Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020 Bozeman Climate Plan - Appendices C & D
Appendix C: Climate Team Workshop Summaries C1 APPENDIX C: CLIMATE TEAM WORKSHOP SUMMARIES BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN – Climate Team Workshop 1 Summary October 22, 2019 1:00 – 3:30 p.m. Commission Room, Bozeman City Hall, 21 N Rouse Ave, Bozeman, MT Workshop Objectives •Meet the Climate Team members •Develop an understanding of the project purpose and process •Explore a climate vision and potential climate goals •Brainstorm potential climate solutions Agenda 1:00 p.m. Welcome from the Mayor 1:05 Introductions & 3 Vision Words Activity 1:25 Project Grounding 2:00 Short Break 2:10 Vision Themes 2:15 Exploring Goals & Climate Solutions Group Activity 3:20 Wrap-up and Next Steps Participants Name (last, first) Affiliation Climate Team Members Bellamy, Heather NorthWestern Energy Blackler, Kristin Montana State University Blessing, Sara Bozeman Sunrise Movement Bode, Emma Forward Montana Boyer, Jennifer Farm 51 Bushnell, John NorthWestern Energy Carpenter, Randy Future West Christenson, Lori Gallatin County Health Department (alternate for Matt Kelley) Cunningham, Terry Bozeman City Commission Dorsi, Chris Montana Weatherization Center-MSU Extension Drake, Robert Bridger Bowl (alternate for Bonnie Hickey) Fox, Jeff Renewable Northwest (via phone) Frandsen, Eli Montana State University-Student Body Giannetti, Danae Western Transportation Institute (for David Kack) Grenier, Heather Human Resources Development Council Jackson, Erin Gallatin Valley Farm to School Appendix C - Page 1 APPENDIX C: CLIMATE TEAM WORKSHOP SUMMARIES Name (last, first) Affiliation Jamison, Danica United Way Khumalo, Libby World Wildlife Fund Kirk, Karin Freelance Writing, Science Education Klimpke, Jason Mystery Ranch Lewendal, Anders Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Mastel, Candace Bozeman Area Bicycle Board, MSU Planning Melvin, Addie JM Engineering Mitchell, Owen Bozeman High School-Student Body Nash Wanzek, Riley Montana State University-Student Body Naumann, Chris Downtown Bozeman Partnership Pope, Chris Montana Legislature-HD 65 Rowley, Nicole Gallatin County Schack, Lindsey Love Schack Architects Sinnott, Jay Bozeman Climate Partners Vlases, Claire Bozeman High School-Student Body Wilkinson, Bridget Bozeman Community Foundation Willey, Edie Bozeman Health City of Bozeman Staff Meyer, Natalie Climate Plan Project Manager, City of Bozeman Sustainability Andreasen, Tanya City of Bozeman Neighborhoods Handelin, Kevin City of Bozeman Solid Waste, Recycling & Compost Henderson, Jon City of Bozeman Strategic Services Higinbotham, Heather City of Bozeman Sustainability Jadin, Addi City of Bozeman Parks Lonsdale, Taylor City of Bozeman Transportation Mehrens, Kyle City of Bozeman Stormwater Nordquest, Alex City of Bozeman Forestry Rosenberg, Sarah City of Bozeman Community Development Consulting Team Dorsey, Judy Executive Project Manager, Brendle Group Ide, Britt Energy Expert, Ide Energy Sommer, Shelby Project Manager, Brendle Group Mayor Welcome Mayor Cyndy Andrus welcomed everyone to the first Climate Team workshop. Highlights of her remarks include: • Thanks for being here to address one of the most serious issues of our time • The Mayor and City of Bozeman has been working on climate issues for some time • Supported City Commission, worked on our resiliency plan • Looked at own habits • Can do more and better work • A couple weeks ago, went to Mountain Towns 2030 in Park City • Coalition of 34 mountain communities • To discuss setting ambitious goals for carbon reduction by 2030 Appendix C - Page 2 • Quite sobering, but inspiring at end of day • 3 things thinking about differently • Need to change the language and rethink how we talk about climate solutions and leaving world in better place • Been on commission for 10 years dangling the carrot for behavior change; believe it's time to put a little hammer to this issue Not everyone will be comfortable with that • We need to take some bold steps; which requires partnerships and community buy-in Forging ground with partners we don't always think of as traditional partners • In spirit of that - a proclamation to you as you embark on this work • Proclamation of intent related to the City of Bozeman’s Climate Action Plan (see photos below and attached file for full proclamation) Whereas statements • Strategic plan calls for Climate Action plan as a prioritized action item Therefore • Bozeman shall be a leader that identifies bold targets for carbon reduction and climate change mitigation • Will create a policy document that leads to city's policies, capital planning and city budgets • Will pursue partnerships with other municipalities and our utility provider to reach a goal of 100% net renewable energy for the City of Bozeman by 2030 • Call upon all the important partners to join us Signed 10/22/19 (with movement to tears) • Bought a book - Drawdown, Paul Hawken Quote from Park City - Our ancestors were innocent, makes us believe we are victims, if change our mindset that climate change is happening for us – it's an opportunity for an innovation to build and affect change for creativity, compassion, and genius Appendix