nd p

ower

sys

tem

(CH

P, o

r co

gene

ratio

n), o

r low

er c

arbo

n, re

new

able

fuel

s sy

stem

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Indu

stria

l op

portu

nitie

s p7

So

lar w

ater

hea

ting,

bio

mas

s ene

rgy,

sola

r ph

otov

olta

ic

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Indu

stria

l op

portu

nitie

s p8

Offi

ce E

quip

men

t Bu

y en

ergy

star

labe

ling

requ

irem

ents

N

A

Burli

ngto

n, In

dustr

ial

oppo

rtuni

ties p

8

Exte

nded

Pro

duct

Re

spon

sibi

lity

Take

into

acc

ount

the

envi

ronm

enta

l im

pact

s of a

pr

oduc

t's e

ntire

life

cycl

e, fr

om m

ater

ial s

uppl

iers

to

man

ufac

ture

s to

cons

umer

s

NA

Bu

rling

ton,

Indu

stria

l op

portu

nitie

s p9

Ther

mal

Rec

ycle

C

olle

ct c

ooki

ng o

il di

spos

al /

plas

tic d

ispo

sal f

rom

ea

ch h

ouse

hold

as e

nerg

y

see

UR

L rig

ht

Japa

n (h

ttp://

ww

w.jc

cca.

org/

abou

t/ze

nkok

u/19

99/3

40.h

tml)

Clim

ate

Wis

e Pr

ogra

m

Prom

ote

DO

E's C

limat

e W

ise

Prog

ram

to lo

cal

busi

ness

es

38,3

90 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p30

Mun

icip

al

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

Impr

ove

vehi

cle

mai

nten

ance

N

A

Burli

ngto

n M

unic

ipal

op

portu

nitie

s p3

Es

tabl

ishin

g m

inim

um fu

el e

ffici

ency

stan

dard

s for

ne

w v

ehic

les p

urch

ased

N

A

Burli

ngto

n M

unic

ipal

op

portu

nitie

s p3

Es

tabl

ishin

g an

ear

ly re

tirem

ent p

rogr

am fo

r the

leas

t ef

ficie

nt v

ehic

les

NA

Bu

rling

ton

Mun

icip

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

3

Exam

inin

g op

portu

nitie

s for

the

use

of a

ltern

ativ

e fu

el

vehi

cles

N

A

Burli

ngto

n M

unic

ipal

op

portu

nitie

s p3

A

dd fu

el e

ffici

ency

to c

riter

ia fo

r new

veh

icle

s pu

rcha

se

1057

tons

of C

O2

(Mad

ison

, p7)

M

adis

on. P

36

C

ondu

ct tr

aini

ng o

n ef

ficie

nt d

rivin

g fo

r fle

et d

river

s 10

57 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

. P36

42

8

A

cam

paig

n w

ould

be

cond

ucte

d w

ithin

city

de

partm

ents

to ra

ise

awar

enes

s abo

ut h

ow to

redu

ce

fuel

con

sum

ptio

n an

d ho

w m

uch

fuel

is c

onsu

med

.

62 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

per

yea

r Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p4

8

Pu

sh fo

r tig

hter

fuel

effi

cien

cy st

anda

rds (

CA

FÉ)

121,

000

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p4

9

Use

bic

ycle

s for

pat

rols

in th

e Po

lice

Dep

artm

ent

58 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

17

In

stall

hybr

id g

as/e

lect

ric v

ehic

les i

n th

e to

wn

fleet

8

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p18

Prom

ote

Traf

fic c

alm

ing

prog

ram

s suc

h as

wel

l-m

arke

d cr

ossw

alks

, wid

e si

dew

alks

, tra

ffic

sign

als

prio

ritiz

ing

pede

stria

ns, s

choo

l cro

ssin

g gu

ards

and

ve

hicl

es si

gnal

s.

