Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011 Bozeman Community Climate Action PlanBozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Photo Source MSU: Hyalite Reservoir City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 2 Hattie Baker, climateprotection@bozeman.net Principal contacts: Natalie Meyer, Climate Protection Coordinator, 406-582-2317, nmeyer@bozeman.net City of Bozeman Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement 121 North Rouse Bozeman, MT 59715 www.bozeman.net City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 3 Acknowledgments This report is the culmination of a yearlong effort, the result of which would not have been possible without the assistance of many people. Task Force Members Mary Cloud Ammons, Chair Inter-Neighborhood Council Kevin Barre, Facilities Director Bozeman Public Schools Scott Bischke, Citizen-at-large Jeff Butler, Director of Facilities Operation and Maintenance, Montana State University Lee Hazelbaker, Director HRDC/Streamline/Galavan Transportation Mel Kotur, Community Relations Manager Northwestern Energy Anders Lewendal, President, Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commissioner Chris Naumann, Executive Director Downtown Business Partnership Daryl Nourse, Chamber of Commerce Otto Pohl, Citizen-at-large Dawn Smith, U.S. Green Building Council Dan Stevenson, Assistant Facilities Director, Montana State University John Vincent, Montana Public Service Commissioner Leroy Wilson, Director Facility Services, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital Residential Working Group Members Susan Bilo, Citizen Casey Dudley, Kath Williams LEED Consultant Gary Gannon, TruVue Solution Heather Higinbotham, Yellowstone Business Partnership Adrien Tanguay, Carbon Neutral Builders Jon Shafer, Powerhouse Commercial Working Group Members Joshua Bowden, Gradient Systems Bill Stoddart, D.A. Davidson Gary Gannon, TruVue Solution Pete Strom, Powerhouse Transportation Working Group Members David Boggeman, Retired MSU Chemist Lisa Ballard-Current Transportation Solutions Ron Gompertz- EcoAuto Ted Lange- Gallatin Valley Land Trust Waste Water & Recycling Working Group Members Jonas Grenz, Gradient Systems Heather Higinbotham, Yellowstone Business Partnership Dennis Steinhauer, Powerhouse Wendy Weaver, Green Stone Consulting Beth Schneider, Triple R Recycling City Staff & Interns Gabriele Dennehy, IT Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Coordinator Paulae Frojae, Building Inspector Rob Green, Sanitation Mike Haddock, IT Jon Henderson, Geographical Information Systems Steve Johnson, Sanitation Superintendant Marina Krob, IT Brian Krueger, Planner Natalie Meyer, Climate Protection Coordinator Rebecca Piersol, Sustainability Intern Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Karen Semerau, City Manager’s Office City Sustainability Team Economic Development Council We would also like to thank the locally owned restaurants who partnered with the Mayor’s Climate Task Force: Community Food Co-Op John Bozeman Bistro MacKenzie River Pizza Nova Café Sola Café Weebee’s Finally, thank you to the New Priorities Foundation for providing the grant to fund this project. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 5 Executive Summary The Mayor of Bozeman signed the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement (MCPA) in November 2006. The purpose of this agreement is to engage US cities to decrease their output of gases known to cause global warming. As of 2011, over 1,000 Mayors across the United States signed onto the MCPA thereby committing their cities to attempt to meet measurable goals for greenhouse gas reductions. The 5 milestone process for achieving greenhouse gas reductions include: 1. Conduct an emissions inventory 2. Set a reduction target 3. Develop a climate action plan 4. Implement policies and measures 5. Monitor and verify results Scientific evidence clearly tells us that the Earth is warming, and that anthropogenic (man-made) causes are influencing this trend. That was the conclusion of the second scientific assessment of the United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and reinforced by the third and fourth scientific assessments by the IPCC submitted in 2001 and 2007. In 2007 the IPCC concluded, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” An emission inventory, measuring fossil fuel based sources in Bozeman, was performed for the years 2000 and 2008. This inventory is a snapshot of greenhouse gas emissions in Bozeman and should not be considered a detailed engineering analysis of all sources. Emissions measured include electricity and natural gas usage in the residential and commercial building sectors, gasoline and diesel usage through vehicle miles traveled in the transportation sector, and landfill operations in the waste sector. Total emissions for 2000 was 365,843 metric tons of CO2e; 36 percent of total emissions came from the residential sector with 133,100MT of CO2e; 41 percent from the commercial sector with 148,010MT of CO2e; 19 percent from the transportation sector with 70,965MT of CO2e, and 4 percent from the waste sector with 13,769MT of CO2e. Total emissions for 2008 was 524,062 metric tons of CO2e; 34 percent of emissions came from the residential sector with 179,908MT of CO2e; 38 percent from the commercial sector with 197,822MT of CO2e; 26 percent from the transportation sector with 137,372MT of CO2e; and 2 percent from the waste sector with 8,961MT of CO2e City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 6 The Mayors’ Community Climate Task Force (MCCTF), a 15 member stakeholder group, was appointed in October 2009 to develop recommendations for the Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP).The MCCTF recognizes that there is no silver bullet in reducing emissions. Greenhouse gas reduction policies are far reaching and affect all sectors of society; for this reason, a holistic approach to GHG mitigation management must be used to effectively address climate change reduction strategies. After careful consideration and thoughtful planning, the MCCTF proposes a two part approach to reduction. 1) Reduce emissions to 10MT per capita by 2020 with aggressive conservation measures 2) Reduce emissions to 10 percent below 2008 levels by 2025 by developing alternative energy capacity Realistic and achievable goals along with innovative ideas were balanced to provide policies from which city officials can make effective decisions. Carbon reduction policies are fiscally responsible. By encouraging greater efficiency in energy use, they provide for significant savings over the long term.; for this reason the task force believes the recommendations in this report will create a healthy community, “green” jobs, and save taxpayer dollars City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 7 Summary of Recommendations Table 1: Summary of Recommendations Item Description Yearly Carbon Reduction Metric Tons CO2e COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION CEI1 CREATE A COMMUNITY COORDINATOR POSITION N/A CEI2 APPOINT A PERMANENT CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD N/A CEI3 SUPPORT THE YELLOWSTONE BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP N/A CEI4 PARTICIPATE IN THE SOUTHWEST MONTANA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION HOME SHOW N/A CEI5 PROMOTE NORTHWESTERN ENERGY REBATES 85 CEI6 PROMOTE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION CLUBS N/A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING RCB1 REQUIRE BENCHMARKING AT POINT OF SALE FOR ALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS N/A RCB2 REQUIRE COMMISSIONING FOR ALL NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION 938 RCB3 LAUNCH A 10 PERCENT ENERGY REDUCTION CHALLENGE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS 1,370 RCB4 ADOPT A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (RECO/CECO) N/A RCB5 REQUIRE BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPALLY FUNDED PROJECTS N/A RCB6 ENCOURAGE PASSIVE SOLAR DESIGN AT THE PLANNING STAGE 2,500 RCB7 SUPPORT PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) BOND LEGISLATION 1,130 RCB8 SUPPORT ARCHITECTURE 14X STIMULUS LEGISLATION 1,130 TRANSPORTATION TSP1 EXPAND AND IMPROVE MULTI-MODAL INFRASTRUCTURE 700 TSP2 ALLOCATE A 1MILL LEVY FOR STREAMLINE DIRECTLY 175 TSP3 INSTALL PAY ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS 22 TSP4 ADOPT AN ANTI IDLING ORDINANCE 230 TSP5 BIKE AND SHOWERS IN LIEU OF PARKING SPACES 7 TSP6 INTERCONNECT AND ENHANCE SIDEWALK NETWORK 150 TSP7 SUPPORT A LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX 100 TSP8 EXAMINE EMISSIONS FROM GALLATIN FIELD AIRPORT N/A TSP9 REFORM TAXI PERMITTING PROCESS N/A WASTE, WATER, & RECYCLING WWR1 CONDUCT A FULL WASTE FACILITY STUDY N/A WWR2 EXPAND/REQUIRE CURRENT COMPOSTING PROGRAM 35 WWR3 PROMOTE RECYCLING N/A WWR4 ADOPT A 5 CENT FEE ON PLASTIC BAGS N/A WWR5 SUPPORT AN INCREASE IN TIPPING FEES TO ENCOURAGE WASTE REDUCTION 240 WWR6 SUPPORT AN OPT-OUT POLICY FOR THE DELIVERY OF PHONE BOOKS N/A ENERGY PRODUCTION EP1 DEVELOP AN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PLAN N/A EP2 DEVELOP SOLAR HOT WATER PROGRAM 400 EP3 SOLICIT THIRD PARTY SOLAR PHOTO VOLTAIC LEASE PROGRAM N/A EP4 EXPLORE RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT OPTIONS 31,200 EP5 CREATE REGIONAL ENERGY TEAM N/A EP6 DEVELOP INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL SOLAR PHOTO VOLTAIC PROGRAM 548 EP7 SUPPORT INCENTIVES FOR CURRENT NET-METERING LEGISLATION 330 EP8 HYDRO-GENERATION CAPABILITY MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSIDERATION OF A NEW DAM N/A EP9 DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY POTENTIAL AT CITY FACILITIES N/A EP10 EXAMINE POTENTIAL OF METHANE CAPTURE FROM LOGAN LANDFILL N/A TOTAL REDUCTION POTENTIAL 41,290 *N/A refers to the fact that many Task Force recommendations are for studies for action. Until the change resulting from these studies is more tightly defined, it is not possible to quantify CO2e reductions. However, all Task Force recommendations have CO2e reduction as their final goal City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 8 CONTENTS Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 5 Summary of Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 7 List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 12 Global Warming: A Brief Summary .......................................................................................... 12 Global Warming Potential and CO2e ..................................................................................... 14 Global Warming Potential Units of Measure ........................................................................ 15 Chapter 2: Climate Change and Bozeman ................................................................................... 16 Climate Change Impacts to our Bozeman Community ............................................................. 16 What is Bozeman Doing About Climate Change? ..................................................................... 16 Mayors Climate Protection Agreement ................................................................................. 16 Mayors’ Community Climate Task Force ............................................................................... 17 Bozeman Global Warming Gas Reduction Goal .................................................................... 17 Scope of this Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) .......................................................... 20 Community CAP Process ........................................................................................................ 21 Chapter 3: Bozeman Emissions Inventory ................................................................................... 22 Community Emissions Inventory ............................................................................................... 22 Boundary Definition............................................................................................................... 24 Defining Emissions .................................................................................................................... 27 Per Capita Emissions .............................................................................................................. 27 Carbon Footprint ................................................................................................................... 27 Source .................................................................................................................................... 27 Residential: Electricity and Natural Gas .................................................................................... 28 Commercial: Electricity and Natural Gas .................................................................................. 28 GS-1 and GS-2 ........................................................................................................................ 29 Irrigation .................................................................................................................................... 31 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 31 Vehicle Miles Traveled ........................................................................................................... 31 Streamline Bus System .......................................................................................................... 31 Waste ........................................................................................................................................ 32 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 9 Story Mill and Logan Landfill ................................................................................................. 32 Waste to Energy .................................................................................................................... 32 Recycling ................................................................................................................................ 32 Chapter 4: Municipal Climate Action Plan ................................................................................... 34 Description ................................................................................................................................ 34 Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 5: Community Engagement and Implementation ......................................................... 37 Description ................................................................................................................................ 37 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................ 37 Community Spotlight .................................................................................................................... 45 Neighborhood Conservation Clubs ........................................................................................... 45 Chapter 6: Residential and Commercial Buildings .......................................................................... 46 Description ................................................................................................................................ 46 Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 46 Existing Measures ...................................................................................................................... 46 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................ 47 Community Spotlight .................................................................................................................... 56 Bozeman Deaconess Hospital ................................................................................................ 56 Chapter 7: Transportation ........................................................................................................... 57 Description ................................................................................................................................ 57 Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 57 Existing Measures ...................................................................................................................... 57 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................ 58 Community Spotlight .................................................................................................................... 72 Bozeman Public Schools Safe Routes to School Program ......................................................... 72 Chapter 8: Waste, Water, & Recycling......................................................................................... 73 Description ................................................................................................................................ 73 Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 73 Existing Measures ...................................................................................................................... 73 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................ 73 Community Spotlight .................................................................................................................... 81 Bozeman Toilet Rebate Program .............................................................................................. 81 Chapter 9: Energy Production ...................................................................................................... 82 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 10 Description ................................................................................................................................ 82 Strategies ................................................................................................................................... 82 Setting Bozeman’s Municipal Reduction Goal .......................................................................... 83 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................ 84 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................... 97 Raw Data ................................................................................................................................... 97 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................... 98 Mayors Climate Protection Agreement .................................................................................... 98 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................... 99 CAPPA Calculations ................................................................................................................... 99 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 11 List of Abbreviations AERO- Alternative Energy Resource Organization ASHRAE- American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers BBAB- Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board BLM- Bureau of Land Management BTU- British Thermal Unit CACP- Clean Air Climate Protection CAPPA- Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant CAP- Climate Action Plan CCAP- Community Climate Action Plan CO2- Carbon Dioxide CO2e- Carbon Dioxide Equivalent COB- City of Bozeman CFL-Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb CH4- Methane CTEP-Community Transportation Enhancement Program DBA- Downtown Business Association DEQ- Department of Environmental Quality DSM- Demand Side Management EDP- Economic Development Plan EPA- Environmental Protection Agency EV- Electric Vehicles FDA- Food and Drug Administration FERC- Federal Energy Regulatory Committee FTA- Federal Transit Authority GHG- Greenhouse Gas GPF- Gallons per Flush GSWMD-Gallatin Solid Waste Management District GVLT- Gallatin Valley Land Trust GZWC-Gallatin Zero Waste Coalition HVAC-Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning HRDC- Human Resource Defense Council ICLEI- Local Governments for Sustainability INC- Inter-Neighborhood Council IPCC- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change kWh- Kilowatt Hour LED-Light Emitting Diode LEED- Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LMOP- Landfill Methane Outreach Program MCA- Montana Code Annotated MCAP- Municipal Climate Action Plan MCCTF- Mayor’s Community Climate Task Force MDT- Montana Department of Transportation MSU- Montana State University MSW- Municipal Solid Waste MT- Metric Tons N2O- Nitrous Oxide NCC- Neighborhood Conservation Clubs NWE- NorthWestern Energy PC&D- Planning and Community Development PPM- Parts Per Million PROST- Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails PSC- Public Service Commission RPS- Renewable Portfolio Standard SCFM-Square Cubic Feet Per Minute SWMBIA- Southwest Montana Building Industry Association TCC- Transportation Coordinating Committee TIF- Tax Increment Financing USGBC - United States Green Building Council USDA-United States Department of Agriculture WARM- Waste Reduction Model WRF- Water Reclamation Facility YBP- Yellowstone Business Partnership Chapter 1: Introduction The City of Bozeman recognizes the impacts and implications of climate change if immediate and aggressive policies are not taken to begin mitigating for anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations which are a major cause of global warming. Urged by the Citizens Concerned for Climate Change, the Bozeman City Commission signed onto the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement (MCPA) in November 2006 (Appendix B). This report is a reflection of the citizen led effort to address climate change concerns in Bozeman The City of Bozeman hired Sustainability Planning Solutions through a grant by the New Priorities Foundation in February 2009 to complete the Bozeman Climate Action Plan (CAP) (as described later, this was split into two efforts, the Municipal CAP, and a Community CAP) . The CAP identifies ways in which the community can begin addressing climate change. The Mayor’s Community Climate Task Force (MCCTF) was appointed in October 2009 to develop the Community CAP (CCAP). The MCCTF met once a month to review and discuss the scope of the CAP. In addition, technical working group members representing industry experts from each sector were appointed and met from February 2010 to May 2010. The City of Bozeman has been leading by example with the adoption and implementation of the Municipal CAP. This document represents the Community Climate Action Plan. It is important to stress that this plan is the second part to a two-part plan which fulfills the requirements of the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The recommendations provided in this Community CAP are divided into five sections: (1) Community Engagement & Implementation (2) Residential & Commercial Building, (3) Transportation; (4) Waste, Water & Recycling, and (5) Energy Production. Chapters 1 and 2 describe the scientific basis for climate change and its effect on Bozeman. Chapter 3 discusses the results of the emissions inventory. Chapter 4 discusses the Municipal Climate Action Plan. Chapters 5-9 provide specific recommendations for each sector. Each recommendation is given a description and summary of benefits. Given the nature of the board, specific calculations on reduction and cost were beyond the scope of the Task Force; however, when possible carbon reduction potential, savings and costs estimates , comprehensive support previously identified in current City plans, a timeline for implementation, existing actions similar to the recommendation, and potential partnerships to assist in implementation have been provided. All estimates are for one given year. Realistic and achievable goals along with innovative ideas were balanced to provide policies from which city officials can make effective decisions. Carbon reduction policies are fiscally responsible. By encouraging greater efficiency in energy use, they provide for significant savings over the long term.; for this reason, the task force believes the recommendations in this report will create a healthy community, “green” jobs, and save taxpayer dollars. Global Warming: A Brief Summary Scientific evidence clearly tells us that the Earth is warming, and that anthropogenic causes are influencing this trend. That was the conclusion of the second scientific assessment of the United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and reinforced by the third and fourth scientific assessments by the IPCC submitted in 2001 and 2007. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 13 range of views and expertise. In 2007 the IPCC concluded, “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.” Figure 1. Graphical representation of the greenhouse effect (www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html) The greenhouse effect (Figure 1) is the process whereby short wavelength energy from the sun hits the Earth and is re-radiated back toward space as long wavelength infra-red heat energy. Some of this heat energy passes into space, but some is absorbed by the atmosphere, resulting in the retention of heat around the Earth. The natural greenhouse effect helps keep the Earth’s average temperature at around 59 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Without the natural greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be around 0°F, and the planet would be largely uninhabitable. Since industrialization humankind has markedly increased the concentration of molecules in the atmosphere that absorb heat energy (known as “greenhouse gases”). These measurable concentration increases, along with upward trends in temperatures and rapid climate change around the globe, are the underlying basis for the current concerns of global warming. A greenhouse gas is any gas in the atmosphere that absorbs infra-red radiation and thereby contributes to the greenhouse effect. There are numerous greenhouse gases, but the three of major concern to the average citizens are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions result from the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, coal, or natural gas) most often for transportation, industrial operations, or the heating of buildings. Methane (CH4) emissions result from the anaerobic decay of organic materials in landfills and water treatment plants, as well as from fuel production, livestock production, and farming. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) emissions result from agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 14 These gases are also naturally occurring (e.g., plants “breathe” out carbon dioxide, and methane is a natural byproduct of decomposition). However, human activities such as those mentioned above have increased the concentration of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere far beyond natural levels. That is why man-made GHG are the primary focus of efforts to reduce the impact that humans are having on the climate system. For the first time, the IPCC is providing best estimates for the warming projected to result from particular increases in greenhouse gases that could occur after the 21st century along with uncertainty ranges based on more comprehensive modeling. If atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases double compared to pre-industrial levels, this would “likely” cause an average warming of around 3°C (5.4°F), with a range of 2 - 4.5°C (3.6 - 8.1°F). A GHG level of 650 ppm (parts per million)would “likely” warm the global climate by around 3.6°C(6.5°F), while 750 ppm would lead to a 4.3°C(7.7°F) warming, 1,000 ppm to 5.5°C(9.9°F) and 1,200 ppm to 6.3°C(11.3°F). Future GHG concentrations are difficult to predict and will depend on economic growth, new technologies, government policies and actions to stem GHG growth, and other factors. By signing on to the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, the City of Bozeman has declared its intention to take action to minimize its output of global warming gases. Global Warming Potential and CO2e Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. The difference in absorption ability results from the different chemical bond characteristics for each molecule as well as their expected lifetime in the atmosphere. Scientists use the term “global warming potential” (or GWP) to describe how much a given mass of greenhouse gas will contribute to global warming. GWP is a relative scale that compares the gas in question to the same amount of CO2 (i.e., C02 has a GWP of 1.0). CO2 was chosen as the reference because it is the most prevalent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As shown in Table 1, methane traps 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide and thus has a GWP of 21. Nitrous oxide absorbs 310 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide and thus has a GWP of 310. Table 2: Relative global warming potential of the most common greenhouse gases Greenhouse gas Chemical Symbol Global warming potential Expected lifetime (years) in the atmosphere Carbon Dioxide CO2 1 50-150 Methane CH4 21 10.5 Nitrous Oxide N20 310 132 (Source EPA http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/ghg_gwp.pdf. Accessed 5/9/08) City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 15 Global Warming Potential Units of Measure When actual emissions are being discussed, global warming potentials allow policy makers to use one unit of measurement for comparing the various greenhouse gasses. That unit of measure is the known as “CO2 equivalents” (or “CO2e”). For instance, one ton of carbon dioxide emissions would equal 1 ton of CO2e; 1 ton of methane would equally 21 tons of CO2e. The entirety of the Community Emissions Inventory will be in terms of CO2e. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 16 Chapter 2: Climate Change and Bozeman Climate Change Impacts to our Bozeman Community While the global climate system is large, complex, and dynamic, the overwhelming scientific consensus strongly suggests that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are directly tied to recent warming of the globe. Scientists are increasingly confident that the impacts of global warming over the next 50 to 100 years promise to be substantial. Anticipated climate-related challenges include rising sea levels, disrupted water resources, lessened food security, threats to human health, and disruptions to natural ecosystems. The frequency and severity of extreme weather events is also expected to increase. Picture 1. Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley as seen from the Bridger Crest. Anticipating the impacts of climate change for a local area, such as Bozeman, is more difficult than predicting average change across the globe. However, for the Bozeman area, climate change may lead to such tangible, life-impacting alterations as increased catastrophic forest fires, shortened ski seasons, hotter summers, lower summer river flows, and drought. Decreased tourism may result from shortened ski and fishing seasons, with a resulting decrease in business income and related tax income. Increased drought can have severe impacts on agri-business, as well as lead to increased property loss due to forest fires. Importantly, these impacts will stress municipal services such as fire prevention and maintaining a clean and abundant water supply. In addition to human-related concerns in the Bozeman area, local ecological diversity and our natural resources are likely to suffer a broad range of negative impacts and losses due to global warming. These changes are intrinsically important, as well as with respect to their impact on tourism and other industries. Such changes might include disruption of native fisheries (e.g., west slope cutthroat trout populations), increased plant disease (e.g., blister rust), increased plant pathogens (e.g., bark beetles), and negative impacts on high elevation species (e.g., white bark pine). What is Bozeman Doing About Climate Change? Mayors Climate Protection Agreement Bozeman signed on to the Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (MCPA) in November 2006. The purpose of this agreement is to engage US cities to decrease their output of gases known to cause global warming. As of 2011, over 1,000 mayors across the United States have signed onto the MCPA; thereby committing their cities to attempt to meet measurable goals for greenhouse gas reductions. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 17 The City of Bozeman should be commended for its leadership and progressive approach towards beginning to address climate change prior to this report. For instance, the City has the first silver rated LEED (Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design) public building in the state of Montana with its public library. City Hall has been renovated using LEED Existing Building designs. When possible, the City uses bio-diesel in its vehicle fleet, adopted and anti-idling policy, and converted most of its traffic signals from incandescent light bulbs to Light Emitting Diodes (LED’s). LED’s are 80 percent more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs. Most importantly, the City adopted its first Municipal Climate Action Plan in 2008. Led by the Climate Protection Coordinator, the City Sustainability Team has been working on reducing emissions in municipal operations. Mayors’ Community Climate Task Force The Bozeman City Commission appointed the Mayors’ Community Climate Task Force (MCCTF) in October 2009 to create a Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP). Stakeholders included: City of Bozeman- Climate Protection Coordinator and Mayor Public Agencies- Montana State University, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital, Streamline Transportation, Gallatin County Business- Chamber of Commerce, NorthWestern Energy, Downtown Business Association, Southwest Montana Building Industry Association, United States Green Building Council Residents- Inter-Neighborhood Council, three citizens–at-large Bozeman Global Warming Gas Reduction Goal A community emissions inventory was performed for 2000 and the interim year 2008. The Task Force identified a baseline year of 2000 to be consistent with the Municipal Climate Action Plan. The Task Force began by asking the facilitator to do a review of other city plans and their level of success at achieving the reduction goals of those plans. A website was created to keep the task force and commissioners informed at www.cacheo.com To date, most cities have not reached the final date set forth in their plans. Some evidence was found that cities are struggling to meet strict goals that are based solely on a CO2e reduction goal relative to some past date (for example, under the Kyoto Protocol whose signees pledged to reduce greenhouse gases 7% below 1990 levels by 2012). Bozeman’s own municipal plan, focused only on City operations, mandates a 15% reduction of greenhouse gases below 2000 levels by 2020. Rather than adopt this goal, the Task Force was careful to recognize that it is far easier to control tightly bound—by culture, budget, and so on—city operations than a diverse city of private individuals, non-profits and businesses. Thus, some Task Force members argued for a less aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goal. Recognizing projections that show the possibility of Bozeman’s population roughly doubling by 2025, much debate was held regarding setting a normalized (i.e., per person) reduction goal. This idea was not unanimously agreed to by the Task Force. All, however, agreed that the idea provided the ability to compare our city’s greenhouse gas production with that of different cities in the USA, and even different countries around the world (Figure 2). City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 18 Figure2 Worldwide per capita emissions In the end, the Task Force decided to use both normalized and absolute reduction goals to drive Bozeman’s Climate Action Plan. Part of the reason for that decision was that the group realized it had two main types of recommendations with two different timeframes for implementation (Table 2). Table 3.—Planning and implementation timeframe comparison for Task Force recommendations. Type recommendations Potential greenhouse gas reduction Planning phase Expected Bozeman implementation phase of Task Force recommendations Conservation-based (shorter term) Low to medium 2011 to 2020 Easiest efforts beginning in 2011 with work ongoing as projects are readied. We expect major efforts to be completed by 2020 but strong likelihood of ongoing efforts through 2025 and beyond Production-based (longer term) High 2011 to 2025 Planning for energy production will be substantial. Some major efforts such as energy planning may begin as soon as possible, but major implementation efforts for these recommendations more likely to occur from 2020 – 2025. As the conservation-based recommendations are less likely to result in substantial reductions, the Task Force believes it reasonable to allow actual emissions to grow during the period of 2011 (expected plan adoption) until 2020 (Figure 3). However, the Task Force caps the allowed increase at a per capita usage between now and 2020 to less than that of today (i.e., a cap of 10 MT CO2e / person / year vs. today’s City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 19 level of 13 MT CO2eq / person / year). It is important to note that Figure 3 is based on population growth as stated in the Bozeman Community Plan (adopted in 2009). That plan projects a population of 88,700 for Bozeman in 2025. From 2020 forward we expect that Bozeman will have initiated its own energy production capabilities, as outlined in the remainder of this chapter. Given that change, and the far larger reductions expected once alternative sources of energy are tapped to supply the city, the Task Force recommends an absolute goal of returning to ten percent below 2008 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 or the numeric equivalent of 472,000MT of CO2e. The scenario described is reflected in Figure 3, both for absolute CO2e output (upper graph) and per person output (lower graph). The Task Force believes the final 2025 goal is obtainable without threat to the quality of life for the people of Bozeman. Assuming that Bozeman’s population does grow to 88,700 by 2025, we would be using 5.4 MT CO2e /person/ year, identical to Sweden’s use in 2007. If Bozeman does not grow that rapidly, our allowable use to meet the Task Force’s goal will be greater than 5.4 MT CO2e / person / year. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 20 Figure 3.—Task Force recommendations for reduction of Bozeman global warming gas emissions (i.e., CO2eq). Top graph shows actual emissions based on population growth projections from the Bozeman Community Plan. Bottom graph shows per person carbon emissions under Task Force recommendations which emphasize implementing conservation goals until 2020, then implementing City-controlled alternative energy production from 2020-2025. Scope of this Community Climate Action Plan (CCAP) This Community CAP serves as a guideline and tool for the community to decrease its greenhouse gas emissions. All but one recommendation, RCB2, in the Community Climate Action Plan were achieved by unanimous consent of the MCCTF. RCB2 had one dissenting voice. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 21 The Community CAP should be used as a living document to be reviewed, monitored, and adjusted as necessary. It is important to note that further analysis of proposed changes might be required before action is taken. While the Task Force believes that all recommendations are warranted ecologically, in most cases a rigorous analysis of cost (or benefit) per unit of CO2 reduced was beyond the Task Force’s scope and/or knowledge and/or time availability. Thus we cannot present these recommendations as an ordered list of preferred actions (i.e., beginning with the most cost beneficial changes and running to most expensive changes per unit of CO2 reduction). Community CAP Process The task force divided into 4 sub-committees: (1) Residential Building and Energy, (2) Commercial Building and Energy; (3) Transportation; and (4) Waste, Water, & Recycling. The groups were tasked with identifying greenhouse gas reduction opportunities within their sectors. In the chapters that follow, we provide recommendations from each of the subcommittees. Given the limited scope and resources of the Task Force, a preliminary assessment of yearly potential carbon reduction and cost estimates are included in the report. Further analysis is strongly recommended on a case by case basis to determine priority during the implementation phase of the program. The CCAP Reduction Target Goal 1) Reduce emissions to 10 metric tons per capita not to exceed 695,000 metric tons by 2020 2) Reduce emissions to 10 percent below 2008 levels by 2025 to 472,000 metric tons City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 22 Chapter 3: Bozeman Emissions Inventory Community Emissions Inventory The City of Bozeman joined ICLEI-(Local Governments for Sustainability) - in June of 2007. ICLEI is an international association of local governments as well as a national, regional, and local government organization that has made a commitment to sustainable development. Through its membership, ICLEI provides the City of Bozeman access and support to its Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software among other tools. The CACP 2009 version 2.1, June 2009 software was used for this emissions inventory. CACP was originally developed for ICLEI-by Torrie-Smith associates. ICLEI collaborated with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies to create the software. All of the data and information is saved to the city-owned software and is available for future emission inventories. All data tables, assumptions, and calculations are included in Appendix A. The emissions coefficients and methodology employed by the software are consistent with national and international inventory standards established by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1996 Revised IPCC Guidelines for the Preparation of National GHG Emissions Inventories), the U.S. Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reporting Guidelines (EIA form1605), and, for emissions generated from solid waste, the U.S. EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM).Carbon reduction potential figures were derived using ICLEI’s Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant (CAPPA) as an estimate. CAPPA is not to be used in lieu of a detailed engineering analysis. An emissions inventory was presented to the Bozeman City Commission in August 2009. Since that time, new information on transportation vehicle data, which was unavailable at the time of the report, has been received; thus significantly changing 2008 emissions for the transportation sector and increasing total emissions from the previous inventory by nearly 47,000 metric tons. The Community CAP reflects those changes Total emissions for 2000 were 365,843 metric tons of CO2e; 36 percent of total emissions came from the Residential Sector with 133,100 MT of CO2e; 41 percent from the Commercial Sector with 148,010 MT of CO2e; 19 percent from the Transportation Sector with 70,965 MT of CO2e, and 4 percent from the Waste Sector with 13,769 MT of CO2e. Total emissions for 2008 were 524,062 metric tons of CO2e; 34 percent of emissions came from the Residential Sector with 179,908 MT of CO2e; 38 percent from the Commercial Sector with 197,822 MT of CO2e; 26 percent from the Transportation Sector with 137,372 MT of CO2e; and 2 percent from the Waste Sector with 8,961 MT of CO2e A previous inventory for City operations for calendar year 2000 resulted in 5,518 MT of CO2e in 2000 which represents only 2 percent of the community’s total emissions. While it is important that municipal operations take steps to reduce its emissions, community emissions represent a much larger carbon footprint. Bozeman has a unique opportunity to successfully reduce its emissions. A majority of emissions are from energy and natural gas usage in the residential and commercial sector. Policy initiatives may want to focus on energy conservation and reduction strategies. Clear benefits can be gained through measures such as energy efficiency retrofits, insulation, and lighting, which typically have a good return on investment. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 23 Figure 4: 2000 GHG Sector Emissions Figure 5: 2008 GHG Sector Emissions According to the US Census Bureau and the Bozeman Community Plan, the population in 2000 was 27,509 and was estimated to be approximately 38,000 in 2008. The population increased by 38 percent while emissions increased by 43 percent. Bozeman experienced almost a two-fold increase in total vehicle miles traveled during this period. Total Emissions in MTCO2e: 365,483; Residential 133,100; Commercial 148,010, Transportation 70,965, Waste 13,769 Total Emissions in MTCO2e: 524,062; Residential 179,908; Commercial 197,822; Transportation 137,372; Waste 8,961 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 24 Table 5: Community Emissions Totals Sector 2000 MT of CO2e 2008 MT of CO2e Increase Residential 133,100 179,908 35% Commercial 148,010 197,822 34% Transportation 70,965 137,372 95% Waste 13,769 8,961 -35% Total 365,843 524,062 43% Boundary Definition NorthWestern Energy (NWE) is the largest utility provider in Montana with 392,600 customers. NWE service territories cover 73 percent of Montana’s land area (www.northwesternenergy.com.) Figure 6: NorthWestern Energy Service Area Source: NorthWestern Energy Creating a greenhouse gas emissions inventory is an overwhelming challenge for many communities. Consistent data management is one obstacle to accurate reporting. Because the information needed for a GHG inventory in Bozeman has not been previously gathered, an initial inventory can help lay the foundation for improved data collection mechanisms in the future. The electrical and natural gas usage information in this inventory was largely provided by NorthWestern Energy’s sales data for Bozeman. The jurisdiction of the CCAP is defined by the boundaries set forth in the Community Plan for the City of Bozeman and represented by the blue line in Figure 6. Any real sustainable solution for this area, however, should include goals and participation for the entire Valley and the Big Sky community which is directly tied to materials and resources from the Bozeman/Belgrade area. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 25 The energy usage boundary in this inventory is limited to the data available by NWE which exceeds the boundaries set forth in the CCAP. Through the City of Bozeman’s Geographical Information Systems (GIS) department, a boundary map was created to illustrate the coverage area accounted for in this inventory (red line Figure 6). The emissions boundary provided by NorthWestern Energy’s Bozeman town code runs from Bear Canyon in the East to Black Bull in the west; Springhill in the North and Hyalite in the south. Future collaboration with NorthWestern Energy must create opportunities for monitoring and reporting energy usage within the City limits more accurately. Utilizing the City’s GIS program and NWE’s customer billing information, a more accurate emissions inventory within the jurisdiction of Bozeman could be extracted. This plan strongly recommends that the City of Bozeman and NorthWestern Energy work together to streamline energy usage data for future inventories. This inventory is intended to be a snapshot of emissions produced in 2000 with an interim inventory for 2008. Included in the inventory is energy usage for electricity and natural gas from the residential and commercial sector, transportation fuel usage determined by vehicle miles traveled provided by the Montana Department of Transportation, and waste from both the Story Mill (Bozeman) and Logan (Gallatin County) Landfills. The City of Bozeman closed down its landfill operations in June of 2007. Community wide waste is being sent to the Gallatin County Logan Landfill. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 26 Figure 7 NWE Bozeman Town Code Map City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 27 Defining Emissions Per Capita Emissions Per capita emissions in Bozeman for 2000 and 2008 were 13MT CO2e. Per capita emissions remain lower than the US national average of 23mt CO2e per capita; however, it is the total amount emitted into the atmosphere that should remain the focus. Per capita emissions were derived using population estimates for the City of Bozeman. Because the emissions coverage area represents a much larger area than the City’s jurisdiction, a future inventory may find that per capita emissions are lower still. (http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html). Carbon Footprint The amount of vegetation needed to use the CO2 emitted is one way to put a community’s carbon footprint into context. The US EPA provides specific estimates of storage or sequestration for different plant types, including a value for Douglas fir, a tree in abundance in Montana, of .3 tons/acre/year for reforestation. (http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/rates.html) This allows us to convert known emissions totals for our community into land area. In this case, it is land area that would have to be reforested with Douglas fir and preserved as forest. Roughly 2,100 square miles and 3,000 square miles respectively of land would need to be reforested and preserved to offset CO2 emissions at 2000 and 2008 levels. (366,000MT/.27MT/640acres= 2,100sq mi/ 524,000/.27/640acres= 3,000sqmi) Figure8: Bozeman's Carbon Footprint Source The main source of emissions calculated in this inventory were electricity and natural gas usage, diesel and gasoline consumption based on EPA national standards derived from vehicle miles traveled and City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 28 paper products. Paper products were obtained from the Montana solid waste distribution averages (Appendix A). Figure 9: Emissions Source Nearly all of the emissions sources are fossil fuel based carbon dioxide with a small portion derived from the decomposition of organic matter from waste in the landfills. The two highest sources of emissions for both inventory years were electricity and natural gas. Recommendations focused on reducing emissions will want to tackle the highest sources of emissions most aggressively. Sources included in the other category are plant debris, wood or textiles, and food waste. Residential: Electricity and Natural Gas Energy usage in the Residential and Commercial sector was determined by total consumption numbers provided by NorthWestern Energy; the major utility provider in Bozeman. Energy for electricity and natural gas usage is measured in kilowatt hours (kWh) and therms, respectively; however, for the purpose of the inventory all metrics for energy consumption have been converted to kWh. A count of individual services/meters, rather than billing accounts was used to determine the number of utility customers. The Residential Sector includes 18,048 customers and is represented in the Bozeman area town code map previously mentioned. Residential sector energy usage for 2000 was 547 million kWh. Emissions were 133,100 MT of CO2e or the equivalent of consuming over 15 million gallons of gasoline. In 2008, the Residential Sector used 712 million kWh of electricity. Emissions were 179,900 MT of CO2e or the equivalent of consuming over 20 million gallons of gasoline. (http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy- resources/calculator.html) Commercial: Electricity and Natural Gas Commercial sector usage is made up of five categories: General Service- 1, General Service-2, Gas Transportation, Interdepartmental, and Irrigation. A kilowatt hour (kWh) is 1000 watts of energy usage burning for one hour. Ten 100 watt light bulbs burning for 1 hour is a kilowatt hour. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 29 General Service encompasses four Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reporting classes: Commercial, Industrial, Public Authority and Interdepartmental. There are no Public Authority customers in Bozeman. Industrial and Interdepartmental customers have been classified as Commercial in this inventory. General Service-1 (GS-1) includes non-demand and demand metered commercial customers taking service at secondary and primary voltage levels. This class is made up primarily of Main Street-type businesses. As a point of reference, Bozeman City Hall has GS-1 demand metered service. General Service-2 (GS-2) is for customers with larger capacity requirements that dictate they take their service at substation or transmission level voltages. Montana State University is the only GS-2 customer in Bozeman. Gas Transportation is available to customers with meters capable of delivering 5,000 cubic feet per hour or more. Transportation customers purchase supply on their own and pay NWE to transport their gas commodity over NWE's transmission and distribution lines on either a firm or interruptible basis. This includes a number of school district buildings, MSU, some large retailers and several industrial customers. Interdepartmental is NWE's own buildings and facilities. Irrigation is primarily related to agriculture (irrigation ditches, center pivots, hand lines, wheel lines) and can include golf courses if they have their own pump. The Commercial Sector accounted for 41 percent of total emissions in 2000, the largest portion of emissions, with 549 million kWh of energy usage and 148,010 MT of CO2e emitted or the equivalent of consuming 344 thousand barrels of oil. Commercial Sector usage remained at 41 percent of total usage in 2008 with 689 million kWh of energy used and 197,822 MT of CO2e or the equivalent of consuming 460 thousand barrels of oil ( http://www.epa.gov/RDEE/energy-resources/calculator.html). GS-1 and GS-2 Bozeman has a vibrant and diverse commercial sector. Montana State University and Bozeman Deaconess Health Center are the largest employers in the City. Historic downtown Bozeman serves as the city commercial center with banking, professional, and hospitality services. Working together to find ways to aggressively reduce emissions will be essential to the success of the Community Climate Action Plan. Several communities have initiated voluntary programs to encourage public and private institutions to reduce their carbon footprint. In Burlington VT, the Ten Percent Challenge has been a success with 93 businesses and 1200 residencies participating in the program. The program fosters recognition of individual actions, while motivating and tackling the larger community’s progress towards its climate protection goals. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 30 Source: Bozeman Economic Development Plan 2008 As a signatory to the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), MSU is leading the way to reduce emissions in the community. The ACUPCC is a commitment to eliminate global warming emissions and integrate sustainability into the curriculum. MSU has appointed a Campus Sustainability Advisory Council which meets once a month to discuss sustainability projects on campus. MSU is in the process of developing its Climate Action Plan which is expected to be completed in the spring of 2011. The majority of commercial emissions are a result of electricity and natural gas usage in the GS-1 sector with 97,226mt of CO2e emitted in 2000 and 176,769mt of CO2e emitted in 2008. MSU is the only GS-2 consumer with 16,740mt of CO2e emitted in 2000 and 19,594mt of CO2e emitted in 2008. Emissions only represent energy usage provided by NorthWestern Energy. A more comprehensive inventory by MSU will likely reveal other sources of emissions. Table 6: Largest Public and Private Employers in Bozeman Number of Employees Montana State University 2,679 Bozeman Deaconess Hospital 1,238 Bozeman Public School District 587 Gallatin County Government 460 Right Now Technologies* 400 Wal-Mart Stores 370 City of Bozeman 351 Kenyon Noble Lumber Company 236 Williams Plumbing and Heating 200 Zoot Enterprises* 177 Costco Wholesale 176 Bozeman Community Food Co-Op 170 Simkins Hallin Lumber Company 169 Murdoch’s Ranch and Home Supply 160 Martel Construction 150 Gibson Guitar- Montana Division 140 Billion Auto Group 135 Bozeman Daily Chronicle 128 Rosauer’s Supermarket 123 Best Western Gran Tree Inn 115 Target Stores 110 *Zoot Enterprises and Right Now Technologies are located outside Bozeman City limits Photo Source: MSU City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 31 Irrigation Irrigation covers agricultural land and golf courses within NWE’s Bozeman Town Code coverage. There are three golf courses located within this area: Valley View, Bridger Creek, and Riverside Country Club. Valley View is the only golf course located within the City limits. The Gallatin Valley has the highest prevalence of irrigation in the state. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) performs an agricultural census every five years. According to the 2002 Census, Gallatin County had 1,074 farms and 708,728 acres dedicated to farm land. According to the 2007 Census, Gallatin County had 1,071 farms and 776,868 acres of land dedicated to farm land. MSU has three farms. BART (Bozeman Area Research and Teaching) Farm, located on 19th and Garfield, is within the City limits, Fort Ellis Farm is within the Bozeman Town Code coverage area, and the Arthur Post Farm in New Middle Creek is located outside the coverage area. Transportation Vehicle Miles Traveled Bozeman is a regional service community. The traffic counts performed in 1998 for the 2001 Update of the Bozeman Community Plan documented 60,000 trips per day traveling into or out from Bozeman’s municipal boundaries. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) annually for 1998 was used as a proxy for 2000. With the existing street network, 111,600,000 vehicle miles were calculated by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) as cars traveling in and out of Bozeman. This is enough to circle the earth’s equator 4,485 times. Vehicle miles traveled for 2008 increased more than 50 percent with total VMT at 233 million miles. Streamline Bus System Photo Source: Streamline Public transportation can help reduce a community’s carbon footprint by reducing the number of individual vehicle miles traveled. Bozeman’s public transportation is the Streamline bus system which has been in service since 2006. The cost is free to the public thanks in large part to funding from the Federal Transit Authority and local municipalities such as Bozeman and Belgrade. Miles of Streets 2000- 136 2007- 206 2009- 242 Source: City of Bozeman Engineering Division City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 32 In 2008, Streamline’s fixed route ridership increased dramatically averaging 792 rides per day in January and February, with a record high of 922 rides on February 3, 2008. Streamline estimates 195 tons of CO2 reductions per year. Waste Story Mill and Logan Landfill Story Mill Landfill was Bozeman’s main landfill site in 2000. The site was closed down on July 1, 2007 and a solid waste district was created. Bozeman now hauls its waste to Gallatin County’s Logan Landfill. Emissions figures for 2008 reflect this change. Story Mill collected 55,941 tons of waste in 2000 and emitted 13,769 MT of CO2e. Story Mill collected 13,996 tons of waste in 2008 and emitted 3,445MT of CO2e. Logan collected 22,411 tons of waste in 2008 and emitted 5,516 MT of CO2e. Total emissions for 2008 were 8,961 MT of CO2e. There are a number of reasons for the decrease in emissions in the Waste sector. The Bozeman Landfill closed down in July of 2007. The only waste allowed into the Story Mill Landfill from January 1, 2008 – June 30, 2008 was from the Bozeman Solid Waste trucks. Waste previously brought to the Story Mill landfill is now being sent to the Gallatin County landfill site in Logan. Second, the recent downturn in the economy, largely in the construction sector, has had a ripple effect in the amount of waste being collected. Because the county does not track all waste coming in from Bozeman, the waste share usage was determined by calculating the total waste at Logan from July 1 –December 31, 2008 by the percentage of county population living in Bozeman. According to the latest Bozeman Community Plan, Bozeman represents 43.4 percent of the population in Gallatin County. Waste to Energy Story Mill landfill explored preliminary feasibility studies with the EPA for the Landfill Methane Outreach Program; however, results concluded that Story Mill landfill would not generate enough methane to use for heat at this time. The County may consider exploring methane recovery programs with the increased waste being diverted to Logan landfill. Grant funding may be available through the EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). Recycling In 2007, the City avoided nearly 7,000 metric tons of CO2e from being emitted into the atmosphere through its recycling programs. Diverting waste through recycling has a positive effect on reducing emissions. Several organizations provide recycling services in the community. Triple R Recycling and Full Circle recycling are private companies which provide recycling in and out of the City limits. Headwaters Recycling was contracted by the City of Bozeman to collect recycling through various drop off sites in town. The program began in 1998, and the City ended its contract with Headwaters in April of 2008 to begin a City curbside recycling program in December of 2008. The Solid Waste District continues to operate convenience sites in Bozeman. Recycling figures for 2000 were not available; however, Headwater was able to provide recycling figures for 2007. At the time of this inventory, Bozeman curbside recycling was only 6 months into its program and did not have sufficient data to include into the report. The City of Bozeman has been actively monitoring its municipal recycling operations since the adoption of the Municipal CAP. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 33 Table 7: 2007 Headwaters Recycling Bozeman Tons Recycled MT CO2e Reductions Paper 1500 2869 Aluminum 128 2061 Glass 1230 360 Plastic 114 225 Cardboard 675 1482 Total Reductions 6970 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 34 Chapter 4: Municipal Climate Action Plan Description The City of Bozeman adopted the first Municipal Climate Action Plan (MCAP) in August 2008. The MCAP provides 40 recommendations on how to reduce emissions in municipal buildings, vehicle fleet, and landfill operations. The City has been leading by example by adopting a no-idling policy, using bio-diesel when available, installing photo voltaic panels at City Hall and renovating it to LEED existing buildings standards. A part-time Climate Protection Coordinator has been hired to implement the recommendations in the MCAP. A number of recommendations are worth noting in the CCAP given the strong impact they could have on the community as a whole. The Task Force felt it was important to include the following recommendations, which have already been discussed in the MCAP, in the CCAP and believes they should be given high priority when considering future projects for implementation. Recommendations MCAP WWR-4 INSTALL A TURBINE FOR ELECTRICAL GENERATION AT THE CITY’S LYMAN CREEK WATER TREATMENT PLANT Description. Following the installation and beginning operation of the Hyalite/Sourdough turbine, budget funds for the study of a similar turbine to be placed into operation at the Lyman plant. Successful carbon footprint reduction may additionally be available at the City’s smaller Lyman plant. The Task Force recommends basing the decision for installation of a turbine at the Lyman Plant on the successful operation of the Hyalite/Sourdough turbine. Carbon Footprint Reduction. In 2006, Lyman plant used 84,817 kWh and emitted 46 tons of CO2e. A carbon footprint reduction could again be possible based on capturing energy from the head of water available leading to the Lyman plant. Financial Consideration. The Lyman plant paid $8,100 in utility costs. The break-even point should be readily calculated based on performance (energy production performance, low maintenance and down time) of the Hyalite/Sourdough turbine. Updates. The City of Bozeman requested a review of the hydropower option for the new Sourdough Water Treatment Plant. The report concludes that hydro power will not pay for the capital costs over the 20-year useful life of the equipment and is, therefore, not economically feasible. The City is currently reviewing this report and examining alternative turbines. MCAP- WWR-11. Description. The soon-to-be-closed Story Mill landfill site generates considerable methane (CH4) from rotting organic material. This methane production will continue, even after landfill closure. The Task Force recommends that the City capture this gas and use it for heating or electrical generation. CAPTURE AND USE METHANE GAS COMING OFF THE STORY MILL LANDFILL SITE City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 35 Carbon footprint reduction. Methane has a global warming potential 21 times as great as CO2. By capturing the methane the City will eliminate a potent global warming gas that is currently being vented directly to the atmosphere. By using the methane a heat source or for electrical generation in micro- turbines, the City will additionally eliminate the need to buy methane (i.e. natural gas) for these operations, or similarly electricity generated by coal-fired power plants. Financial considerations. Several financial studies have been undertaken by the U.S. EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP). These options, including capture of the methane for resale, for heating or powering the new landfill administrative building should be strongly reviewed for payback viability. If viability is not proven, the Task Force recommends that the City review methane capture once yearly as increasing energy prices are likely to make the program financially viable in the near future. Updates. In 1997, the City of Bozeman installed a gas extraction candlestick flare at the Story Landfill to help mitigate the threat of groundwater contamination. The flare collects and burns methane emitted from the landfill, thus converting it to carbon dioxide-- a less potent greenhouse gas. While there is wide recognition of the merits of landfill gas-to-energy projects, the Story Landfill site may not provide the necessary volume or quality of gas needed for a successful project. Small landfill gas-to-energy projects can be defined as having methane flow rates of less than 350 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). The Story Landfill flows at approximately 130 scfm and is considered a dying landfill as this flow rate is on a gradual decline. For the purpose of a gas-to-energy project, the quality of the Story Landfill gas is poor with methane levels below 30 percent. The City Engineering Department continually monitors the gas flow rate at the Story Landfill and stays informed of innovative landfill gas-to-energy projects. The City will watch for opportunities at the Story Landfill, as well as the Gallatin County Logan Landfill where the potential for a successful project may be greater in the future. MCAP-WWR-12. Description. A micro-turbine system would allow the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to turn biogas waste from the anaerobic digesters (75 percent of which would otherwise be flared) into power that can be used by the WRF to heat, cool, and light its buildings. At this time, there is insufficient biogas production to operate the smallest available micro-turbine (approximately 230 kW). Therefore, the micro-turbine operation would need to be augmented by natural gas until approximately 2020. To reduce the need for supplemental natural gas and maximize the utility of the micro-turbines, the anaerobic digesters could be turned into “cash cows” by accepting high strength waste directly into the digesters. The higher levels of biogas produced from this high strength waste would off-set the need for added natural gas, and increase the cost effectiveness of the micro-turbines. High strength waste streams in Bozeman that could be directly fed into the digesters include waste from the Darigold Milk Plant, and the grease traps at Montana State University’s cafeteria and other food facilities. A receiving facility would need to be built to accommodate the extra inputs, adding to the cost of this option, but the potential for power generation would be significant. Also, with high strength waste being directly input into digesters, the efficiency of the current system that treats all influent prior to the digesters would be increased (using less energy in the absence of the high strength waste). Additional analyses would need to be done to determine how much of the WRF’s power needs could be met by directly feeding the anaerobic digesters with high strength waste. INSTALL A MICRO-TURBINE POWER GENERATION SYSTEM FOR METHANE CAPTURE AND USE City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 36 Carbon footprint. Installing a micro-turbine would have a significant impact on reducing the Municipal carbon footprint by turning waste into energy. According to HDR/Morrison Mairle Engineering, we can reasonably estimate that the micro-turbine would lead to a reduction of 225 -250 kW of electrical load at the WRF. A more accurate estimate of the carbon footprint reduction for the micro-turbine will only be possible once they know the efficiency of the micro-turbine machine they would like to install (research into which machine will be best is still on-going). It will also depend on whether the Darigold Milk Plant will be included in the high strength waste collection program. Given the fact that increasing demand on the WRF due to a growing population in Bozeman will result in an absolute increase in CO2eq emissions from the WRF, a micro-turbine linked to a digester that accepts high strength waste is the only way to reduce the absolute amount of emissions produced by operations at the WRF. Although there is a high cost to installing a micro-turbine (see below), the Task Force recommends that the City seek funding to support the installment of such a micro-turbine as a means of significantly reducing the Municipal carbon footprint. Financial Considerations. A ~230kW micro-turbine would cost approximately $1.8 million, so the Task Force recommends that the City seek financial assistance from the electrical utility (NorthWestern Energy) to balance out the costs of purchasing and operating a micro-turbine. Updates. The City of Bozeman is actively pursuing grant opportunities and alternative financing mechanisms to fund a cogeneration system at the new WRF. The WRF was designed and constructed with the ability to incorporate a cogeneration system at a later stage when funding becomes available. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 37 Chapter 5: Community Engagement and Implementation Description The Task Force recognizes the challenges associated with implementing the recommendations in this report. For this reason, the Task Force strongly recommends utilizing the existing resources available in the community as they begin prioritizing and implementing programs in the CCAP. In an attempt to aid in the effort, this chapter identifies several organizations which have initiated carbon reduction strategies. Limited resources and time will make implementation of all programs difficult. Many measures cut across various City departments, County and State jurisdictions, and private/public realms. The successful implementation of this report will be the culmination of increased cooperation and collaboration between these entities. Some measures presented in this section cannot be specifically quantified in terms of greenhouse gas reductions; however, they are critical tools which should be used to further the goals of the CCAP. The Task Force recommends that all measure in this section be given the highest priority as the first step in implementing the Community CAP. Summary of Recommendations INDEX# DESCRIPTION COST CEI1 COMMUNITY COORDINATOR $40,000-$60,000 CEI2 CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD STAFF TIME CEI3 YELLOWSTONE BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP $500 FOR PILOT PROJECT CEI4 PARTICIPATE IN SWMBIA HOME SHOW STAFF TIME CEI5 PROMOTE NORTHWESTERN ENERGY REBATES STAFF TIME CEI6 PROMOTE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION CLUBS STAFF TIME City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 38 CEI1- CREATE A COMMUNITY COORDINATOR POSITION FOR CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING DESCRIPTION As climate action planning is a fluid process, the successful implementation of the strategies presented in this climate action plan will require continual management, measurement, and course correction. Presently this effort is handled through the efforts of a contract position and the efforts of a voluntary committee. This recommendation is to formalize a position within City government to handle management of the climate action plan as well as other sustainability initiatives. The Coordinator position would facilitate the objectives of the Community Climate Action Plan. Working with businesses, utilities, and community members, the Coordinator would develop collaborative projects, measure progress, and produce periodic greenhouse gas emissions inventories. The Coordinator should be skilled in climate action plan development and management, emissions inventorying, project management, and city government processes. Since this person will help promote rebates available through NWE, the City should partner with NWE to research opportunities for partial funding of this position. The CC should work with NorthWestern Energy and the Geographical Information Systems (GIS) Department to create a energy usage database. A memorandum of use (MOU) can be signed by both parties to obtain energy usage data information for the City of Bozeman. This should be viewed as a high priority as obtaining this information could take several years. Responsibilities should include but are not limited to: Perform an emissions inventory every 3 years Provide annual project update to City Commission Work with Advisory Board to identify projects Provide an assessment of programs every 3 years Create community webpage to interface with the public which includes a carbon calculator Develop educational campaign for all relevant programs SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Organized and credible management of Community Climate Action Plan implementation. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Pittsburgh, PA Climate Action Plan http://www.pittsburghclimate.org/documents/PittsburghClimateA ctionPlan.pdf http://www.nukejobs.com/nucdetailjobs/2886479/1/Sustainability -Coordinator.html http://www.medford.org/Pages/MedfordMA_Energy/sustmedford _060907 DEPARTMET Planning TIMELINE 2011 EXISTING ACTIONS COB Climate Protection Coordinator MSU Sustainability Coordinator Bozeman Deaconess Sustainability Coordinator PARTNERS NWE City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 39 CEI2-APPOINT A PERMANENT CONSERVATION ADVISORY BOARD (CAB) DESCRIPTION The City of Bozeman elected officials and staff rely on the advice of over 275 volunteer citizen board members serving on more than thirty Advisory Boards and Task Forces. These unpaid volunteers provide a critical connection to the community and the values and concerns of residents. Successful implementation of the CCAP will rely on effective monitoring of progress by members in the community. This recommendation is to create a permanent advisory board which will meet quarterly and who will work with the Community Coordinator to promote projects as technology and opportunities arise. The Task Force recommends the board represent, but not limited to, the following sectors: City County Business Energy Non profits University Transportation Citizen-at-large Public Schools Hospital SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Monitor programs Develop implementations strategies Build coalitions and partnerships in the community DEPARTMENT Climate Protection COST Staff Time TIMELINE 2011 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 40 CEI3: PARTICIPATE IN THE YELLOWSTONE BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP’S GREATER YELLOWSTONE FRAMEWORK FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROJECT (GY-FRAMEWORK) DESCRIPTION The GY-Framework is a voluntary ecosystem-based rating system that is modeled after the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. This regional rating system includes and goes beyond the application of LEED green building standards to address the nationally significant natural and cultural values of the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, including biodiversity, land use and conservation, transportation, recreation resources, public service and infrastructure, and community vitality. City of Bozeman employees were instrumental not only in developing the GY-Framework, but also in tailoring the existing requirements to better suit governmental jurisdictions using a more applicable and highly flexible and voluntary, rating system. This system will guide our communities on a path to increasing the livability of our region, and ultimately, reducing our carbon footprint. Being a pilot for the GY-Framework will assist the City of Bozeman in coordinating its various sustainability efforts. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Contract with a code-writing consultant with experience on a regional scale to develop model codes and tools to implement measurable metrics/goals outlined in existing plans Complete affordability band/analysis of need/immediate post- recession assessment of where development dollars should be focused: what is the housing stock, current/continuing need, what is affordable given current employment pictures in each area? Coordinate with/expansion of Linx regional transportation co-op Highlight several “commuter-sheds” (targeted areas are the two Teton Counties Idaho and Wyoming, Gallatin/Park counties, Pocatello and surrounding communities, Idaho Falls, Rexburg, and Billings/Yellowstone County/Carbon County) Tie-in existing plans and visions Identify catalytic projects in each commuter-shed for implementation funding YBP and local government pilot sponsors will utilize the GY- Framework as a guidance document, and demonstrate how each prerequisite and credit can be practically achieved on the ground. Jurisdictions will utilize and improve existing growth plans, codes, policies and regulations to follow the criteria outlined in the Framework, and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions in implementation and information sharing to address development on a regional scale. www.yellowstonebusiness.org DEPARTMENT Planning COST $500 (pilot registration fee with grant ) TIMELINE 3-year pilot phase starting in early 2011 EXISTING ACTIONS Common Sense Program Partners- Archer Construction, City of Bozeman, DA Davidson, Montana Import Group, Riverbend Builders, The Garage, Greenspace Landscaping, Intrinsik Architecture, Inc Bridger Bowl,Montana Yellowstone Expeditions, Blanchford Landscape Contractors Mackenzie River Pizza Co, Mountain Home Montana Vacation Rentals, On Site Management, Refuge Sustainable Building PARTNERSHIPS YBP, USGBC , SWMBIA, MSU Chamber of Commerce, NWE, City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 41 SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES City of Pocatello, Community of Teton County Idaho/Driggs/Victor REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES www.yellowstonebusiness.org COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION MCAP, COB Community Plan Implementation Policy 12 PARTNERSHIPS YBP, USGBC ,SWMBIA, MSU, Chamber of Commerce, NWE City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 42 CEI4 PARTICIPATE IN THE SOUTHWEST MONTANA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (SWMBIA) ANNUAL HOME SHOW DESCRIPTION- The SWMBIA Home Show offers the city of Bozeman the opportunity to educate the public about its efforts to mitigate CO2 emissions. The City will also have an opportunity to learn from the public creative ways to implement the existing recommendations and may also learn new and pioneering ideas to compliment its efforts. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Provide an educational opportunity engaging the City of Bozeman and the public. Offer another venue for the public to participate and take personal ownership of our community goals to increase our local energy efficiency. Inspire voluntary action to reduce CO2 emissions. Display CAP timeline to 2025 emission goal. Provide outreach, awareness, and to garner widespread support of the CAP. Further efforts to brand the CAP with the public Provide updates and results of CAP progress. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES SWMBIA http://www.swmbia.org/#bf_miniCal_180 DEPARTMENT Climate Protection COST Staff Time TIMELINE 2012 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 43 CEI5: PROMOTE EXISTING NORTHWESTERN ENERGY’S DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND REBATE PROGRAMS DESCRIPTION NorthWestern Energy offers a variety of programs, services, and resources to help their Montana electric and natural gas customers better manage energy use and energy costs. The Task Force recommends that the City encourage energy efficiency and energy conservation by promotion these existing programs. During the period from July 2009 through June 2010, NorthWestern Energy offered 23 programs to its residential and commercial customers. Some of these programs offered rebates for energy efficiency improvements, while others were primarily educational in nature and scope. Details and descriptions of each program are available on NorthWestern’s website www.northwesternenergy.com. E+ Energy Audits for the Home E+ Business Partners Program E+ Irrigation Efficiency Program E+ Commercial Lighting Rebate Program E+ Residential Lighting Program Builder Operator Certification Training Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Programs E+ Free Weatherization Program E+ Renewable Energy Program E+ New Home Program E+ Residential Electric Savings Program Motor Management Training E+ Electric Motor Rebate Program Energy Star Television Program E+ Residential New Home Gas Rebates SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Reducing electric and natural gas consumption through energy efficiency will reduce carbon emissions. Since NorthWestern Energy already has these successful programs in place, the cost to the City will be minimal to promote these programs. Nearly all of the residents of the City of Bozeman are NorthWestern Energy electric and natural gas customers, so they qualify to participate in these programs. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES www.northwesternenergy.com www.montanagreenpower.com www.deq.mt.gov CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 85 MT ( 2% participation rate or 4,284 MT if all 29,827 electric customers and 22,685 natural gas customers living in Bozeman. This number is also based on historic customer participation during the tracker year July 2009 through June 2010) DEPARTMENT Climate Protection Coordinator, Neighborhood Coordinator, Finance Department COST Staff Time SAVINGS $16,000 (2% participation rate or if all 29,827 electric and 22,685 natural gas customers fully participated in the NorthWestern energy programs, the energy savings within the Bozeman city limits could approach $800,000). City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 44 CEI6: PROMOTE PROGRAMS THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION CLUBS DESCRIPTION Neighborhood Conservation Clubs (NCCs) are a forum to take action and conserve resources by working within small neighborhood groups. The NCCs are guided with resources and suggestions from the NCC organizers who include home energy efficiency specialists, transportation experts, landscape designers and building contractors. Bulk pricing for home weatherization efforts could be realized through effective use of the NCC’s. Neighborhood conservation clubs (NCCs) though our Bozeman neighborhoods would be responsible for informing homeowners of bulk insulation programs that would be made available at a reduced cost if more than 15 homeowners would be willing to upgrade their insulation at the same time. This block type program would be voluntary and labor would be provided by volunteers as well as homeowners who wanted the discounted pricing to upgrade attic and other insulation for their homes. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS This will benefit the homeowners by reducing their energy bills while also reducing their carbon emissions. This is the most cost effective way to reduce energy demand while also reducing carbon emissions from residential buildings. This may also provide additional work for local insulators where homeowners want a professional installer to do the work instead of the conservation club members. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES AERO promotes NCCs around the state of Montana and is currently looking to expand support to neighborhoods who have members that want to make a difference in terms of climate change and energy efficiency. Missoula is also attacking energy efficiency through block grants where whole neighborhoods that sign up get free or reduced cost upgrades to their insulation by professional installers. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www.aeromt.org/ncc.php http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=4035 DEPARTMENT Neighborhood Coordinator COST Staff Time City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 45 Community Spotlight Neighborhood Conservation Clubs The Neighborhood Conservation Clubs are a volunteer organization of community members promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Building on the mantra of neighbor helping neighbor, NCC members work together to promote programs which reduce energy consumption and connect neighbors to resources in their community. Together they build a sense of community engagement and pride in the neighborhoods. In 2010, with the help of the Alternative Energy Resource Organization, the City of Bozeman initiated its first NCC program. Everybody can agree that saving resources makes good sense, especially as we witness record breaking gasoline and diesel prices, winter heating costs that only increase, and a record drought in Montana. True reduction in emissions will only occur if all community members take action and make choices which will benefit the efforts of the climate action plan. Part of the NCC effort in Bozeman included a monthly speaker series and newsletter with information ranging from composting and gardening to taking advantage of City rebates to replace old toilets with low flow flush toilets. A very successful program included NCC partners donating their time to help install low-flow toilets around the neighborhood. More information on the NCC’s can be found at http://www.bozeman.net/SpecialPages/Search.aspx?searchtext=ncc&searchmode=anyword City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 46 Chapter 6: Residential and Commercial Buildings Description The residential and commercial working group members met in February and March of 2010. Members included builders, architects, city building inspectors and planners, and citizens at large. A number of recommendations are beyond the scope of the City’s jurisdiction; as such, these recommendations are intended to be part of an inter-governmental commission designed to promote and further the objectives of the CCAP. According to Bozeman’s Economic Development Plan, the construction, land development, and real estate sector is a significant component of Bozeman’s economy. Everything from building contractors, subcontractors, and trades; building material suppliers, home furnishings, and landscaping to realtors and financial institutions are impacted by the construction industry in Bozeman. As such, the Task Force worked hard to balance the efforts to mitigate emissions in this sector and its impacts on the economy. The building sector accounted for 77% and 72% of emissions for 2000 and 2008 respectively. Reducing energy consumption in existing homes and developing a systematic and consistent database of information for commercial buildings was identified as a first priority. Promoting voluntary benchmarking tools would help businesses more clearly identify the impacts of energy usage and how to reduce both its bottom line and reduce its carbon footprint. Partnering with NorthWestern Energy to help promote the rebates available to the community is a low-cost, effective way to promote existing resources. The recently adopted 2009 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) was identified as being 15-30 percent more efficient than current standards for new construction. Applied to new construction, this will help minimize the impacts of growth on emissions. Reducing demand on fossil fuels through intensive conservation measures coupled with renewable energy applications, where appropriate, was identified as yielding the most optimal results of carbon reduction in the long-term. The group identified four strategies to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the building sector. The strategies should be used a guiding principle for future implementation of programs. Strategies 1. Inventory energy usage of new and existing commercial buildings 2. Increase energy efficiency in existing building stock 3. Promote the development of renewable energy and conservation programs 4. Promote strong state and federal climate change policies Existing Measures As mentioned previously, the Task Force believes the City should utilize the resources already available in the community as they begin to implement the recommendations in this report. Several organizations in Bozeman are consistent with the efforts promoted in CCAP and the Advisory Board should look to these organizations when implementing the recommendations in this sector. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 47 Neighborhood Conservation Clubs Yellowstone Business Partnership US Green Building Council National Association of Builders Green Building Program Summary of Recommendations ITEM # DESCRIPTION COST/SAVINGS RCB1 BENCHMARKING STAFF TIME RCB2 COMMISSIONING .25-.35 CENTS/SQUARE FOOT RCB3 ENERGY CHALLENGE $1000/HOUSEHOLD INVESTMENT/ $200/YEAR SAVINGS RCB4 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION ORDINANCE .75% OF SALE OF PROPERTY RCB5 ENERGY BUIDLING ANALYSIS FOR MUNICPAL LOANS TBD RCB6 PASSIVE SOLAR DESIGN $1,300/YEAR SAVINGS RCB7 PROPERTY ASSESED CLEAN ENERGY LEGISLATION STAFF TIME RCB8 ARCHITECTURE 14X STIMULUS LEGISLATION NONE City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 48 RCB1- REQUIRE BENCHMARKING AT POINT OF SALE FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND ENCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL WHEN METRICS ARE AVAILABLE DESCRIPTION Energy benchmarking for commercial, institutional, and governmental buildings (herein referred to as commercial buildings) is an initiating step toward energy efficiency improvements. This recommendation would require benchmarking at the point of sale for commercial buildings and would encourage voluntary benchmarking for the entire commercial building stock. Benchmarking would include building size, function, energy indexes for electric, gas, and total energy on a btu per square foot per year basis. Benchmarking enables people to compare the general energy performance of a building against similar buildings in the region. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is one example to provide a uniform method of benchmarking as well as comparison of individual buildings to similar buildings. The process yields a 1-100 score that is generally a function of how the building operates and what energy efficiency features are present. The score makes energy consumption information easy to grasp for building owners, operators, and tenants. A 2005 California Energy Commission endorsed benchmarking “as a means to motivate decision makers, usually building owners, to implement measures that will improve the energy efficiency of a building….Benchmarking is an initial step in a comprehensive efficiency program.” It is also referred to as an “entry point for other strategies,” such as retro-commissioning and energy auditing. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Provides a quantified measure of building performance. Enables the consideration of energy efficiency strategies through informing owners and decision makers. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES California AB 1103 Requires Energy Benchmarking Data Released During Sales http://www.facilitiesnet.com/energyefficiency/article/California-AB-1103-Requires- Energy-Benchmarking-Data-R State and Local Governments Leveraging Energy Star http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/government/State_Local_Govts_Leveraging_E S.pdf REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Energy Star Portfolio Manager http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/government/State_Local_Govts_Leveraging_ES.p df Energy Stars Portfolio Manager – How it’s Used for Benchmarking http://www.facilitiesnet.com/energyefficiency/article/Energy-Star-Portfolio-Manager- How-It-is-Used-for-Benchmarking--11022 DEPARTMENT Building/Planning TIMELINE Pilot program in 2012. EXISTING ACTIONS City of Bozeman Gradient Systems’ Automated Benchmarking System (ABS) with ENERGY STAR. MSU Energy Strategic Planning Partnerships MSU ENERGY STAR Gradient Systems City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 49 RCB2- - REQUIRE COMMISSIONING FOR ALL NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION DESCRIPTION The American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers define commissioning as "a quality-oriented process for achieving, verifying, and documenting that the performance of facilities, systems, and assemblies meets defined objectives and criteria". Building Commissioning accomplishes higher energy efficiency, environmental health, and occupant safety and improves indoor air quality by making sure the building components are working as designed and with the greatest efficiency. Commissioning also can restore existing buildings to high productivity through renovation, upgrade and tune-up of existing systems. While the practice of building commissioning process is still fairly new in the construction industry, it has quickly become common practice as savvy building owners have seen substantial returns on their investment by way of utility savings. The Task Force recommends the City commissioning requirements focus on heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems which have shown to give the highest return on investment. Other systems to consider include building envelope, emergency power, and any other system that has been a problem for the building owner on previous construction projects. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Commissioning benefits owners through improved energy efficiency and improved workplace performance due to higher quality environments. Benefits include: Precise tune-up of HVAC systems and controls Lower energy and maintenance costs Improved indoor air quality and a comfortable building environment. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES 12/2009, New York City Council signed into law to require energy audits and retro- commissioning of base building systems of certain buildings and retro-fitting of certain city- owned buildings. The City of Houston adopted a new Commercial Energy Conservation Code that provides minimum requirements for the energy-efficient design of all buildings except low-rise residential buildings. This new code took effect August 1, 2008 and includes several new energy conserving provisions, including a requirement for Commissioning. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www.ashrae.org/certification/page/2086 http://www.wbdg.org/project/buildingcomm.php http://www.houstoncommissioning.com/code.htm http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/ccg01_covers.pdf CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 938 MTCO2e (Based on 700,000 square feet of facilities) DEPARTMENT Building COST .25-.35cents per square foot SAVINGS 2-5 years return TIMELINE Phase in beginning in 2013 EXISTING ACTIONS Bozeman City Library Bozeman City Hall Morrison Maierle Building City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 50 RCB3- LAUNCH A 10 PERCENT ENERGY REDUCTION CHALLENGE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DESCRIPTION An energy efficiency challenge is an effective way to motivate people to save energy. A challenge keeps track of personal energy reductions and awards a prize to the highest-saving individual. Partnering with the Neighborhood Conservation Clubs and the Chamber of Commerce the City can leverage existing resources for marketing and promotional campaigns. Events such as “Bozeman Green Drinks” and the NCC Club speaker series can be used to disseminate information and sign-up participants. An effective campaign will require the city to monitor all participants’ energy usage from initiation to completion of program. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Reduction in energy usage will create less demand for fossil fuel production Energy challenge can be utilized as an effective education and awareness campaign Low-cost, voluntary approach SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Gallatin County realized a 20% reduction in energy consumption and $2,200 in energy savings over a five month period by simply asking employees to change their behaviors. Burlington, VT http://www.10percentchallenge.org/ Putney, VT http://pec.putney.net/files/docs/10percentchallenge.pdf Montana 20 by 10 initiative http://governor.mt.gov/20x10/default.asp REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES www.MontanaHomeEnergy.com http://www.10percent challenge.org/ CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 1,379MT (based on 100 businesses and 250 households) DEPARTMENT Economic Development, Climate Protection,& Neighborhood Coordinator SAVINGS/COST $200/year in savings per households $1,500/year in savings per businesses $1,000 investment per household & business TIMELINE Yearly challenge starting January 2012 EXISTING ACTIONS Neighborhood Conservation Clubs PARTNERSHIPS NWE/Chamber of Commerce/ Neighborhood Associations/Downtown Business Partnership/Green Drinks Bozeman City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 51 RCB4- ADOPT A RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION ORDINANCE (RECO & CECO) DESCRIPTION The purpose of a RECO/CECO is to increase the energy and water efficiency in buildings. RECO/CECO has been found to insulate building owners from energy price increases by reducing the amount of energy used for heat, hot water, and lighting. RECO/CECO’s focus on older buildings by establishing a minimum requirement of upgrades in certain areas. Owners may choose from a list of options not to exceed .75% of the final sale price. More than half of the buildings in Bozeman were built before 1990 when less stringent energy codes were in place. This is a first step, low-impact measure designed to encourage energy efficiency in existing buildings. The Task Force recommends the City further develop a RECO/CECO to include: the sale or transfer of property a combined value of $50,000 or more in renovations . Energy efficiency measure can include: Toilets:1.6 gallon/flush or flow reduction devices; Showerheads: 3.0 gallon/minute flow rate; Faucet aerators:2.75 gal/minute flow rate for kitchens and bathrooms; Water Heater Blankets: Insulation wrap of R-12* value. Hot Water Piping in Pumped, Re-circulating Heating Systems: Insulate all pipes to R-3 value. Exterior Door Weather-stripping: Permanently affix weather stripping, and door sweeps or door shoes. Furnace Duct Work: Seal duct joints add insulation wrap to R-3 value; Ceiling/Attic Insulation: Insulate to R-39 value or greater. Common Area Lighting in Multi-Unit Buildings: Replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL) of at least 25 lumens; these cost $10-15 each but last up to 10,000 hours versus 750 hours for incandescent bulbs. A 20-watt CFL is equivalent to a 75-watt incandescent bulb in output. A CFL uses 1/4 the watts of an incandescent bulb, thus, CFLs will save up to 75% of energy costs. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Significant reductions in energy usage and GHG emissions SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Boulder, CO CAP assessment identified RECO’s and CECO’s as a successful program. Berkeley, CA experience a 13% reduction in energy use as a result of RECO/CECO programs REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCESCase Study RECO http://www.c40cities.org/docs/casestudies/buildings/berkeley_standards.pdf http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/contentdisplay.aspx?id=20068 http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/pdfs/Berkeley19.pdf DEPARTMENT Building, Finance COST Should not exceed .75% of sale of home TIMELINE Planning and Education Phase 2011 -2012 adopt 2013 PARTNERSHIPS HRDC, MSU Extension and Film, NWE USB Grants JURISDICTION Municipal Ordinance City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 52 RCB5- REQUIRE BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS FOR MUNICIPALLY FUNDED PROJECTS DESCRIPTION In keeping with the State of Montana's goals to maintain a clean and healthful environment as well as the City's goal to reduce its overall negative impact on the environment, each applicant for municipal loan monies for building construction should include documentation on planned water, energy use, and waste output as well as any possible mitigations they may contemplate within the scope of the project. Often, energy performance and corresponding metrics related to the use of renewable resources is measured on a short-term basis. To fully illustrate the long-term costs and benefits of using energy conservation/renewable energy resources, each applicant should include a brief comparison of the contemplated energy requirements relative to the most appropriate renewable energy technology available for a given project and/or situation. Large construction projects typically have an idea of the amount of energy their building will consume. Including it the application process should not add any additional burden to the applicant. In requiring applicants to include as part of the application process a side by side comparison of the costs of traditional versus renewable technologies; the city will have played a part in encouraging its applicants to become conversant in available technologies while also furthering its goal of reducing emissions Where public assistance is sought from the City of Bozeman, said projects will be required to document projected energy and water usage and waste stream data for the various intended purposes of the building(s). SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Education and awareness SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Kane County, IL, Corvallis, OR, Harrisburg, PA REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wip/solutioncenter/financialproducts/RevolvingLo anFunds.html http://www.nrmrcd.org/energy_fund.htm DEPARTMENT Finance & Economic Development TIMELINE 2011-2013 Education Period 2014- Adopt COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION EDP Goals and Strategies 6e EXISTING ACTIONS Big Sky Energy Revolving Loan Fund PARTNERSHIPS Financial Institutions, County, State, Federal ‘ City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 53 RCB6- ENCOURAGE PASSIVE SOLAR DESIGN AT THE PLANNING STAGE DESCRIPTION The Passive Haus Institut and Passive House Institute U.S. have developed research- and performance-based passive design building standards that achieve an overall energy savings of 60-70% and space heating savings of 90 to 95% compared to savings realized with current codes (including Bozeman’s current IECC 2009 code). Bozeman could encourage use of Passive House Institute Standards by providing incentives to builders/developers and tax incentives to buyers. The Passive House Institute provides training and certifies professionals that utilize a Passive House Planning Package design/verification tool. Training classes could be brought to Bozeman. Passive solar design takes advantage of the sun’s path in the sky to provide natural heat and cooling. An east/west-elongated building uses its south-facing glazing (typically high- performance windows) to capture the winter sun’s rays providing natural heat. Summer’s higher-angled sun is blocked to prevent heat gain. Other elements: thermal mass (masonry walls, floors, etc.) and super insulation. The Passive House concept builds upon these basics and is a comprehensive, building-as-a-system approach that maximizes passive energy gain and minimizes energy loss. This is accomplished with an airtight building, a heat/energy recovery ventilation system, and elimination of thermal bridging. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS U.S. Energy Information Administration data shows that buildings emit the most greenhouse gases and most of the energy used in both residential and commercial buildings is for heating and cooling. Thus, buildings built to Passive House design standards will have the greatest impact on reducing energy use/greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, these buildings will be more comfortable, durable, healthy, and owners will have greatly reduced utility bills. The money not spent on utilities will likely be circulated into/boost Bozeman’s local economy. And, these buildings are excellent candidates for smaller, more affordable active renewable energy systems or becoming net zero energy buildings. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Baltimore County High Performance Homes Bill, property tax incentives based on energy performance including the Passive House Institute standard: Bill 43-10 at http://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/countycouncil/legislation/10bills.html Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, Burlington, currently working on performance- based incentives to include the Passive House standard: www.veic.org http://www.veic.org/Implementation_Services/Green_Building/GreenBuildingServices.aspx Habitat for Humanity programs in Kentucky, Vermont, and Washington DC are building to Passive House standards. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Klingenberg, Katrin, and Mike Kernagis. “The Passive House: Strategies for Extreme Efficiency.” Home Power Magazine, August/Sept. 2010: 70-75. Passive House Institute U.S. website: www.passivehouse.us U.S. Department of Energy, Building Energy Codes Program. Impacts of the 2009 IECC for Residential Buildings at State Level. Washington, DC, Sept. 2009. CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 2,500MTCO2e (based only on heating+cooling load of 202 single-family homes at 2,400 sf) DEPARTMENT Planning & Community Development SAVINGS $261,994/year (202 households) TIMELINE Fall 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION Community Plan Chapter 8 Objective E 3.2 Chapter 4 Goal C 6 Objective C 6.2 Objective C 6.3 UDO 18.36.040.090E.a.4 PARTNERSHIPS - SWMBIA, USGBC, Habitat for Humanity - MSU: Extension, Engineering. & Architecture Departments, - NWE, Passive House Institute U.S. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 54 RCB7- SUPPORT PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (PACE) BOND LEGISLATION DESCRIPTION PACE is a way to finance solar systems or energy efficient retrofits, where the city offers a property owner a loan, and he/she pays it back through property tax bills over 15 to 20 years. The city partners with a company to administer the program or the city decides to do it themselves. It’s usually funded with municipal bonds. The homeowner gets a site evaluation for solar power or energy efficiency improvements with any company they choose. Once a quote is given, the property owner applies with the city program administrator. A small fee covers the cost of the municipal financing program administration and discourages frivolous applications. Once the improvements are approved by the city, the program administrator pays the contractor for the system that the homeowner purchased. The check is forwarded directly to the installer. There is no upfront payment for the homeowner, except possibly a deposit. The property owner pays it off on his or her property tax bill over 20 years, at a competitive rate of interest. If the home is ever sold, the improvement goes with it along with any tax liability. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS The program doesn’t require that the property owner supply any cash up front or reduce equity of the home. This type of financing leaves the system or improvement installation with the residence as well as the financial obligation. If the property changes hands, so does the loan. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES The program was originally developed in Berkeley, California. California passed AB811 to allow other cities to use the program. Other Cities include: District of Columbia San Francisco, CA Berkeley, CA Los Angeles, CA Boulder, CO Houston, TX Dallas, TX REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES www.pacefinancing.org Renewable Funding: https://www.renewfund.com/ Pace Now: http://pacenow.org/blog/ Efficiency Maine: http://www.efficiencymaine.com/pace/faqs In Maine, a PACE mortgage is not entitled to any special or senior priority. The PACE mortgage is junior and subordinate in priority to the first mortgage, regardless of the date that any of the mortgages were recorded. CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 1,130 MT (2000 homes retrofitted at 10% energy savings) DEPARTMENT Finance & Economic Development SAVINGS $103/year COST $5,000/household TIMELINE 5 years for adoption. 10 years for results EXISTING ACTIONS Tax Credits offered through NorthWestern Energy and the State for green mechanical systems PARTNERSHIPS Gallatin County JURISDICTION State City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 55 RCB8- SUPPORT ARCHITECTURE 14X STIMULUS LEGISLATION DESCRIPTION This program would be for those homeowners that currently have loans at least 2% higher than current market rates that would also like to pursue energy efficiency investments in their property. The program would pay for the refinancing of their current loan while also taking more money out of their homes to pay for energy efficiency improvements. For example, if a homeowner had a current mortgage of $184,000 at 6% interest their payments would be $1,103 per month. With the new program, this homeowner could take out another $16,000 to do energy efficiency improvements and end up with a $200,000 loan at 4% interest where their new payment would be $954 per month. That would be a savings of $150 per month plus another $60 in energy savings. Giving the current homeowner $210 per month more to either spend or save in the local community. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS With every $1 spent by the government to refinance high interest loans, we would generate $14 spent in the local economy to generate local jobs, increase state and local tax revenue by $1 and federal tax revenue by $3. The program basically pays for itself and will allow a huge investment by homeowners who don’t have the upfront cash to complete these energy efficiency projects. Other benefits include greater comfort in the home, better air quality, and lower carbon emissions. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://architecture2030.org/hot_topics/14x_stimulus http://www.architecture2030.org/downloads/14x_stimulus.pdf CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 1,130 MT (2000 homes retrofitted at 10% energy savings) DEPARTMENT Finance & Economic Development SAVINGS/COST $210/Month for Homeowners No Cost to governments. TIMELINE 5 yrs EXISTING ACTIONS State of Montana provides a similar program to provide low cost loans for renewable energy systems with energy efficiency measures also included in their proposal. PARTNERSHIPS State of Montana, NWE, Financial Institutions, SWMBIA JURISDICTION State City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 56 Community Spotlight Bozeman Deaconess Hospital Bozeman Deaconess Hospital is the Gallatin Valley’s top provider for patient care. Four years in a row, the hospital has earned a “Five Star Rating for Community Value” from Cleverley + Associates for quality of care, low cost, low charge, and a strong financial position allowing it to reinvest back into the provision of care at the facility. LeRoy Wilson is the Director of Facilities at Bozeman Deaconess and plays a direct role in plant reinvestment, sustainability practices and the environment of care within the hospital. In addition, Wilson directs the Joint Commission Environment of Care committee and serves as Safety Officer. Over the last several years, the hospital has adopted climate friendly practices to ensure Gallatin County a clean bill of environmental health for the future. Bozeman Deaconess’s sustainability goals revolve around recycling, reducing, reusing, education & awareness, and sustainability. Accordingly, the hospital has installed several recycling locations throughout the building, encouraged the use of recycled products, and provided outlets for education and feedback such as bulletin board locations, and paperless meetings. These small and simple changes have resulted in big savings and waste reduction. Because over half the square footage of the hospital is office space, mass amounts of paper waste can be created. Wilson conducted an audit and determined that only 10 percent of all trash was actually waste, while the rest could be recycled. Many of the 1300 employees at Bozeman Deaconess have participated in the new “green” practices by recycling waste, and a number of employees have volunteered to champion the efforts for change within their department and throughout the hospital. While the hospital has adopted many small efforts, it also invested in big changes. For instance, Bozeman Deaconess replaced the heating plant for its medical office buildings, Highland Park 2 and 3. Two older boiler units were replaced with a high efficiency hot water system. Within six months, the new efficient hot water system made such a positive impact and lessened the use of natural gas to such an extreme that engineers from NorthWestern Energy paid a visit to the hospital to replace the meter under the assumption it was malfunctioning. Surprisingly, says Wilson, the best investment came in the form of a cardboard-baler, which reduced trips to the landfill in half and has resulted in substantial savings. The hospital produces close to a bale of cardboard a week. Bozeman Deaconess Hospital is setting the standard in caring for patients and the environment. Part of its mission as a nonprofit organization is to “improve the quality of life” within the community. Preserving the environment for present and future residents is one component of their mission. Thanks to their sustainable investments and practices, Bozeman Deaconess Hospital is working to fulfill that promise. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 57 Chapter 7: Transportation Description The transportation working group met four times over the month of April 2010. Members included representatives from city planning, engineering, and streets department, electric car industry representatives, the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, Streamline transportation, transportation consultants, and citizens at large. Transportation accounted for 19% and 26% of emissions in 2000 and 2008 repectively. Transportation will continue to become a large source of emissions as Bozeman continues to grow. Smart growth principles of accessibility walkable neighborhoods, mix land use, and varied transportation options will all work toward reducing emissions in this sector. A recent study by the Center for Clean Air Policy found that in 1996 economic growth began to outpace drving growth, which means it takes fewer miles to make a GDP dollar. The extra miles families are driving to and from work are considered “empty miles”and contibute little or nothing to households and local economies To reduce emissions in this sector the transportation working group identified three strategies. Strategies 1. Support policies for long-term integrated multi-modal transportation and land use planning for a 20-30 year horizon. 2. Develop infrastructure for electric vehicle friendly community and provide incentives for the production, sale and use of clean fuels. 3. Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and fuel emissions by promoting a pedestrian and bike friendly community. Existing Measures Several organizations in Bozeman are already implementing GHG reduction measures in this sector. The Advisory Board should look to these programs when implementing the measures in this section. Bozeman Public Schools No-Idling Policy Safe Routes to School Program City of Bozeman Bike Share Program Figure 1: Photo Courtesy of SPS City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 58 Summary of Recommendations ITEM# DESCRIPTION COST TSP1 EXPAND AND INPORVE MULTI-MODAL INFRASTURCTURE TBD TSP2 ALLOCATE 1 MILL LEVY TO STREAMLINE DIRECTLY 1 MILL ($80,783) TSP3 INSTALL PAY ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS NEGLIGIBLE TSP4 ADOPT AN ANTI-IDLING ORDINANCE STAFF TIME TSP5 BIKE AND SHOWERS IN LIEU OF PARKING REQUIREEMENTS NONE TSP6 INTERCONNECT AND ENHANCE SIDEWALK NETWORK TBD TSP7 SUPPORT A LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX 2 CENTS PER GALLON TSP8 EXAMINE EMISSIONS FROM GALLATIN FIELD AIRPORT TBD TSP9 REFORM TAXI PERMITTING PROCESS STAFF TIME City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 59 TSP1 EXPAND AND IMPROVE MULTI-MODAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENT POLICIES RECOMMENDED IN THE TRANSPORTATION, PROST & GROWTH PLANS DESCRIPTION The CCAP supports recommendations included in the Bozeman Community Plan, Bozeman Area Transportation Plan (2007), and the Parks Recreation Open Space and Trails Plan that call for a development pattern that encourages and enables the use of diverse modes of transportation through design that is neighborhood-based, higher density, mixed use and pedestrian friendly. Specifically, the CAP supports incorporating an interconnected network of trails, bike lanes, safe street crossings, transit infrastructure and a grid street system as part of all new development and street construction. Construction of specific infrastructure improvements cited in these plans should be pursued proactively whenever possible. A multi-modal coordinator between City departments, developers, and the public is critical to ensure opportunities are not missed and that construction of thee facilities is well planned. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS By themselves and especially in combination, implementing these recommendations will both reduce the number and shorten the length of vehicle trips. Subsequent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would be considerable. Fully integrating facilities for safe and convenient walking, biking and transit into our community’s infrastructure will result in immediate benefits as well as a long term cultural shift toward less dependence on personal vehicles. It will also provide significant community benefits by improving public health and overall livability and quality of life. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Most of Montana’s other larger communities – especially Missoula, Great Falls and Billings – are actively pursuing similar policies and infrastructure improvements and have designated bicycle-pedestrian coordinators and other staff positions to facilitate these efforts. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Missoula bicycle-pedestrian program: http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/index.aspx?nid=404 Missoula planning for parks, open space, trails and transportation: http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/index.aspx?NID=174 Billings Trails & Bike System: http://www.prpl.info/parks/trails.html Great Falls Transportation planning & Rivers Edge Trail: http://www.greatfallsmt.net/people_offices/plancomdev/planning/transportation.php http://thetrail.org/ CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 700MT(based on reducing VMT to ½ of 1 percent) DEPARTMENT P&C D SAVINGS/COST $132,000/year (based on 25MPG and 2.85/gal) TIMELINE On-going COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION MCAP, COB Complete Streets Ordinance, Bozeman Area Transportation Plan COB Community Plan Chapter 16 Implementation Policies 70-74, 1982 Energy Element EXISTING ACTIONS College/Huffine Pathway Project GVLT Main Street to the Mountains Trail System City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 60 PARTNERSHIPS Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP), Transportation Coordinating Committee (TCC) , Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 61 TSP2- ALLOCATE THE EQUIVALENT OF 1-MILL LEVY FOR STREAMLINE DIRECTLY DESCRIPTION Streamline provides fare free transportation in the Bozeman/Belgrade/Livingston area. Planning for the new transportation line began in 2001. The genesis of the project, however, goes back to a 1986 study by the College of Engineering at Montana State University that analyzed the possibility of a transit system in Bozeman. In 2001, the results of much analysis developed the Greater Bozeman Area Transit Development Plan which, laid the foundation for a public bus system and supplied the information needed to request Federal funding for a transit system. The City of Bozeman created a Transit Task Force, which studied transit systems across Montana and surrounding regions. The task force then created the feasibility report: Bozeman Area Transit. A reliable public transportation system is an essential component to a carbon footprint reduction portfolio. Many cities and counties have a mass transit system that receives an 80:20 split between federal and local dollars. Bozeman depends on local donations and partners for its existence with the majority of funding coming through the state with federal dollars. One mill would provide the necessary revenue to allow Streamline to expand its coverage of the city and make its services more reliable. In 2009, Streamline provided nearly 200,000 rides to the community. Daytime Rides- 171,858 Saturday Ride- 11,894 Late night rides- 7,766 Livingston Ride- 4,300 Bridger Bowl Rides- 2,855 SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Reduction of vehicle miles traveled Reduce fuel costs Increase air quality Increased safety for late night drivers REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Streamline Transportation - http://www.streamlinebus.com/ http://www.transitchicago.com/travel_information/fares/reduced.aspx http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research- center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PTO/FDOT_BC137_38_FF.pdf http://www.capemaycountygov.net/Cit-e-Access/webpage.cfm?TID=5&TPID=8504 http://www.alternet.org/environment/57802/ CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 175 MTC02e (based on 500 additional daily passengers) DEPARTMENT Finance COST 1 mill levy ($80,783) TIMELINE Yearly support starting in 2012 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION Community Plan EDP PROST EXISTING ACTIONS .5 mills for 2011. PARTNERSHIPS Belgrade, Livingston, Gallatin County City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 62 TSP3-ENCOURAGE THE INSTALLATION OF PAY ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS DESCRIPTION The City should work with Northwestern Energy to streamline the installation of pay charging stations around town. Northwestern energy would be responsible for all costs associated with installation which would be recouped through a fee for charging. A first step could include a pilot project at the parking garage. The first affordable, mainstream plug-in electric vehicles from GM (Chevrolet VOLT) and Nissan (LEAF) are now available. EVs from Mitsubishi, Think, Wheego, Coda, Fisker and Tesla are expected to hit the road within the next year. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that by 2020, over 35% of all new vehicles sold will be plug-ins. Replacing a gas combustion engine vehicle with an EV is one of the easiest and quickest ways to reduce GHG emissions without compromising lifestyle. Initially launching in key metro areas, EVs won’t be available in Montana showrooms until the end of 2011. As hybrids became very popular when a gallon of gas exceeded $4.00, EV ownership in Montana will increase with the next spike in fuel prices. Most EV owners will charge their cars in home garages at night. However, cities across the country are preparing for the EV by installing quick-charging stations in key locations. Electric cars can be plugged into either a standard 110-volt outlet or a dedicated 220 volt charging station. The higher the voltage / amperage, the faster the charge time and thus, the daily driving range. For example, the 2011 LEAF has a 24 Kw Lithium battery pack which provides a range of 80 miles between charges. If one commutes to Bozeman in a LEAF, plugging-in while at work doubles the range to 160 miles. Similarly, a city-owned EV could be plugged-in during a lunch break or meeting, thereby making it a practical fleet vehicle. Charging stations reduce “range anxiety” and they are an essential component to popularizing the EV. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS For every gallon of gas consumed by an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, 20 lbs of CO2 are emitted. A city vehicle, such as a Jeep Liberty gets 16 mpg (City). Driven 15K miles per year, it emits over 9 tons of CO2. A gas/electric hybrid emits under 4 tons of CO2 per year. An all-electric vehicle produces ZERO CO2 if charged using solar, wind, Energy’s buys a mix of Coal, NG, biomass, hydro and wind). In addition to reducing CO2 emissions, EVs eliminate smog-causing pollutants EVs use local domestic Montana-made electricity, not imported oil. EVs are quieter and don’t idle at traffic lights. Electric heater work quickly and don’t require a warm engine running. CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 22MTCO2e (based on 10 charging stations) DEPARTMENT Finance SAVINGS $6,084 (Based on 20MPG/2.85 gallon) TIMELINE Implement 2015 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION EDP EXISTING ACTIONS MSU Electic Car Pilot Project PARTNERSHIPS NWE, Chamber of Commerce City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 63 SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES The City of Houston and NRG Utility will invest $10million in 2011 on 50-150 charging stations around town. First wave EV cities: Austin, Denver, Los Angeles, New York, Madison, Orlando, Phoenix, Portland, Raleigh, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle. Portland, OR - http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=128103660048734100 Madison, Wisconsin -http://www.mge.com/images/pdf/electric/other/ElectricVehicleChargingStations.pdf Sacramento, CA - http://www.evchargernews.com/regions/ch-sac-all.htm REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES CO2 calculator - http://www.afteroilev.com/emissions.php Vulcan CO2 study - http://www.purdue.edu/eas/carbon/vulcan/GEarth/index.html Nissan Leaf - http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/index Chevy Volt - http://www.chevrolet.com/volt EV Cities - http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/11/12/how-americas-50-largest-cities-rate-ev-readiness?page=full Project Get Ready - http://www.projectgetready.org The EV Project - theevproject.com Ecotality Charging Stations - http://www.ecotality.com/ Coulomb Technologies – Charging Stations http://www.coulombtech.com A Better Place - http://www.betterplace.com City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 64 TSP4- ADOPT AN ANTI-IDLING ORDINANCE DESCRIPTION Adopt an anti-idling ordinance to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, conserve energy and protect the health of citizens. 31 states across the US have already enacted some form of ordinance. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Reduce vehicle miles traveled and fuel emissions by promoting a pedestrian and bike friendly community. Vehicle idling is responsible for millions of dollars per year in wasted fuel. Idling for 10 minutes per day wastes an average of 26 gallons of gasoline per year. An average individual can expect to save more than $40 per year by simply turning off their engine. Reducing idling will also reduce the emission of nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide and VOCs that are emitted from a vehicle’s tailpipe. According to the American Lung Association, asthma is the most common chronic illness in children and the leading cause of school absences, and children’s asthma symptoms increase as a result of exposure to car exhaust. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Hundreds of communities around the country have adopted anti-idling ordinances, and a full list of locations and codes can be found on the EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/smartway/documents/420b06004.pdf. Other specific cities are: Town of Brattleboro, VT. “No-idling” public education campaign and require a clause in its contracts with construction firms prohibiting idling. http://www.brattleboroclimateprotection.org/ City of Bellingham WA. Education campaign with a goal to reduce 5,295 MTCO2E by 2012. Whatcom Transportation Authority established a policy that buses staging for more than two minutes should not be idled except in extremely cold weather. http://www.cob.org/issues/climate-protection.aspx City of Burlington, VT. Legacy launched its No Idling Campaign in April 2007 with public outreach, education, and policy advocacy efforts. http://burlingtonclimateaction.com/climate-action-plan/ City of Medford, MA. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has mandated a 5-minute maximum idling time for vehicles. Idling Enforcement Program for municipal operations, which will enforce the 5 minute idling time. The primary method of enforcement will be through an educational program as well as through incentives. http://www.medford.org/Pages/MedfordMA_Energy/FINAL_LAP.pdf City of Seattle, WA. Anti-idling signs have been posted at key places. The City partners with Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (http://www.pscleanair.org/actions/vehicles/noidle.aspxto) to get the word out. http://www.seattle.gov/archive/climate/ Jackson Hole, WY. They proposed an Idle Free regulation in 2008. (http://www.ci.jackson.wy.us/resources/files//Government/F.%20Me eting%20Agendas/Council%20Packets/2008/051908/Public%20Comm ent/idling.pdf) CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 80 MT (based on 100 Heavy Duty Trucks) DEPARTMENT City Attorney Parking Enforcement SAVINGS $67,000/year 24,000 gallons of fuel (based on 2.78 cents /gallon diesel) TIMELINE 2012-Education Campaign 2014- Adopt Ordinance COMPREHENSICVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION COB Community Plan Chp 13 Implementation Policy 70 EXISTING ACTIONS MCAP-TLU‐7. Anti‐idling ordinance MCA 61-8-357. Bozeman Public Schools Anti-idling policy COB Anti-idling policy PARTNERSHIPS Gallatin Community Health Partners City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 65 REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/antiidling.htm http://deq.mt.gov/Recycle/CleanAirZone.mcpx, Clean Air Zone Montana http://www.jhunderground.com/2010/03/15/idle-free-ordinance-advances/ City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 66 TSP5- ALLOW BUSINESSES TO INSTALL SHOWERS AND PROVIDE BIKE PARKING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR THE SIZE OF THE BUSINESS DESCRIPTION Every bicycle ridden for transportation is one less car which reduces traffic and the need for parking. People who ride bikes for transportation, which would most likely be increased by this change in regulation, are healthier and need less medical care. Provide an alternative to parking requirements such as “payment in lieu of parking" options for the downtown area, and allowing developers (throughout the municipality) to replace some of the required parking with on-site/near-site bicycle or transit improvements to reduce the number of miles driven and encourage more people to bike to work. Zoning requirements could include: In situations where a mix of uses creates staggered peak periods of parking demand, shared parking calculations can be made to reduce the total amount of required parking. All non-residential uses may share parking areas. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Promote use of alternative transportation Decrease fuel usage and vehicle miles traveled Increased health benefits SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES DC Zoning Shower http://app.dcoz.dc.gov/content/schedule/ViewFile.aspx?fileId=206&fileName=PHN08- 06-2_07-31-08.pdf REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www.piercetrips.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16 CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 7MT/year (based on 36 people switching to bikes) DEPARTMENT Planning SAVINGS/COST No cost TIMELINE 2014 PARTNERSHIPS Bicycle Advisory Board City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 67 TSP6- INTERCONNECT AND ENHANCE SIDEWALK NETWORK DESCRIPTION In an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the fragmented sections of the existing sidewalk network should be better connected. In addition to interconnecting the existing sidewalk system, additional sidewalks, shared-use paths and trails should be added to the network connecting a variety of destinations. Connecting neighborhoods, schools, employment centers, commercial districts, and socio-cultural destinations with sidewalks, trails and paths will encourage citizens to drive less. Where possible, high-priority sidewalks, trails and paths should be lit with pedestrian scale lighting to encourage more use at night and during the winter months. The Municipal Climate Action Plan mentions the “Sidewalk Program” ordinance: “This program is currently on the books and requires homeowners to pay for sidewalks to provide connectivity in the pedestrian system. This program has been put on hold because of public backlash, but there is still the need for a connected, usable pedestrian facility.” Considering that public sentiment has not dramatically changed, this policy could be more strategically implemented. Focusing on specifically identifying, prioritizing and constructing important missing links in the sidewalk network would be more pragmatic than trying to enforce a city-wide blanket ordinance. The most important aspect of this recommendation is to connect high-use districts with one another thus providing citizens with an alternative to driving a vehicle for their day-to-day needs. Recent projects have done just this by targeting key areas of town needing better pedestrian connectivity. For example: College/Huffine Pathway Project which connects MSU with housing down College Avenue and the growing commercial district west on Huffine. The recent installation of missing sidewalks to better connect the North 7th corridor. Both of these examples used complimentary funding sources: Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) SUMMARY OF BENEFITS A comprehensive system of sidewalks, trails and paths will encourage and accommodate more citizens walking and riding bicycles rather than driving vehicles. The reduction in VMT will not only yield a reduction in CO2 emissions, but will also lower the impact on streets thus reducing maintenance costs. An interconnected network of sidewalks, trails and paths contribute significantly to Bozeman’s quality of life that is based on healthy lifestyles and the great outdoors. This healthy outdoor-centric quality of life attracts tourists, new residents, and relocating businesses which in turn bolster the local economy. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Missoula Complete Streets Resolution http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1956 CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 147 MT (Based on reducing VMT by 1/10th of 1 percent) DEPARTMENT City of Bozeman Streets Department COB Parks & Recreation Department COB CTEP Committee SAVINGS $26,448/year (based on 2.85/gallon) TIMELINE On-going COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION Municipal Climate Action Plan COB Complete Streets Ordinance Bozeman Area Transportation Plan COC Community Plan Chp 13 Implementation Policy 70,71,73& 74 1982 Energy Element EXISTING ACTIONS Recent examples of similar projects: College/Huffine Pathway Project North 7th Sidewalk Project City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 68 Missoula Sidewalk Master Plan http://www.ci.missoula.mt.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3041 Helena Non-Motorized Travel Council http://www.ci.helena.mt.us/fileadmin/user_upload/City_Public_Works/hats/Documents/NMTAC.pdf REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES www.walkscore.com www.completestreets.org PARTNERSHIPS Tax Increment Finance Districts (TIF) Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) Gallatin Valley Land Trust (GVLT) City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 69 TSP7-SUPPORT THE ADOPTION OF LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX DESCRIPTION A local gas tax has the potential to reduce transportation caused carbon for two reasons; first the slight increase in fuel costs may motivate individuals to choose more carbon friendly alternatives. Second the gas tax could be used primarily to support carbon friendly options (alternative fuel vehicles, improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and better public transit). Small increases in fuel prices have proven to be mostly inelastic. The demand for fuel does not decrease with small increases in fuel cost, so the reduction caused by the increase in cost will likely be minimal. Most of the mitigations mentioned in this report have a real cost associated with them, with no identified source of funding. This could be a source of funding for a carbon reduction program. According to state law, the city could not pass such a tax; this would have to be passed by the Gallatin County Commission and possibly approved by voters. The tax could not exceed 2 cents per gallon. The City should encourage the county to implement this tax and encourage the use go to GHG reduction programs SUMMARY OF BENEFITS A dedicated funding source supports carbon friendly transportation options. Other benefits have been conservatively estimated at $3.40 for every $1 spent (Ecosometrics 1998). An incomplete list of benefits for an improved transportation system are: Improved mobility and access to jobs for people who are economically, socially, or physically disadvantages. Reduced cost of vehicle ownership, operating costs, and parking costs for people who choose alternative transportation. This is more apparent to people when the price of gas rises. Supports land use objectives such as infill, efficient public services, clustering, accessibility, land use mix, and preservation of ecological and social resources. Healthier lifestyles among riders, bikers, and walkers. Potential savings on parking garages or surface lots at MSU and other places of high demand SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Pinellas County LGOT http://www.clearwater- fl.com/gov/depts/omb/docs_pub/archive/approved_06- 07_budget/pdf/j_Capital_Improvement_Plan/h_Local_Option_Gas_Tax.pdf REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Litman, T. Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs Best Practices Guidebook. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, BC, 2010. http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf Ecosometrics, Inc. Assessment of the Economic Impacts of Rural Public Transportation. Transit Cooperative Research Program, TCRP Report 34. Final Report., Nov. 1998. http://www.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_34.pdf CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 100MT (200 additional passengers) DEPARTMENT Finance/ Legal/City Administration & Climate Protection COST 2 cents gallon TIMELINE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION Transportation Plan JURISDICTION County City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 70 TSP8-EXAMINE EMISSIONS FROM GALLATIN FIELD AIRPORT DESCRIPTION Gallatin Field Airport is the only airport serving as a year-round gateway for two Yellowstone National Park entrances. It also serves the recreation areas of Big Sky Resort, Moonlight Basin and the Bridger Bowl Ski Area as well as the business centers of Bozeman, Belgrade and Livingston and higher education at Montana State University. The Gallatin Airport Authority has embarked on a significant expansion of the airline terminal building. This expansion is the largest airline terminal expansion ever in the state of Montana. The Gallatin Field Airport handles approximately 700,000 passengers every year. Of these passengers, 300,000 use rental cars, 100,000 use buses, taxis and shuttles and 300,000 are either dropped off at the terminal or use the pay parking lot. Aircraft arrivals and departures from Gallatin Field most certainly contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions in the Bozeman area. Reducing the amount of airplane trips would not be economically feasible to the community; however, thoughtful and early planning should look to encouraging the use of alternative types of fuels. A life cycle analysis of the carbon footprint of camelina-based biojet fuel concludes that the renewable fuel reduces CO2 emissions by 75 percent compared to traditional petroleum-based jet fuel, according to a peer-reviewed paper published in the journal Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy. The study also found that “green” diesel made through the same process reduces CO2 emissions by 80 percent. Since air transport is a relatively "compact" industry, it would be logical for the air transport industry to be one of the first sectors within the transport industry to take the lead by using alternative fuels. However, the challenge is that aviation's demand may not be sufficient to justify the important investments required. Hence the idea to consider the role of airports in supplying alternative fuels not only to aircraft and ground airport activities, but also to the local communities around airports. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Reduce emissions in the aviation sector Create jobs by increasing demand for locally produced camelina Decrease dependency on foreign oil SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES In 2009, the U.S. Navy and the Air Force contracted with Sustainable Oils for more than 140,000 gallons of camelina biojet fuel. Just recently, both groups exercised contract options for additional camelina biojet fuel, bringing the total to nearly 500,000 gallons to be delivered in 2010 and early 2011 REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www.bozemanairport.com/ http://www.susoils.com/dynamic-content/csArticles/articles/000000/000093.htm http://www-personal.umich.edu/~murty/planetravel2/planetravel2.html http://www.atag.org/content/showissue.asp?level1=3&level2=472&folderid=472&pageid=1084 CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL TBD DEPARTMENT Climate Protection SAVINGS TIMELINE On-going PARTNERSHIPS County/ Sustainable Oils/ Airport Authority JURISDICTION Airport Authority City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 71 TSP9-REFORM TAXI PERMITTING PROCESS TO REMOVE CURRENT BARRIERS FOR CLEAN FLEET SERVICES DESCRIPTION When taxi service is more convenient and affordable, citizens are more likely to use cabs rather than their own cars to get around. Visitors arriving at the airport are more likely to take cabs from the airport to hotels, or visit friends and relatives. Bozeman is currently served by only one taxi cab company – Greater Valley Taxi. GVT typically operates 3 cabs at a time, with an additional cab Thursday – Saturday nights. GVT cabs are older sedans and mini-vans and get between 15 and 20 MPG. It typically takes between 20 minutes and an hour to call a cab. Cabs are not generally not available at the airport or downtown without a reservation. GVT fares are comparable to other Montana cities where little or no competition exists. Fares are $4.50 for the first person plus $3.50 for each additional passenger plus $2.50 per mile. There is an additional $1.50 pickup fee at the airport. By comparison, Yellow Cab in Missoula charges $5.50 plus $1.00 for additional passengers. Green Taxi in Missoula, which runs hybrid Prius cabs, charges $5.00 for pickup plus $2.50 per mile. Helena Transportation has a base rate of $10 or less for most fares within the City limits. Montana Representative Mike Phillips has submitted a bill draft request (LC 1070) that would allow the first green taxi fleet in any Montana community to be automatically permitted and would disallow any protest to the PSC on that application. The bill draft is currently on "hold," which probably means that Rep. Phillips has received a first draft of the bill and is waiting more information before having it finished. This bill would accomplish the goal of the task force. The bill will likely be opposed by taxi operator who already has permits simply because they don't want competition. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Affordable and readily available cabs offer an alternative to people who do not have a drivers license, cannot afford, or do not wish to own a car, and are traveling at times or going to places not serviced by Streamline. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES. Missoula Hybrid Taxi Service - http://missoulagreentaxi.com Eugene Oregon Hybrid Taxi Service- http://eugenehybridtaxis.com REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES: http://tinyurl.com/2g48nx2 http://www.greatervalleytaxi.com http://missoulagreentaxi.com/ http://yellowcabmissoula.com/ http://www.helenatransportation.com/ CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL Negligible SAVINGS/COST None likely TIMELINE 2011 Legislative session COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION Montana LC 1070 by Rep Mike Phillips EXISTING ACTIONS Missoula Green Fleet JURISDICTION PSC City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 72 Community Spotlight Bozeman Public Schools Safe Routes to School Program One way to reduce traffic congestion, improve our environment and provide a healthy opportunity to today’s children is the “Safe Routes to School” program. The Safe Routes to School program provides a healthy and safe alternative to driving to school. Having fewer children dependent on vehicle transportation allows for less congestion surrounding the school, encourages children to live healthy and active lifestyles, and creates positive environmental effects. Safe Routes to Schools is a competitive program that utilizes federal funding for infrastructure within a community as well as an educational campaign component. The program originates from the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, And Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Over 6,400 schools across the U.S. participate in the program. In support of the program, the City of Bozeman, the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board, and the Gallatin Valley Safe Routes to School Task Force have hired a specialized firm, Alta Planning + Design, to create a plan tailored to fit the needs of the Bozeman area schools. Over the last several years the Bozeman School District has identified barriers and obstacles preventing student pedestrians, bicyclists and the disabled from traveling to school without the assistance of a vehicle. Today, the district is prepared to combat these obstacles from two approaches. First and foremost, create safe routes to schools by improving infrastructure. The addition and improvement of trails and sidewalks where needed. Traffic redirection and calming devices will be added to surrounding schools, such as raised crosswalks. And finally, more bicycle racks to encourage biking to school. The second approach is through education. The school district will campaign their efforts and raise awareness of the benefits to the public through marketing campaigns and educational forums. The program will focus on the following schools: Emily Dickinson, Hawthorne, Hyalite, Irving, Longfellow, Morning Star, Whittier, and Chief Joseph Middle School, and Sacajawea Middle School. Walking audits are conducted by parents, students, teachers, and administrators to address safety, concerns and safety. Volunteers are encouraged to participate in these events and the program. For more information regarding participation and the plans for each respective school, please visit http://www.altaprojects.net/bozemanschools/ Welcome.html . City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 73 Chapter 8: Waste, Water, & Recycling Description The WWR working group met four times throughout May 2010. The group included members from the City Sanitation and Water Reclamation facilities, the MSU Pollution Prevention Program, Gallatin Zero Waste Coalition, Liquid Solar Systems, civil engineers, Green Stone Consulting, TruVue Accounting Solutions, Global Gradient Systems, and citizens at large. Waste accounted for 4% and 2% of emissions in 2000 and 2008 respectively. Although emissions in this sector were considerably lower than other sectors, opportunities for increased education and awareness were identified as key priorities. Increasing visibility of recycling and composting programs, adopting a fee on plastic bag usage, and developing renewable energy generation were identified as potential funding mechanism and carbon offset programs. The working group identified three strategies to reduce emissions in this sector. Strategies 1. Promote an Integrated Waste Management System 2. Promote Waste Reduction and Water Conservation 3. Pursue Alternative Energy Generation Existing Measures Several programs are in place to help reduce emissions in this sector. The Advisory Board should look to these programs as they begin implementing the recommendations in this section. Bozeman Recycling Program (Public & Private) Gallatin Zero Waste Coalition Livingston Glass Recycling Program Summary of Recommendations ITEM# DESCRIPTION COST WWR1 WASTE FACILITY STUDY $80,000- $100,000 WWR2 COMPOSTING PROGRAM $5-$30 PROFIT PER TON COLLECTED WWR3 PROMOTE RECYCLING STAFF TIME WWR4 PLASTIC BAG FEE 5 CENTS PER BAG WWR5 INCREASE TIPPING FEES 15 PERCENT INCREASE OF CURRENT RATES WWR6 OPT-OUT POLICY FOR PHONE BOOKS STAFF TIME City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 74 WWR1- CONDUCT A FULL WASTE FACILITY STUDY DESCRIPTION As a community, there are many opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint through waste reduction. The first place to start is by developing a full waste facility study which would identify the various components to effectively reducing the waste stream. These could include but are not limited to community composting systems, a material recovery facility, improving waste reduction and recycling opportunities, household chemical collection, and glass crushing/pulverizing and re-use options. A study is critical to identifying these opportunities and to determine ways to improve the existing waste disposal infrastructure and system to make it more efficient, reduce the carbon footprint, and save money. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Reduced vehicle miles traveled to haul waste Conserve landfill space Reduce landfill reclamation costs/materials Reduce threat to local water quality and ecosystems Increase supply of reclaimed materials and reduce consumption of virgin raw materials Produce compost for sale and/or for landfill reclamation Reduce methane gas pollution Collaboration with regional communities and efforts to increase quantity and decrease costs associated with recycling and transporting materials SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Boulder, CO Regional Recycling Feasibility Study (YBP, MT DEQ. Recycle Montana) REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=2 http://www.regionalrecycling.org/ http://www.mahoningcountyoh.gov/tabid/773/default.aspx www.lakecountyil.gov www.cityofshawnee.org CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL TBD DEPARTMENT Solid Waste Department SAVINGS/COST $80K-100K TIMELINE 2012 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION COB Community Plan Goal E-4,Obejective E4.4 EXISTING ACTIONS COB waste analysis PARTNERSHIPS GZWC, Private Recyclers, YBP, Recycle Montana, MT DEQ, GSWMD City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 75 WWR2 - EXPAND/ REQUIRE COMPOSTING PROGRAM TO INCLUDE COLLECTION AND SEPARATION OF ORGANICS ALONG WITH EXISTING PICK-UP DESCRIPTION All households, farms, most businesses, schools, and municipal waste treatment plants all produce organic waste, including food, coffee grinds, and yard or landscaping materials, including leaves, branches, and wood scraps. Every year, each American throws out about 1,200 pounds of organic garbage that can be composted. Vegetable scraps represent the largest un-recycled portion of the residential waste stream. In fact, about 35% of residential garbage is food waste and up to 70% of all municipal waste is organic by weight. The city has an opportunity to collect and process this organic material and combine it with other organic material in order to provide a beneficial and useful product: organic compost. In order for this to work, garbage collectors need to provide a separate garbage can for organic waste for their customers, and to pick up and transport that waste to a dedicated area in site of the Water Reclamation Facility or the old Story Mill landfill site. Treated municipal organic waste material can be combined with farm, landscaping, residential, and business organic waste brought to the site. The waste is shredded and composted in about 12+ weeks, providing a number of saleable compost products. One alternative composting option identified by the Task Force for city consideration is to ship organic materials to the existing West Yellowstone composting facility. The shipments could be back loaded on trucks that regularly bring garbage to the Logan Landfill, then return to West Yellowstone empty. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS  Organic material can be converted into high-grade planting and mulching material that will help support city landscaping and local food production Less trips to landfill to carry organic matter, reduced garbage truck fuel (including reduced CO2 emissions) and reduced tipping fees for traditional dumping;  Less production of untreated methane which is times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. By careful composting, around 75% of the methane can be captured and used for energy;  Less need to ship compost into Bozeman and lower costs for city landscaping;  Provide an improved soil base for new plant material that will absorb carbon dioxide and reduce need for fertilizers and pesticides;  The material is a new source of income to help offset waste management costs.  Separated organics can also be used to generate energy SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Sonoma County in Northern California implemented a municipal composting program. In 2008, this program converted 92,000 tons of yard debris into compost. Seattle Washington organic recycling program Eko-Compost in Missoula, MT & Glacier Gold in Olney, MT both us municipal biosolids in composting CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 35 Metric Tons of CO2e DEPARTMENT COB Solid Waste and GSWMD SAVINGS/COST From $5 to $30 profit per ton of collected organic waste TIMELINE 4th Quarter 2011 to 2nd quarter 2012 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION City waste management plan, MCA 75-10-803 EXISTING ACTIONS Small scale farm or personal recycling PARTNERSHIPS Private Business or NGO’s can compost and sell the product, sharing revenue with the City. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 76 SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Sonoma County in Northern California implemented a municipal composting program. In 2008, this program converted 92,000 tons of yard debris into compost. Seattle Washington organic recycling program Eko-Compost in Missoula, MT & Glacier Gold in Olney, MT both us municipal biosolids in composting REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES  Recycling Economic Benefits study  Municipal yard trimmings cost benefit study  Organic Waste Feasibility Study, Grant County WA  Municipal composting of yard waste  Cal Recycle  Sonoma Compost Company  Seattle Zero Waste Strategy  San Francisco organic recycling City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 77 WWR3 - PROMOTE RECYCLING DESCRIPTION Bozeman avoided nearly 7,000 metric tons of CO2e from being emitted in 2007 through its recycling efforts. Increasing participation through accessible receptacles is a low-cost effective way to promote recycling in the community. The City should work with the private sector to facilitate recycling programs. The City could create a pilot project in the following locations to determine viability of a program. Recycling receptacles should be visible in public and private spaces including but not limited to: High use public locations Gas stations Hotels Stadium Main Street Trails and parks Public recreational facilities Gallatin Valley Mall SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Recycling reduces greenhouse gas production by utilizing the embodied energy of the material being recycled. An example serves to best demonstrate this reduction: Creation of an aluminum can from bauxite requires 1) mining of the raw ore, 2) transporting it; 3) crushing it; 4) dissolving it in sodium hydroxide; 5) heating under pressure; 6) filtering; 7) heating to 2000F to dry; 8) smelting (high electrical use); 9) ingot production. The process entails much waste. Recycling of aluminum cans essentially eliminates steps 1-7, thereby capturing the embodied energy in the can and eliminating the greenhouse gas production associated with those steps. SIMILAR ACTION IN OTHER CITIES Salt Lake City sets a goal to divert 50% of waste stream by 2015 http://www.slcgov.com/slcgreen/recycle/expansionplan.htm Keene, NH sets a 70% waste reduction goal http://www.ci.keene.nh.us/departments/planning/keene-cmp- 2010/plan/infrastructure/recycling-solid-waste-disposal DEPARTMENT Solid Waste and Parks Division SAVINGS/COST Staff Time TIMELINE 2011 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION MCA 75-10-803 COB Community Plan Goal E.4, Objective E4.1 EXISTING ACTIONS Gallatin Airport DBA purchased receptacles for Main Street PARTNERSHIPS Full Circle Recycling Triple R Recycling City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 78 WWR4- ADOPT A 5 CENT FEE ON ALL PLASTIC BAGS DESCRIPTION Adopting a fee on single-use plastic and bags will help shift consumers away from the disposable mentality. This measure will reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the source level by creating diminished demand for virgin sourced material. In addition, it will also reduce plastic bags in the Logan landfill and provide funding for other CAP measures. The U.S. goes through 100 billion plastic shopping bags annually at an estimated cost to retailers of $4 billion. (The Wall Street Journal). The average family accumulates 60 plastic bags in only four trips to the grocery store. In good circumstances, high-density polyethylene will take more than 20 years to degrade. In less ideal circumstances (landfills or as general refuse), a bag will take more than 1,000 years to degrade. An estimated 3,960,000 tons of plastic bags, sack and wraps were produced in 2008. Of those, 3,570,000 tons (90%) were discarded. This is almost triple the amount discarded the first year plastic bag numbers were tracked (1,230,000 tons in 1980) (EPA). Anywhere from .5 percent to 3 percent of all bags winds up recycled. (BBC, CNN). When plastics break down, they don't biodegrade; they photodegrade. This means the materials break down to smaller fragments which readily soak up toxins. They then contaminate soil, waterways, and animals upon digestion. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS  Decrease demand for virgin material  Reduce contamination of soils and waterways SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Use of disposable bags in the District of Columbia has plummeted 86 percent since the city first began imposing a fee on their use. Customers who tote their food or liquor purchases home in store provided bags are now charged 5 cents for each one they use. The fees go to a fund for cleaning up the city’s Anacostia River. Fewer than 3 million disposable bags were sold in January 2010, according to a report by the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue. That’s down from an estimated 22.5 million bags per month used and disposed of by residents in previous months. A report shows the city collected roughly $150,000 in January for the river clean-up fund. The bag fee is estimated to raise $10 million over four years Kaui bans plastic bags http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13827367 REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/oregon-plastic-bag-ban- ga_n_797549.html  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40221169/ns/us_news-environment/  http://www.lbpost.com/news/ryan/10768  http://plasticbagbanreport.com/ DEPARTMENT Legal/Finance/ Climate Protection SAVINGS $50,000 generated on 1 million bags TIMELINE Education Campaign2011--12 Adopt 2013 COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION MCA 75-10-803 GSWD Goals JURISDICTION Plastic bag ordinance City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 79 WWR5- SUPPORT AN INCREASE IN TIPPING FEES TO ENCOURAGE WASTE REDUCTION DESCRIPTION Communities, businesses, and individuals around the country have found creative ways to reduce and better manage Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) through a combination of practices that include source reduction, recycling (including composting), and disposal. According to the US EPA, the most environmentally sound management of MSW is achieved when these approaches are implemented in this preferred order: source reduction first, recycling and composting second, and disposal in landfills or waste combustors last. The City of Bozeman provides both private (Allied Waste) and municipally operated solid waste services. Waste is brought to the Gallatin County landfill and charged the following rates: Regular Municipal Solid Waste……………………….$27.00/ton (Kitchen waste, furniture, yard clippings, etc.) Light Construction Materials………………………….$48.00/ton (2x4s, drywall, plywood, sawdust, insulation, carpet, etc.) Heavy Construction Materials………………..……….$58.00/ton (Steel beams, timber beams, concrete, etc.) Rates in other communities across Montana include: Helena- $68.75/ ton Park County- $90/ton Billings $94/ton The Task Force recommends supporting an increase in tipping fees to a minimum of 15% at Logan Landfill to encourage waste diversion efforts. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Reduced vehicle miles traveled to haul waste Conserve landfill space Reduce landfill reclamation costs/materials Reduce threat to local water quality and ecosystems Increase supply of reclaimed materials and reduce consumption of virgin raw materials Produce compost for sale and/or for landfill reclamation Reduce methane gas pollution SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Newton Iowa – (pop 15,000) http://www.iowadnr.gov/waste/p2/files/cs/newton02.pdf Alameda County, CA www.stopwaste.org Porter County, IN www.itmeanstheworld.org Mahoning County, Ohio www.mahoningcountyoh.gov/tabid/773/default.aspx REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES US EPA Waste Reduction Model http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html US EPA Waste Wise Program http://www.epa.gov/osw/partnerships/wastewise/index.htm CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 240MT (300lbs/person/year waste avoided) COST 15% increase DEPARTMENT GSWMD TIMELINE 2011-2013- Education Period 2014- Adopt COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR ACTION MCA 75 10 803 PARTNERSHIPS Gallatin County Solid Waste Management District City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 80 WWR6- SUPPORT AN OPT-OUT POLICY FOR THE DELIVERY OF PHONE BOOKS IN THE AREA DESCRIPTION According to the Product Stewardship Institute, telephone books represent significant tonnage in the waste stream (660,000 tons per year1). In recent years, the number of phone books delivered to households and businesses has increased, with two or more competing company’s now publishing and distributing books in similar or overlapping geographic areas. Most residents and businesses lack a way to “opt out” of receiving those they don’t want. In addition, phone book recycling presents challenges. Phone books are made with a low grade of paper, and are sometimes distributed with materials that become contaminants in the recycling process (e.g., magnets and plastics), which represents a problem for certain end-use applications. Local governments currently bear costs to recycle and/or dispose of phone books, and the sometimes limited or absent opportunities to recycle make the need to provide an opt out mechanism and to increase recovery particularly. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES According to a recent article in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle, regulators in many states are giving phone companies permissions to stop printing residential listings since fewer people are using them. New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania have recently approved requests to halt distribution of white pages. Phone books represent a large cause of global warming. First, thousands of trees must be harvested to create the phone books. The cutting, transport, milling, pulping, and paper making processes all entail large energy expenditures. Additionally, removal of the trees eliminates their ability to sequester carbon as they grow. Large numbers of phone books are never used and simply dumped to the landfill, where they decompose to methane. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES If you do not wish to receive an annual phone book you may go to this website: http://www.yellowpagesoptout.com, enter your zip code and make the choice to “opt-out”. There is also information regarding the waste reduction techniques to lower the environmental impacts of phone books, such as non-toxic inks. A Harris Interactive Poll revealed that 87% of adults would choose an opt-out program if one existed. The Poll revealed that only 22% of the respondents recycle their phone book, and that 60% of those with access to the Internet preferred to use that. Many states have legal requirements that phone companies provide these listings although some states are changing that. Product Stewardship Institute http://www.productstewardship.us/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=59 NYTimes http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/time-to-scrap-the-white-pages/ NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111831737&ft=1&f=1006 ABC http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/09/30/phone-book-fatique-petition-pushes- opt-in-plan/ USA Today http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/01/harris- americans-dont-use-phone-books/1 LA Times http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/01/phone-books-arent-wanted- arent-recycled-study-finds.html Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures DEPARTMENT Solid Waste Division JURISDICTION PSC City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 81 Community Spotlight Bozeman Toilet Rebate Program The Bozeman Toilet Rebate Program was established in 2008 to encourage City water users to replace old, inefficient toilets with new high-efficiency models. In order to qualify for the rebate, specific toilets must be installed and an application form must be submitted. WaterSense toilets use 20% less water than current industry standards mandate. Only toilets connected to the city’s water supply are eligible for this program The program and important links to the acceptable models with the WaterSense label can be found at (www.bozeman.net/bozeman/engineering/waterConservation.aspx) In 2009, the Neighborhood Conservation Clubs worked to install new WaterSense toilets to residents in the northeast neighborhoods by providing free labor Thanks to the NCC’s and City rebates, many residents were able to install WaterSense at no cost When a pre-1996 model using 3.5GPF toilet is replaced thru the rebate program with a WaterSense model which uses 1.28GPF, there’s a water savings of 2.22 gallons every time the toilet is flushed. Additionally, many old toilets leak at their flush valve, unless regularly maintained so the realized water savings is likely much higher. To-date, 561 rebate applications have been received and the City estimates between 800 and 900 toilets have been replaced. Toilets installed before 1996 qualify for $125 rebate. Toilets installed after 1996 qualify for a $50 rebate. There is a maximum rebate amount of $250 per address. Rebate application must be accompanied with proof of installation. New construction is eligible for a $50 rebate per new installation with a maximum of $250 for each building. The Bozeman Toilet rebate program provides an example of a successful incentivized program created by the City to reduce water consumption in our community. Although water usage is not directly tied to greenhouse gas reduction, the availability of a reliable and abundant water source in Bozeman will affect all residents. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 82 Chapter 9: Energy Production Description After completing multiple work meetings over the course of a year, the Task Force had created a list of 36 recommendations. For the most part those recommendations focused on conservation. Using ICLEI-supplied software, the Task Force attempted to quantify the reduction in CO2e that its 36 recommendations might return. With respect to that quantification, Task Force members would like to provide a critical caveat: While several members of the Task Force are engineers capable of the analysis necessary to develop such quantification, this is not a trivial job that lends itself to volunteer work. Instead this is an intense, interesting engineering task. Not all recommendations could be quantified with respect to their viability for reducing global warming gases; those estimates that the Task Force does put forth throughout this plan need to be recognized as highly first-pass in nature. Given that caveat, the ICLEI software did reveal that the measures the Task Force had scoped looked unlikely to allow Bozeman to reach a 10% reduction CO2e output from 2000 levels by 2020, one of the goals that the group had considered—though not yet firmly settled on at the time—for the City’s Climate Action Plan. With this result in hand, the Task Force decided to look at the need to add production to the Climate Action plan and to revisit the reduction goals it would propose for the Climate Action Plan. The production strategies created by the Task Force follow; the reduction goal strategy has already been presented in Chapter 2. Strategies Reduction of Bozeman’s production of global warming gas output can come from three places: decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases we produce given current energy sources, finding a way to keep greenhouse gases we do produce out of the atmosphere, and/or not producing greenhouse gases in the first place. The Task Force finds the first idea insufficient to meet our goals and the second not ready in the timeframe we need. Thus, we believe adding alternative energy production to our list of recommendations is necessary, as supported by the bullets that follow: Decreased energy use, or conservation, is already set forth as part of most aspects of the plan described thus far. As previously noted, the Task Force does not believe that conservation alone will allow Bozeman to meet its reduction goals. Capture and sequestration of global warming gases to keep them from being emitted to the atmosphere is a potential future method for mitigating greenhouse gas output to the atmosphere. However, the Task Force does not believe CO2 capture and sequestration (for example, in geologic repositories or scrubbers currently under development) is a viable solution in the short term so we have made no recommendations in that realm. The Task Force has recommended that methane at the waste water treatment plant and landfill be captured and used for energy production (with CO2, a less potent global warming gas, still resulting as a gaseous emission). Methane capture is technically viable because of the economic return resulting from combustion or fuel cell recovery of the energy stored within it. Changing the source of Bozeman’s energy supply to one that—at least in part—does not depend on fossil fuels largely eliminates our production of greenhouse gases, principally CO2. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 83 By changing to solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and other non-fossil fuel sources of energy, our city, like those across the country and the world, can greatly decrease our carbon footprint. The Task Force recognizes issues such as chemical use in solar cell production, land use concerns in wind power and transmission line placement, forest practices for biomass production, even potential disruption of geothermal resources that might be a concern because of our proximity to Yellowstone National Park’s geothermal features. However, we also believe these issues must be balanced against the environmental and cultural damage already taking place as a result of our current energy infrastructure. We believe in that light the case for moving to an alternative energy future is compelling. In our 29 November 2010 meeting with the Bozeman City Commission, the Task Force brought forth our concerns regarding the need to greatly expand energy production opportunities to our list of recommendations. The Commission agreed to this request, hence the addition of this final, initially unplanned, chapter of Bozeman’s Climate Action Plan. Setting Bozeman’s Municipal Reduction Goal As noted previously, the Task Force had been tentatively considering a 10% CO2eq reduction goal from 2000 levels by 2020. Following review of the ICLEI-derived results from the multiple conservation methods described in Chapters 4-8, the Task Force decided that it must make two changes to its Climate Action Plan: a) greatly expand energy production recommendations (the focus of this chapter); and b) take a hard look at the a reasonable goal for Bozeman’s Climate Action Plan. The remainder of this chapter details Task Force recommendations for energy production as a way to decrease Bozeman’s greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction goal strategy has already been presented in Chapter 2. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 84 Summary of Recommendations ITEM# DESCRIPTION COST EP1 DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PLAN $50,000 - $80,000 EP2 SOLAR HOT WATER PROGRAM $3,000/HOME EP3 PHOTO VOLTAIC LEASE PROGRAM TBD EP4 RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER PURCHASING AGREEMENT $520,000 EP5 REGIONAL ENERGY TEAM STAFF TIME EP6 COMMERCIAL PHOTO VOLTAIC PROGRAM $9,000/KW INSTALLED EP7 NET-METERING LEGISLATION $9,000/KW INSTALLED EP8 HYDRO-GENERATION TBD EP9 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AT CITY FACILITIES $500-$5000 EP10 METHANE CAPTURE AT LOGAN LANDFILL TBD City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 85 EP1—DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PLAN DESCRIPTION Renewable energy generation must be examined for Bozeman to achieve its target reduction goals. The Task Force believes that the City must undertake a comprehensive planning effort to develop a rigorous alternative energy production plan as the first step in moving to large scale alternative energy production capable of servicing the City. Given the necessary planning horizon, the goals set forth in the plan reflect the concept that alternative energy production will not occur immediately. Most measures will be labor and capital intensive and will require at perhaps 5-10 years to develop. Our expectation is that the while some smaller scale production may start in the next five years, the larger scale items may take until 2020 to come online. This expectation is reflected in the reduction goals set by the Task Force. The Task Force recommends that a portfolio of alternative energy production techniques under a Bozeman Alternative Energy Plan should include, but are not limited to: Solar  Create community based solar array to allow citizens the option of buying locally produced alternative energy (i.e., investor or community owned solar projects).  Create solar hot water program for heating City pools (Bogert, Bozeman High) o set funding goal with City youth (grades k-8 for Bogert; grades 9- 12 for high school) and have design and implementation of project be run by MSU engineering students in conjunction with Bozeman high school science classes; o team with MSU and the Ridge to extend program to include solar heating of two pools at those facilities.  Create solar roofs (or ground based) on all Bozeman city schools (also City buildings, parks buildings, library, jail, etc) as solar aspect and building infrastructure allow.  Develop ground mounted solar at the Bozeman / Belgrade airport using the large available open space.  Develop ground mounted solar at the closed Story Mills facility using the large available open space.  Develop ground mounted solar at any large, City-owned open space including parks. Geothermal, wind  Team with MSU engineering and geology classes, plus USGS Northern Rockies Science Center to assess: CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL TBD DEPARTMENT Multiple City Departments COST $50K-$80K TIMELINE Planning phase 2011-2014. PARTNERSHIPS NW Energy, MSU College of Engineering, Ridge, Solar hot water and solar PV providers, wind energy providers, Gallatin Airport, USGS Northern Rockies Science Center, Bozeman Public schools, Gallatin National Forest, Zoot Enterprises City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 86 o geothermal energy potential in the Gallatin Valley. Based on results, potentially create City geothermal electricity plant. o Wind potential at City-owned sites  Require new PUD's (planned unit development) and existing to look into shared geothermal heating provided from pond often located in unit common areas. o Water geothermal system are thought to be the most efficient. o Another option would be geothermal trenching in the ground underneath common areas. While not as efficient as water, this method could be used the same way. Biomass, waste-to-energy  Work with Gallatin National Forest to create biomass power facility from the logging to be done in the forest directly south of town (expected to begin in 2011/12).  Work with MSU engineering (civil, chemical, mechanical) to develop waste-to-energy plant as currently fully operational in many European countries (similarly a plastic-to-oil program has been developed in Japan)  Follow recommendations described under the Municipal portion of the Climate Action Plan (a separate document) for alternative energy development at City-owned facilities, including such items as in-line turbines for water supply systems, micro-turbine, building space heat generation, or fuel cell use of excess methane from the waste water facilities and landfills. Expertise on electricity generation from fuel cells is available through MSU engineering and ZOOT Enterprises. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Community benefits from City-driven alternative energy production may include long-term reduction in taxes and/or utility bills due to decreased operating costs of City facilities that result from lower energy bills. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES 1. Create community based solar arrays: see Clean Energy Collective in the Roaring Fork Valley CO or Ellensburg WA Solar Community Project. 2. Solar hot water program for heating City pools: follow model of Arvada CO—their array is expected to 30- 40% of their recreation building’s natural gas usage. 3. Create solar roofs on Bozeman city buildings: see a) Santee CA where they created solar covered picnic areas that save the school district $80k/yr; and b) Athenia School in Danville CA. 4. Develop ground mounted solar at the Bozeman/Belgrade airport: see Denver CO model where they entered into a power purchase agreement with the solar array owner. 5. Develop ground mounted solar at the closed Story Mills landfill facility: see Sacramento CA, San Antonio TX, Fort Carson CO, Ellensburg WA, Phoenix AZ, and Haywood County NC who all have solar farms built on retired landfills. 6. Develop ground mounted solar on any large, City-owned open spaces: see for example Wyandot County OH, Buffalo Ranch Yellowstone National Park 7. For geothermal planning, see for example operations at Boise ID and Klamath Falls OR. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 87 8. Develop biomass power facility: see for example biomass power plant at Middlebury College, Middlebury VT. 9. Develop waste to energy plant: see for example programs in Denmark 10. Precedent for geothermal set in the Midwest (reference forthcoming). City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 88 EP2—DEVELOP SOLAR HOT WATER PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The average household in the United States expends 20-30% of its energy to heat hot water. Many small commercial applications heat more than 500 gallons of hot water per day. Without solar, all of this energy is traditionally provided by conventional fossil fuel based means (electricity, propane or natural gas). All of these are nonrenewable resources that generally require extensive infrastructure and transport from their sources to the homes where they are consumed. The Task Force recommends that Bozeman create a solar hot water program to incentivize the installation of solar hot water on homes and businesses in the City. The successful Bozeman Toilet Rebate program could be used as a model for setting up a city-wide solar hot water installation program. Education of the public as to the merits of solar hot water will be a key to the program. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Community benefits will include long-term reduction in energy bills. Also, the program will be a step toward replacing natural gas use and thus help NW Energy meet its required renewable portfolio standard. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES The Thermal Program of the California Solar Initiative was recently (Oct2010) instituted to provide cash rebates for multifamily and commercial solar water heating systems. This most recent program augments the single-family program that launched May 1, 2010. The single-family program component offers homeowner’s cash rebates of up to $1,875 on the installation of qualifying solar hot water systems. California’s program was designed to overcome four barriers to installation of solar hot water: education as to cost benefit, upfront cost, permitting, and need for installation workforce. To qualify for the rebate, the SWH system must displace the use of natural gas or electricity, and the homeowner must verify that the system was installed after July 15, 2009. See description of the California Solar Initiative—Thermal Program at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Solar/swh.htm REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES http://www.liquidsolarsystems.com/ CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 400MT (500 homes using 50gallons/day) DEPARTMENT Climate Protection, Engineering, and Water Department SAVINGS $214/year COST $3,000/home TIMELINE Planning can begin immediately. Many partnerships will need to be developed. Likely implementation of most plans to be beyond 2015, even from 2020 to 2025. EXISTING ACTIONS Buggy Bath PARTNERSHIPS NW Energy, Liquid Solar Systems City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 89 EP3—SOLICIT THIRD PARTY SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC LEASE (OR POWER PURCHASE) PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Solicit private companies to bring solar-as-a-service business model to Bozeman homes and businesses. Programs such as that provided by SolarCity (and others) allow both residential and commercial sectors to add solar to their rooftops with minimal up-front costs and few risks. Quoting from a US EPA text, “A Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA) is a financial arrangement in which a third-party developer owns, operates, and maintains the photovoltaic (PV) system, and a host customer agrees to site the system on its roof or elsewhere on its property and purchases the system’s electric output from the solar services provider for a predetermined period. This financial arrangement allows the host customer to receive stable, and sometimes lower cost electricity, while the solar services provider or another party acquires valuable financial benefits such as tax credits and income generated from the sale of electricity to the host customer.” SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Often formulated as a power purchase agreement. The customer/ building owner generally pays for power at below market rates. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Solar City agreement with City of Tucson. See http://www.solarcity.com/pressreleases/68/SolarCity-Introduces- SolarLease%C2%AE-and-Solar-Service-Agreement-Option . REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Companies operating solar-as-a-service include SolarCity (www.solarcity.com), SunRun (www.sunrunhome.com), Sungevity (http://www.sungevity.com/), SolarTech (www.solartech.com), and others. A description of solar power purchase agreements can be found from the US EPA at http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/buygp/solarpower.htm. Example templates for solar power purchase agreements can be found at http://www.solartech.org/index.php?option=com_st_document&view=general &Itemid=58. CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL Direct replacement for each kW of energy replaced by clean power purchase. DEPARTMENT Economic Development SAVINGS/COST Lease programs can offer below market price energy costs to building owner. TIMELINE Negotiations can begin immediately. Implementation likely will take place over 10 years from 2015-2025. PARTNERSHIPS NW Energy, Solar City or similar full service solar provider. City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 90 EP4—EXPLORE RENEWABLE ENERGY POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT DESCRIPTION Explore and develop power purchase agreements for utility scale wind power from Judith Gap—or other large scale alternative energy production facilities as they become available—to offset fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, oil) derived energy usage. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Potential for decrease in taxes as cost of City operations decrease given power purchase negotiations can be done at lower than fossil fuel market prices. May require incentives program or grant. Power purchase agreements feature a variety of benefits and considerations (source US DOE), including : No up-front capital costs Ability to monetize tax incentives Typically a known, long-term energy price No operations and maintenance responsibilities Minimal risk SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES The City Council of Santa Barbara CA directed the Facilities department to pursue this solar energy on a large scale. The City favored a Power Purchase Agreement in which the City would pay a predictable rate for power generated by photovoltaic panels over the 20-year life of the contract, with no upfront capital expense or ongoing maintenance responsibilities. As such the city contracted with Tioga Energy to provide large scale solar generation. Tioga retains ownership and management responsibility for the solar generation system, thus shielding the City of Santa Barbara from the complexities associated with financing, construction, and ongoing operation, allowing City staff to focus on their other duties. See http://www.tiogaenergy.com/tioga-energy-powers-santa-barbara.php . REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Information on power purchase agreements can be found from the US Department of Energy at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/financing/power_purchase_agreements.html, and http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/documents/purchasing_guide_for_web.pdf. CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 31,240 MTCO2e (10 % of electricity renewable) DEPARTMENT Cost$520,000 (based on usage 4,100kWh/person at $.022/kWh) TIMELINE Negotiations can begin immediately. Program start will depend on achieving suitable pricing structure and availability of utility-based clean energy. EXISTING ACTIONS MSU Power Purchase Agreement PARTNERSHIPS NW Energy, Judith Gap, other wind energy providers City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 91 EP5—CREATE A REGIONAL ENERGY TEAM DESCRIPTION Develop an active intergovernmental, public/private partnership to create and oversee clean energy projects (“Gallatin Valley Energy Team”). Examples include:  Create a tight City/NW Energy relationship that co-promotes NW Energy energy savings programs. This must be a strong relationship and should emphasize such efforts as NW Energy’s E+ program.  Create an active City of Bozeman/MSU partnership to seek grants using MSU engineering expertise matched with City energy needs  Solicit MSU engineering alumni working in the energy industry nationwide to help bring new alternative energy to Bozeman as a test bed.  Create an active City/Deaconess Hospital relationship. Projects might include making use of large open space owned by Deaconess to create solar farm that supplies large % of hospital electrical needs  Consider partnerships with faith-based communities in the City as already set up in the EPA Energy Star Congregations program  Hire an energy manager for the City. This person would be responsible for Bozeman’s energy profile from grant writing to project implementation, working with members of the Gallatin Valley Energy Team as appropriate. Potential to make the job a consulting effort with pay based fully on performance.  Partner with Google Smart Meter or IBM Smart Cities to create one of nation’s first smart grid cities. Both companies—and others—are starting smart grid programs. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Along with reducing emissions, program will reduce energy costs for both public and private entities. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES  City / university partnership examples: o Solar energy farm created by St. Johns University in conjunction with St John's Abbey o Biomass power plant using willows grown just outside of town at Middlebury College, Middlebury VT o New Boeing concentrating PV system recently installed at California State U in Northridge CA  City / Hospital partnership examples: o VA Hospital in Philadelphia REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES See, for example, partnership between the City of Miami FL, General Electric, Cisco Systems and others are launching a $200M smart grid effort: http://www.gepower.com/about/press/en/2009_press/042009.htm . CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL Dependent on projects selected DEPARTMENT City Manager’s Office TIMELINE Begin formation and planning efforts immediately EXISTING ACTIONS NW Energy audits and rebate programs already in progress PARTNERSHIPS NW Energy, Chamber of Commerce, MSU, Deaconess Hospital, Gallatin County City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 92 EP6- DEVELOP INCENTIVE FOR COMMERCIAL PHOTO VOLTAIC PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The capture of solar energy is the most effective renewable energy application for urban areas with commercial roof space providing opportunities for large scale applications. The Task Force recommends that the City provide incentives—for example but not limited to tax exemptions, reduced permit fees, and similar—for business who build large scale solar systems on their roofs or grounds. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS 1) Reduce demand on foreign oil; 2) Increased demand of PV applications; 3) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions; 4) Reduce utility bills; 5) Improved Bozeman business climate (“a business friendly community”). SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Boulder, Colorado—Providing City Sales Tax Rebates for Solar Energy Equipment. The city of Boulder applies a portion of sales tax paid on solar energy equipment to a fund for solar system sales tax rebates in the ClimateSmart Solar Grant Fund. This fund supports both PV and SWH systems on housing in the city’s permanently affordable housing program and on the facilities of nonprofit entities. Harford County, Maryland—Offering Residential and Commercial Property Tax Credits for Solar Energy Systems. Harford County offers a credit against real property taxes imposed on residential or commercial buildings or other structures that use solar for heating, for cooling, or for generating electricity for on-site consumption. The credit amount is equal to 1 year of total real property taxes or $2,500, whichever is less. Montgomery County, Maryland—Offering Residential Property Tax Credit for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Projects. Montgomery County offers residents property tax credits for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects implemented at home. Property tax credits of up to $250 are available for installing eligible energy-efficient devices. The county offers a credit of up to 50% of the installed cost for PV or geothermal systems. All property tax credits are limited to the amount of Montgomery County property taxes paid over 3 years. REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES A description of tax exempt bonds, loans and guarantees, energy financing districts, and other methods of incentivizing large scale (including urban) solar development can be found from the American Solar Energy Society at www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1034&Itemid=2 3. A similar discussion is available from the US Department of Energy at http://solaramericacommunities.energy.gov/resources/guide_for_local_governm ents/2/9/ . The text for the city examples above is pulled directly from this US DOE website CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 315 MT with 500 kW of PV installed DEPARTMENT Building COST $9,000 per kW installed SAVINGS 140/kW installed TIMELINE 2011 EXISTING ACTIONS Arby’s Solar PV PARTNERSHIPS NWE, State and Federal tax incentives and grants City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 93 EP7- SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR THE USE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY APPLICATIONS TO CURRENT NET-METERING CUSTOMERS DESCRIPTION You can meet some or all of your home energy needs by installing a renewable electric generation project at your home or business. You can further reduce your own energy costs and add energy to the utility’s energy system through net metering. Bozeman currently has installed an estimated 330 kWs of photo voltaic systems in 108 separate homes and businesses reducing emissions by 8,800MT over 30 years. Many renewable energy projects include net metering applications on NorthWestern Energy’s distribution system. Net metering is a special installation that allows any surplus energy generated by your system to go back on the utility grid and gives you a “credit” for the electricity put back on the system at retail rates. The system, however, does not pay you for any surplus energy you may have generated. Adjusting the current rate structure to reward customers who consistently produce over and above the electricity consumed, would add a direct financial incentive to increase renewable energy generation in this sector. Refunds must be consistent with current market rates rather than “avoided costs” to create a direct financial incentive for increased participation. The City should work with the intergovernmental body to help further this initiative at the state legislature. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Increased capacity of residential and commercial solar photo voltaic applications Create increased demand in market place to help lower coast of PV applications. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES At least New Hampshire and California appear to be providing feed in tariffs (i.e., pay for excess capacity created by small scale producers that is fed back in to the energy grid). REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES A state-by-state listing of financial incentives and rules, regulations, and policies for renewable energy can be found at http://www.dsireusa.org/summarytables/index.cfm?ee=1&RE=1 . Further state- by-state descriptions of net metering programs can be found at http://www.serconline.org/netmetering/stateactivity.html . CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL 190 MT (yearly reductions for 300 kWs) DEPARTMENT Climate Protection COST $9,000- cost per kW of PV installed SAVINGS $140/kW installed TIMELINE 2011 legislative session EXISTING ACTIONS NWE Renewable Energy Grants, State and Federal Tax incentives PARTNERSHIPS Independent Power Systems Jurisdiction FERC, State Legislature City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 94 EP8- HYDRO-GENERATION CAPACITY MUST BE INCLUDED WHEN CONSIDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DAM DESCRIPTION The Task Force takes no position on the construction of a dam in Sourdough Canyon, as currently under consideration by the City. The Task Force recognized that Sourdough Canyon is home to a range of wildlife—moose, elk, mule deer, mountain lions, bears, lynx, and more—that could be displaced by the dam. People also hunt, ski, hike and mountain bike in the roadless forest. If, after consideration of all factors, the City decides to construct a dam and create a reservoir on Sourdough Creek, the Task Force recommends that the project include renewable energy power generation. It would be unconscionable to build a new dam for water supply and accept the downsides that many will see without also creating a big positive: that of making use of the clean, non-fossil fuel based energy newly available. The new dam would be built downstream from the old Mystic Lake dam, in a more geologically stable site than the old dam. The Mystic Lake dam was breached by a landslide in 1984 and knocked down in 1985. The new reservoir would measure somewhere around 100 acres in surface area and the added water supply could allow Bozeman to grow to about 80,000 people. While consideration of the dam continues, the Task Force recommends improved water conservation efforts such as low-flush toilets, tiered water rates, and leak detection as does purchasing water rights and covering the Lyman Creek reservoir to limit evaporation. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS  Source of renewable energy generation SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Seattle Power and Water Supply Collection http://content.lib.washington.edu/ww- spwsweb/index.html . CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL TBD DEPARTMENT Various SAVINGS/COST TBD TIMELINE TBD City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 95 EP9- DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY POTENTIAL AT CITY FACILITIES DESCRIPTION The Task Force recommends a feasibility study to determine the potential for alternative energy generation at all City facilities. The study should assess the quantity of energy available via solar, wind, geothermal, or other non-carbon producing energy forms, as well as the cost and benefit of developing that energy source. Number of projects and timeline for on-site development and start up will be determined as an outcome of the feasibility study. The Task Force recognizes a load analysis is a large part of a feasibility study. The City is currently working with Gradient Systems and has the capability to produce a load analysis for any facility owned by the City. The process would be initiated by the City requesting a facility feasibility study. The Task Force is particularly interested in the potential of a large-scale, on-site solar farm at the closed Story Mills site. Many other communities around the country have developed such solar farms (e.g., Sacramento CA, San Antonio TX, Fort Carson CO, Phoenix AZ, Houston TX, Haywood County NC, and many others) built on retired landfills. Such a project would fall under the state of Montana’s “Renewable Power Production and Rural Economic Development Act,” which directs the state’s investor-owned utilities (IOU) to incorporate an increasing amount of renewable energy into their mix of electricity resources. The logistics involved with transmission of power in large quantities to the grid from a solar farm to NorthWestern Energy would be negotiated through a site-specific Power Purchase Agreement. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS Positive public perception for Bozeman’s leadership in decreasing carbon emissions by making use of citizen-owned city facilities as sources of alternative energy generation Opportunity for tax incentives and support by grant funding A large scale solar farm would support the local economy while contributing to City (and State) GHG reduction goals. SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES Other Montana Power Purchase Agreements http://www.mtstandard.com/news/article_87a87129-2618-5459-8e2a- 09e5967c4e68.html http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_81533d3d- d0c7-5495-9f28-c371ebe7faa3.html City of Ellensburg WA Community Renewable Park: http://wa- ellensburg.civicplus.com/DocumentView.aspx?DID=254 REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES Montana Climate Action Plan http://www.mtclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O127F14041.pdf Montana Legislature CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL TBD DEPARTMENT Administration SAVINGS/COST $500 - $5000 depending on extent of the facility feasibility study TBD for a large scale solar farm TIMELINE A facility feasibility study could be completed in 30 days. Date TBD for a large scale solar farm based on feasibility study outcome. EXISTING ACTIONS Bozeman Public Library Bozeman City Hall Baxter Fire Station PARTNERSHIPS NorthWestern Energy http://www.montanagreenpower.com/greenpower/legislation.php http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/billhtml/SB0415.htm http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=38.5.8302 http://www.mtrules.org/gateway/RuleNo.asp?RN=38.5.8301 City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 96 EP10- EXAMINE POTENTIAL OF METHANE CAPTURE FROM DIGESTION OF ORGANIC MATERIALS BEING SENT TO LANDFILL DESCRIPTION Most any organic materials can be reduced and modified via aerobic (composting) or anaerobic (digestion) processing. See WWR 2 for a Task Force recommendation on composting). Anaerobic digestion serves as a fuel source for creating “bio-gas” (principally methane) that can serve as an energy source. Companies are willing to install a bio-gas digester and pay the upfront capital cost recouping the money invested with the energy sold back onto the market Implementation of a organic digester differs from capture via pipes and linings of methane generated “naturally” in the landfill as the organic material in garbage rots. Instead, this recommendation centers on the creation of a digester plant where separated organic materials would be taken for processing. This plant could be located at the Logan Landfill, at the Bozeman Wastewater Treatment Facility, or somewhere else. . Bio-gas is a carbon neutral energy source which can be used in various applications such as:  Electricity—for electrical production with combined heat and power (CHP) units for residential and commercial applications.  Heat—Direct burning applications in biogas boilers for industrial thermal applications, residential and commercial  Natural gas substitute—Biogas can be implemented in any natural gas application by direct burning or further scrubbing.  Biofuel—Direct use in biogas fleet and as a LPG/ natural gas substitute after processing for fleet applications. SUMMARY OF BENEFITS  Reduce organic waste volume  Produce energy in the form of heat, electricity, and fuel  Extend life of landfill  Prevent the creation of LFG and the emission of GHGs  Provide a proven and industrial scale technology SIMILAR ACTIONS IN OTHER CITIES http://www.anaerobic-digestion.com/html/msw_biogas_plants_in_china.php REFERENCES AND OTHER RESOURCES www.biofermenergy.com CARBON REDUCTION POTENTIAL TBD DEPARTMENT GSWMD SAVINGS/COST TBD TIMELINE 2011-2014 Feasibility Study COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORTFOR ACTION Municipal CAP EXISTING ACTIONS PARTNERSHIPS Belgrade, Logan, Three Forks, Manhattan, Gallatin County JURISDICTION GSWMD City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 97 Appendix A Raw Data City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 98 Appendix B Mayors Climate Protection Agreement City of Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan 2011 Page 99 Appendix C CAPPA Calculations