C - Page 3 Introductions & 3 Vision Words Activity Natalie, Sustainability Program Manager and Bozeman Climate Team Project Manager for the City of Bozeman, welcomed everyone, provided an overview of the agenda and workshop objectives. Judy Dorsey, President of Brendle Group, introduced Brendle Group as a sustainability consulting firm based out of Fort Collins, Colorado (slide 5). She introduced the project team (slide 6). Shelby Sommer, Project Manager for the consulting team, facilitated climate team introductions and the three vision words activity. See the list on page 1 for all workshop participants names and organizations. In preparation for the workshop, team members were asked to think about what the Bozeman Climate Plan means to them and the greater community. They asked themselves questions like: • What do you hope the plan will address? • What should we not lose sight of? • What is most important to you as it relates to Bozeman’s climate future? Each person identified three words that represent his/her/their vision for the Bozeman Climate Plan. Team members shared their three “vision words” during their introductions during Workshop 1. The words are illustrated in the photos of the flip chart notes below. A word cloud was generated during the workshop break and is included in the Vision Themes section of this summary. Appendix C - Page 4 Project Grounding Karin Kirk, geologist, freelance writer and Yale Climate Connections expert, presented “Everything you need to know about climate change…in 10 minutes” (see slides 9-35). Highlights of her remarks include the following (numbers correspond to slide numbers): • 10 - NOAA average temperature chart, pulled data for Gallatin County • 12 - We know what’s causing the warming. We’re taking ‘fossil’ carbon out of deep geologic storage and burning it. • 13 - The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily been rising – adding ever more insulation to the planet. It’s like wearing an extra puffy coat. All the time! • 15 - If you look at today’s CO2 trend over a longer time scale, it’s really astonishing. Here you can see the rhythm of the last 4 ice ages. Followed by a HUGE spike in CO2. That’s us. But hey – isn’t it just a natural cycle? That’s the #1 myth about climate change. Does this spike look natural to you? • 16 - Here’s an example. A science textbook put out by a political lobbying organization. • 18 - But the good thing is that we know the answers too! Burn less fossil fuels. • 19 - We kinda sorta know how to roll out the solutions, but it’s not exactly straightforward and all the people who want to fight about climate change should take their fight right here. So, how should we go about doing this? What choices should we make? • 22 - And here’s how fast, and how dramatically we need to stop it to stay in the ‘safe’ zone. The sooner we do it. The less drastic the dropoff. This graph is called the ski slope. The longer we wait, the gnarlier the slope. • 24 - Lots of places where we disagree and if you feel yourself getting into hot water, it’s not gonna work. Find another avenue, or another person. • 25 - Anytime you get into the back and forth – stop. It never works. • 26 - You’re just back to the bull elk. • 27 - Instead, try this. Be open to what the other person is going to say. Be ready. Be responsive. • 31 - So, what do you say. Next, Natalie provided an overview of the project including the following points (see slides 36-39): • The City of Bozeman has already agreed to upholding Paris Climate Agreement, this process will explore more specifically what this means for Bozeman. • 7 focus areas and two cross-cutting themes will be addressed. • This effort builds on various related efforts: • 2008 Municipal Climate Action Plan • 2011 Community Climate Action Plan • 2019 Climate Vulnerability & Resiliency Assessment • NOAA indicated that 2017 was the costliest on record for natural disasters. • There are already many local climate action success stories to report - see the display boards for a few examples. Judy shared highlights from the Climate Profile and summarized “where are we now?” and “where do we want to go” with respect to existing goals and commitments that provide a foundation for this planning effort. Highlighted included the following (see slides 40-49): • Running start at climate action • Inventory numbers are based on the 2016 Emissions Inventory • 88% of emissions come from transportation and buildings • Electricity, natural gas, and gasoline are the three big sources of emissions (~80% of emissions) • 25-50% reduction reflects the spirit of the Paris Climate Agreement applied to Bozeman Appendix C - Page 5 • As the US backs out of the Paris Agreement, US Mayors stepped up and created the Mayors Climate Agreement • At the statewide level, a Climate Solutions Plan is running concurrently with this plan - provisional goals to test through this process • Carbon neutral electricity by 2035 • Net zero GHG emissions economy-wide by a date TBD • This process will involve setting some provisional goals to test and vet. Vision Themes Words from the 3 Vision Words activity were pulled into Word Cloud software to generate the following vision image. Note that in general, the words that appear in larger text were mentioned more frequently than words in smaller text. Exploring Goals & Climate Solutions Group Activity Participants were assigned to one of 6 focus areas for breakout group discussions: • Buildings • Community Development • Consumption & Waste • Energy & Utilities • Greenspace & Natural Systems • Transportation The breakout group instructions included: 1. Each table has a facilitator and discussion guide. Appendix C - Page 6 2. Facilitator notes group participants on discussion guide. 