NA

Br

ookl

ine,

p19

C

onve

rsio

n of

flee

t veh

icle

s to

com

pres

sed

natu

ral g

as

(CN

G)

127

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p20

C

onve

rsio

n of

flee

t veh

icle

s to

bio-

dies

el

456

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p21

Park

ing

cash

-out

(giv

ing

mun

icip

al e

mpl

oyee

s to

give

up

thei

r par

king

spac

e in

exc

hang

e fo

r its

cas

h va

lue)

19

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p21

C

orpo

rate

T P

ass P

rogr

am (b

usin

esse

s and

m

unic

ipal

ities

can

pur

chas

e su

bway

and

bus

pas

ses i

n gr

oups

for e

mpl

oyee

s

35 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

22

Te

leco

mm

utin

g fo

r tow

n em

ploy

ees

486

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p23

Lobb

y fo

r inc

reas

ed C

AFÉ

(cor

pora

te a

vera

ge fu

el

econ

omy)

stan

dard

s 56

,431

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p25

W

alk

to sc

hool

pro

gram

(ins

tead

of p

aren

ts dr

ivin

g th

eir c

hild

ren

to sc

hool

) 58

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p26

Bi

cycl

ing

infra

struc

ture

impr

ovem

ent a

nd o

utre

ach

prog

ram

48

4 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

27

Pr

ogra

m to

incr

ease

MBT

A ri

der s

hip

(pub

lic b

us)

3,23

8 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

28

U

tiliz

e m

ore

fuel

effi

cien

t car

s in

the

polic

e fle

et

4,89

9 to

ns o

f CO

2 D

ade

Cou

nty,

p29

Dev

elop

a te

am o

f loc

al p

ublic

/priv

ate

repr

esen

tativ

es

to id

entif

y an

d pr

omot

e th

e m

ost p

ract

ical

cos

t ef

fect

ive

alte

rnat

ive

fuel

ed v

ehic

les

NA

D

ade

Cou

nty,

p29

A

dvoc

ate

an in

crea

se in

the

Cor

pora

te A

vera

ge F

uel

Econ

omy

(CA

FÉ) t

o 45

mile

s per

gal

lons

N

A

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

29

LE

D T

echn

olog

y Re

plac

e tra

ffic

sign

als w

ith L

ED la

mp

N

A

Burli

ngto

n M

unic

ipal

op

portu

nitie

s p3

C

onve

rt al

l red

traf

fic si

gnal

s to

LED

fixt

ures

14

00 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

. P35

Repl

ace

traffi

c si

gnal

s with

LED

lam

p

3,13

7 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p58

42

9

In

stall

LED

ligh

ts fo

r the

gre

en a

nd re

d si

gnal

s 36

4 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

30

C

onve

rt th

e fir

e al

arm

ligh

ts an

d si

gns t

o LE

D

75 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

35

O

ffice

Equ

ipm

ent

Esta

blish

ing

stan

dard

s for

pur

chas

ing

envi

ronm

enta

lly

sens

itive

offi

ce p

rodu

cts a

nd o

ffice

equ

ipm

ent

NA

Bu

rling

ton

Mun

icip

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

5

The

city

will

revi

ew it

s pur

chas

ing

prac

tices

and

see

whe

re it

can

impr

ove

on th

e pr

oduc

ts p

urch

ased

by

vario

us d

epar

tmen

ts. L

ife-c

ycle

ene

rgy

cost

s w

ill a

lso

be c

onsi

dere

d.

NA

M

adis

on. P

31

Tree

and

Shr

ub P

lant

ing

Dev

elop

a c

ompr

ehen

sive

urba

n fo

rest

ry m

aste

r pla

n N

A

Burli

ngto

n M

unic

ipal

op

portu

nitie

s p5

26

00 tr

ees a

re p

lant

ed e

ach

year

by

the

city

& M

G&

E 67

tons

of C

O2

(Mad

ison

, p7)

M

adis

on. P

33

Se

ques

tratio

n of

CO

2 by

all

trees

in th

e ci

ty

21,0

71 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p39

N

atur

al a

rea

shru

b pl

antin

g

48 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

as a

vera

ge

Fort

Col

lins,

p39

In

crea

se tr

ee p

lant

ing

city

wid

e 12

5 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p86

St

reet

tree

pla

ntin

g 4,

060

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p50

Revi

se la

ndsc

ape

code

to re

quire

stra

tegi

c tre

e pl

antin

g, st

reet

tree

s and

par

king

lot t

rees

13

3,50

0 to

ns o

f CO

2 D

ade

Cou

nty,

p38

C

ode,

Ord

inan

ce

Esta

blish

stan

dard

s and

gui

delin

es fo

r em

issi

ons

redu

ctio

n N

A

Burli

ngto

n M

unic

ipal

op

portu

nitie

s p6

Es

tabl

ish la

w fo

r man

dato

ry re

new

able

s in

dere

gula

tion

71,5

61 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p72

Lo

bby

for i

ncre

ased

rene

wab

le p

ortfo

lio st

anda

rds

(RPS

) 13

,111

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p39

En

ergy

effi

cien

t bui

ldin

g co

de

25,6

24 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

40

Ed

ucat

ion

Enco

urag

e m

unic

ipal

em

ploy

ees t

o he

lp id

entif

y fu

rther

em

issi

ons r

educ

tion

oppo

rtuni

ties

NA

Bu

rling

ton

Mun

icip

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

6

Con

duct

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

m fo

r em

ploy

ees o

n en

ergy

ef

ficie

ncy

517

tons

of C

O2

(Mad

ison

, p7)