3. Facilitator guides the conversation using the following prompts and time guidelines. 4. Facilitator takes notes and helps identify common themes for report outs. Discussion topics included: • Goal Alignment (20 min) • What would success look like? • Relationship to Paris Climate Agreement? Goal ambition? • Equity issues to consider? • Solution Exploration (30 min) Brainstorm & Categorize Solutions • Mitigation Solutions: Lead to direct GHG emissions reductions • Resiliency Solutions: Help the community prevent, withstand, respond do, or recover from a disruption • Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions: Do both! What solutions address cross-cutting themes like climate equity and human health and well-being? What city assets should be considered? Detailed notes from each focus are discussion are provided as an appendix. Photos of summary notes from the report-outs are provided below, followed by photos of the Climate Team discussing goals and brainstorming solutions. Appendix C - Page 7 Wrap-up & Next Steps Shelby concluded the meeting with a summary of upcoming meetings and next steps (slide 57): • Attend the Community Forum Wednesday, October 23 4:30 to 6:30 pm Story Mill Community Center • Take note of the City Commission briefing Monday, December 16 Project orientation & direction • Vision statement • Provisional goal • Anticipate a homework assignment (in the form of an online survey) the week of Nov. 18 (due Dec. 1) • Keep an eye out for the Workshop #2 date (tentatively Tuesday, December 17 or Wednesday, December 18, time to be determined) Please contact Natalie Meyer if you have any questions or concerns, especially if you are aware of any major conflicts with either of the potential Workshop #2 dates. Thanks for a productive workshop and for being an essential part of this planning process! Appendix C - Page 8 Buildings Facilitator: Heather Higinbotham Davies Group Members: Chris Dorsi, Judy Dorsey, Addie Melvin, Lindsey Schack, Claire Vlases, Riley Wanzek Goal Alignment What would success look like for this focus area? (explore and discuss both quantitative and qualitative measures of success) What is the relationship of this focus area to the overall Paris Climate Agreement? How ambitious would goals and impacts from this focus area need to be to achieve deep carbon reductions? What are the equity issues we should be considering in this focus area? • The value of building efficiency is recognized by consumer/buyers, realtors – education that shifts the market • More passive homes (rated at 90% emissions reduction) – audacious solutions, showing we can make any structure net zero • Language/education clarifying NZE vs carbon neutral; embodied energy and construction waster vs operational energy; and flow chart matching communications to audience and decision points in building ownership • Address the fiscal impacts of energy solutions and seek to achieve revenue neutral solutions • Consumers/appraisers/lenders understand the value of smaller homes • The mis-perception of cost premium for higher performing buildings is debunked • Vastly reduced emissions from both commercial and residential buildings • Electrification of thermal loads as electricity supply approaches 100% renewable energy • Develop separate sub-targets for residential/commercial, new/existing buildings, efficiency/renewable supply • Smaller homes • The homes we expect to create with these efforts are universally more healthy Solution Exploration What ideas do you have for Bozeman to make progress on this focus area to achieve your definition of success? Try to define whether your solutions address greenhouse gas mitigation, climate resiliency/adaption, or both. • Mitigation solutions lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions reductions • Resiliency solutions help the community prevent, withstand, respond to, or recover from a disruption Appendix C - Page 9 Mitigation Solutions Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions Resiliency Solutions • Recycling to lower embodied energy building materials such as glass as engineered fill under slabs and tilled sheet rock as soil amendment • Tax rebates • Identify which older buildings are least efficient through thermal imaging/drone technology or other methods • App that shows electrical usage to affect behavior change in neighborhoods; feedback loops • Reduced fee incentives for large commercial buildings • Green features on MLS for residential point of sale, appraisals • Charge higher fees for larger homes • Charge more further from city center • Net zero for new commercial buildings with public funding • Code reviews with incentives (or required) on older, existing buildings • Public education campaigns with