M

adis

on. P

33

W

ork

activ

ely

on e

duca

tion

and

outre

ach

for G

HG

em

issi

on

24,2

90 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p96

C

reat

e pr

ojec

t hou

ses t

hat d

emon

strat

e al

tern

ativ

e en

ergy

tech

nolo

gy a

nd e

nerg

y ef

ficie

ncy

retro

fit

proj

ects

10 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

34

Re

side

ntia

l ene

rgy

effic

ienc

y pr

ogra

m

20,9

18 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

44

43

0

D

evel

op a

pub

lic e

duca

tion

& a

war

enes

s cam

paig

n to

lim

it id

ling

of a

utom

obile

s N

A

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

29

G

arba

ge

Inve

stig

ate

met

hane

reco

very

to g

ener

ate

pow

er

NA

Bu

rling

ton

Mun

icip

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

6

Prom

ote

was

te re

duct

ion

NA

Bu

rling

ton

Mun

icip

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

6

Esta

blish

pol

icie

s tha

t mak

e re

cycl

ing

as si

mpl

e as

po

ssib

le fo

r res

iden

ts

NA

Bu

rling

ton

Mun

icip

al

oppo

rtuni

ties p

6

Incr

ease

stat

e la

ndfil

l tip

ping

fees

N

A

Mad

ison

. P32

Met

hane

flar

ing

and

heat

reco

very

at w

aste

wat

er

treat

men

t pla

nt

35,6

07 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p37

10

% re

duct

ion

of m

unic

ipal

solid

was

te

121

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p3

7

Tras

h D

istri

ctin

g - d

ecre

asin

g th

e nu

mbe

r of m

iles

driv

en b

y tra

sh tr

ucks

29

2 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p52

D

iver

t 50%

of t

he w

aste

stre

am fr

om la

ndfil

l dis

posa

l 11

2,78

7 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fort

Col

lins,

p79

In

stall

a ga

s col

lect

ion

syst

em fo

r non

-met

hane

or

gani

c co

mpo

unds

84

,308

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p8

3

Pu

rcha

se e

nviro

nmen

tally

pre

fera

ble

prod

ucts

N

A

Broo

klin

e, p

45

Re

cove

r and

flar

e or

use

the

met

hane

gas

to g

ener

ate

elec

trici

ty

177,

000

tons

of C

O2

Dad

e C

ount

y, p

42

Re

duce

solid

was

te g

ener

ated

by

up to

50%

38

9,00

0 to

ns o

f CO

2 D

ade

Cou

nty,

p42

Recy

clin

g

Add

mix

ed p

aper

and

box

boa

rd to

cur

bsid

e re

cycl

ing

prog

ram

99

90 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

. P31

Re

side

ntia

l cur

bsid

e re

cycl

ing

prog

ram

39

,732

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p3

7

Expa

nd c

entra

l rec

yclin

g dr

op o

ff si

te o

r add

seco

nd

site

1,

095

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p8

1

C

urbs

ide

recy

clin

g pr

ogra

m

21,5

89 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

47

M

anda

tory

priv

ate

recy

clin

g se

rvic

e 17

,442

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Br

ookl

ine,

p49

Prom

ote

recy

clin

g pr

ogra

ms

Betw

een

1,18

8,00

0 a

nd 1

,979

,000

to

ns o

f CO

2 D

ade

Cou

nty,

p41

Ta

x In

crem

ent F

inan

cing

(T

IF)

The

city

will

incl

ude

a gr

een

build

ing

requ

irem

ent f

or

deve

lope

rs w

hich

rece

ive

TIF

from

the

city

. 72

81 to

ns o

f CO

2 (M

adis

on, p

7)

Mad

ison

. P34

Pr

oper

ty ta

x ex

empt

ion

for i

nsta

llatio

n of

sola

r wat

er

heat

ers

51,0

00 to

ns o

f CO

2 D

ade

Cou

nty,

p37

43

1

Ze

ro In

tere

st Lo

ans f

or

Con

serv

atio

n H

elp

(ZIL

CH

)

ZILC

H p

rogr

am m

akes

zer

o in

tere

st lo

ans a

vaila

ble

to

resi

dent

s for

ene

rgy

upgr

ades

to h

ome

943

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p3

3

W

ind

Pow

er

Enab

le c

usto

mer

s to

subs

crib

e to

win

d po

wer

el

ectri

city

4,

013

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0 (2

Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p3

1

In

crea

sing

utili

ty c

omm

itmen

t to

win

d en

ergy

thro

ugh

gree

n pr

icin

g pr

ogra

m

4,01

3 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

(5

turb

ines

) Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p6

0

Th

e ci

ty g

over

nmen

t com

mit

to p

urch

ase

win

d ge

nera

ted

pow

er

2,05

1 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Fo

rt C

ollin

s, p6

8

Was

tew

ater

Tre

atm

ent

Syst

em

Upg

radi

ng to

hig

h ef

ficie

ncy

mot

ors a

nd p

umps

in

orde

r to

redu

ce e

lect

rical

load

of w

ater

trea

tmen

t pl

ants

961

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0

Fort

Col

lins,

p62

El

ectro

nic

Dis

tribu

tion

Met

hod

Use

ele

ctro

nic

distr

ibut

ion

met

hods

for b

ids a

nd

prop

osal

s 3

tons

of C

O2

savi

ng in

201

0

Fort

Col

lins,

p91

St

reet

Lig

hts

Repl

ace

mer

cury

vap

or st

reet

ligh

ts w

ith h

igh-

pres

sure

so

dium

ligh

ts

97 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

34

Sh

ift to

PV

stre

et li

ghtn

ing

NA

D

ade

Cou

nty,

p37

C

ertif

icat

ion,

Aw

ard

Cer

tific

atio

n or

aw

ard

to b

usin

ess t

hat i

nitia

te

emis

sion

s red

uctio

n ac

tiviti

es w

ith re

gard

to e

nerg

y co

nser

vatio

n or

was

te p

reve

ntio

n

7,41

9 to

ns o

f CO

2 sa

ving

in 2

010

Broo

klin

e, p

41

Documents

City of Ann Arbor Greenhouse Gas Emissions …css.umich.edu/sites/default/files/css_doc/CSS03-02.pdfDulcey Simpkins, Ph.D. Department of Environmental Coordination Services Nancy Stone