case studies • Smart grid/smart metering technologies • Sustainable materials management • Retro commissioning commercial buildings • PACE/WPACE financing • Incentives for 3rd party green building certifications – Passive, Living Building Challenge, LEED, etc • Multi-use live/work and density; more dense multi-family • Yard signs on energy performance – positive examples • Stretch code – advertise you’re a better builder • Funding for builder training • Contractor network for retrofits • Split incentive for renters • Fire, drought resistance in buildings • Low energy cooling systems • Distributed generation • Solar ready • Incentives for orientation and south facing roof pitches What solutions will address cross-cutting themes like climate equity and human health and well-being? • The poorest of the poor live in the worst of the worst buildings in town • Low-income housing stock is often poor-quality, hard to justify putting more money into them • 55% mobile homes in Montana – low income • Encourage more support for low income weatherization programs • Gap between energy audit and implementation • Fund blower door testing (concerns with asbestos in older homes) • Low energy cooling systems – even if well sealed, people with health issues, elderly, etc need cooling during wildfires (air filtration) What City Assets should be considered? Appendix C - Page 10 Community Development Facilitator: Sarah Rosenberg Group Members: Chris Naumann, Randy Carpenter, Jay Sinnott, Eli Frandsen, Nicole Rowley, Shelby Sommer Goal Alignment What would success look like for this focus area? (explore and discuss both quantitative and qualitative measures of success) What is the relationship of this focus area to the overall Paris Climate Agreement? How ambitious would goals and impacts from this focus area need to be to achieve deep carbon reductions? What are the equity issues we should be considering in this focus area? • Alternative transportation – reduce VMT • Housing affordability in town (people are moving further out and commuting more) • Housing diversity/density – mix of housing types to support population and commercial uses • Commercial nodes and mix of land uses in/near residential neighborhoods • Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that prioritizes transit and VMT reductions • Incentives to increase residential development in town • Reduction in sprawl • Code and growth policy doesn’t have aggressive enough goals and standards to achieve deep carbon reductions, just maintain or potentially slight decreases • Close relationship between land use and transportation and emissions reductions • Regional scale issues and approach needed • Potential to incrementally reduce vehicle trips through land use patterns • Ability to incrementally encourage electric vehicle and energy efficiency through code requirements • Housing prices (the further away you live, lower housing prices but higher transportation costs) • Scarcity mindset influencing housing costs (not taking into consideration other factors like transportation or utilities) • Public health (more mixed use development and walkability) • Access to greenspace and parks and other community amenities Solution Exploration What ideas do you have for Bozeman to make progress on this focus area to achieve your definition of success? Try to define whether your solutions address greenhouse gas mitigation, climate resiliency/adaption, or both. • Mitigation solutions lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions reductions • Resiliency solutions help the community prevent, withstand, respond to, or recover from a disruption Appendix C - Page 11 Mitigation Solutions Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions Resiliency Solutions • Optional stretch code for new construction/major remodels that builds on International Building Code and Development Code • Labeling/certifying new buildings for energy efficiency or other green ratings (e.g., LEED) • Provide incentives for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy installations during building retrofits/upgrades • Offer funding to offset upfront energy efficiency improvement costs • Extend bus routes • Parking reductions to increase transit use • Annexation and growth strategy to focus and shape development in urban area • Develop/encourage forested carbon sinks (more trees in urban area) • Relax design standards for solar photovoltaic installations • Update/review the Unified Development Code to better integrate climate mitigation/resiliency requirements and/or incentives • Coordinate regionally and with Gallatin County to focus growth in city/urban area • Explore a sister cities program with Missoula to compare and share mitigation and resiliency best practices • Offer priority/expedited development review for projects that commit to certain levels of green requirements (e.g., LEED ND or similar) • Encourage/incentivize more dwelling units in existing neighborhoods (accessory dwelling units) • Link all City plans and regulations with climate priorities and growth policy, including the Capital Improvement Plan and Unified Development Ordinance • Right-size street infrastructure (don’t overbuild) and accommodate multiple modes and green infrastructure • Provide development bonuses (e.g., additional height, parking reductions, etc.) in exchange for density, alternative energy, high efficiency construction, etc. • Natural resource protection What solutions will address cross-cutting themes like climate equity and human health and well-being? • Fund that can go towards those who cannot afford changes • Give alternatives and make sure pieces are in place before enacting sweeping change (e.g., reduce/eliminate parking count requirements and/or charge for parking but also make sure transit and other mode options are available) • Grow bus systems and service areas What City Assets should be considered? • Align Capital Improvements Plan, Unified Development Ordinance and Growth Policy Appendix C - Page 12 Consumption & Waste Facilitator: Kevin Handelin, Tanya Andreasen Group Members: Kristin Blackler, Emma Bode, Jason Klimpke Goal Alignment What would success look like for this focus area? (explore and discuss both quantitative and qualitative measures of success) What is the relationship of this focus area to the overall Paris Climate Agreement? How ambitious would goals and impacts from this focus area need to be to achieve deep carbon reductions? What are the equity issues we should be considering in this focus area? • Negative CO2 emissions from waste • Regulation: discourage • Target numbers (incentivize) • Compostable waste: postconsumer food waste • Residential compost • Commercial compost • Diverting food waste – humans & grocery stores • Decreasing barriers for commercial kitchens to divert food waste to feeding livestock • Buy-in by county members • Communication • Problems: o Confusion about what is recyclable o 35% of City of Bozeman customers have mixed stream recycling totes o Curbside compost & yard waste o What do you do with compost once you have it • Scope 3 emissions – 25% decrease from 2009 levels by 2020 (Have hit 32% in 2018) • Goal is to be carbon negative by 2035 • Negative CO2 emissions from waste • Preferred purchasing/procurement o Compostable products o Decrease in waste products • Provider/consumer coalition to drive education and create pervasive culture change and shift norms across populations (e.g., tourists, visitors, students) o 0-100 o Schools o Private industry o Agriculture o MSU o Recycling and solid waste services • Ban on single use plastic (burden on small businesses) • Cost of recycling bin/activity of recycling • Assess to information about what is recyclable Appendix C - Page 13 Solution Exploration What ideas do you have for Bozeman to make progress on this focus area to achieve your definition of success? Try to define whether your solutions address greenhouse gas mitigation, climate resiliency/adaption, or both. • Mitigation solutions lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions reductions • Resiliency solutions help the community prevent, withstand, respond to, or recover from a disruption Mitigation Solutions Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions Resiliency Solutions • MSU waste audit of community o Point in time numbers to drive target numbers • Trucks – weigh waste • Opt out of opt in for recycling service (and compost?) • Incentivize (communicate recycling and compost opportunities) • Empower consumer information • Commercial: “this is recyclable” signage • Reuse of glass in Bozeman (concrete) or reduce consumption) • Food diversion to livestock • Compost to agriculture • Collection vehicles – convert diesel to CNG, electric, or biodiesel • Empower people – information and decision making about “the right thing” • Expanded recycling and compost programs • Landfill – methane capture and power at Logan • Mining landfills What solutions will address cross-cutting themes like climate equity and human health and well- being? What City Assets should be considered? • Solid Waste Department is an asset. • Goal is to be carbon negative by 2035. • We will use our resources to educate public about individual steps they can take to make a difference. Appendix C - Page 14 Energy & Utilities Facilitator: Natalie Meyer, Britt Ide Group Members: Heather Bellamy, John Bushnell, Terry Cunningham, Jeff Fox, Karin Kirk, Owen Mitchell, Chris Pope Goal Alignment What would success look like for this focus area? (explore and discuss both quantitative and qualitative measures of success) What is the relationship of this focus area to the overall Paris Climate Agreement? How ambitious would goals and impacts from this focus area need to be to achieve deep carbon reductions? What are the equity issues we should be considering in this focus area? • Today – 62% renewable energy • 100% clean energy (CO2 free) within city limits by 2030 • 70% by 2022 • First city procurement options in 2022 • Bozeman coop with NorthWest Energy (NWE) (identify sources) • Bozeman City – MSU & NWE storage (public safety building – storage ready) • By 2021 develop City communication plan • Partner with “sister” cities • Electrify the fleet • Incent behavior (top 10 things to save energy today) • Geothermal • Solutions needed related to gas heating and load balancing • Collaboration with stakeholders • On track • Partner with MSU and Oracle • Bozeman leads MT Clean Cities Alliance by (Date TBD) and Clean Energy Caucus (PSC) legislature • Cost • Cross-subsidization Appendix C - Page 15 Solution Exploration What ideas do you have for Bozeman to make progress on this focus area to achieve your definition of success? Try to define whether your solutions address greenhouse gas mitigation, climate resiliency/adaption, or both. • Mitigation solutions lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions reductions • Resiliency solutions help the community prevent, withstand, respond to, or recover from a disruption Mitigation Solutions Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions Resiliency Solutions • Efficiency – buildings & water • Demand side management • Education • Communication • Grid modernization – advanced metering • Time of use rate • Weatherization • Co-gen (wastewater treatment) • Landfill • Micro-transport nuclear • Address power outages • Storage What solutions will address cross-cutting themes like climate equity and human health and well- being? • Commission lead request for smart meters • Incentivize electric vehicles (storage, demand side, etc. – put charging stations everywhere) • Collaborate with rural communities to build aggregated community solar and wind in other areas (cheaper land) • Building codes – new buildings electric and solar ready • Address renters What City Assets should be considered? • Appendix C - Page 16 Greenslace & Natural Systems Facilitator: Addi Jadin, Alex Nordquest, Kyle Mehrens Group Members: Libby Khumalo, Jennifer Boyer, Bridget Wilkinson, Danica Jamison Goal Alignment What would success look like for this focus area? (explore and discuss both quantitative and qualitative measures of success) What is the relationship of this focus area to the overall Paris Climate Agreement? How ambitious would goals and impacts from this focus area need to be to achieve deep carbon reductions? What are the equity issues we should be considering in this focus area? • Water o Drought tolerant o Increase pipe capacity o Increase flood resiliency o Increase infiltration system o Increase permeability (sponge city) o Decrease residential water consumption o Increase water quality (decrease runoff & toxins, increase phosphorous-free) o Low Impact development (LID) o Protect and restore wetlands, keep mitigation in our watershed o Green Roofs • Agriculture/Land o Retaining productive farmland o Integrate food into neighborhoods Agrihoods Community Gardens Urban Farming 1000 new gardens Grass to gardens o % locally-generated food o Redefining beauty • • Proximity to parks & greenspace for all • Who has access to local food production systems • Safe & welcoming, inclusive community • Acknowledge the privilege to be in a stable environment to be discussing and planning for climate changes • Safe havens, shelter, refuge • Greenspace to reduce mental health Appendix C - Page 17 o Increase resiliency of plant species o Increase regenerative species/soil? o Pollinator, bird & small mammals/wildlife o Increase number of trees per capita o Increase carbon sequestration o Increase natural playgrounds o Increase bicycle commuter routes Solution Exploration What ideas do you have for Bozeman to make progress on this focus area to achieve your definition of success? Try to define whether your solutions address greenhouse gas mitigation, climate resiliency/adaption, or both. • Mitigation solutions lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions reductions • Resiliency solutions help the community prevent, withstand, respond to, or recover from a disruption Mitigation Solutions Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions Resiliency Solutions • Natural weed mitigation • Encourage gardening and carbon farming • Trees, trees, trees • Community agreements to meet milestones • Acknowledge the privilege to be at the table – connect to sister cities • Explore homeowner association influence and ability to support city goals & education • Appendix C - Page 18 Transportation Facilitator: Taylor Lonsdale Group Members: Danae Gianetti, Edie Willey, Lori Christenson, Robert Drake, Heather Grenier, Candace Mastel, Jon Henderson Goal Alignment What would success look like for this focus area? (explore and discuss both quantitative and qualitative measures of success) What is the relationship of this focus area to the overall Paris Climate Agreement? How ambitious would goals and impacts from this focus area need to be to achieve deep carbon reductions? What are the equity issues we should be considering in this focus area? • Mode share – qualify, set goals • Design decisions • Funding allocation • Encourage safe active transportation • Mindset relating to public transportation • Decrease in emissions More people riding bus Increase in auto efficiency Increase in carpooling Comfort level of choices Land use choices Reframe the conversation • Ambitious – the most ambitious • Have significant influence • Be tenacious • Keep momentum • Be leaders • Could make the majority of the goal just with transportation • Where are investments being made • Options for all ages and abilities • Get out of silos • Can we be inconvenienced • Generally adding choice improves equity; careful with details Appendix C - Page 19 Solution Exploration What ideas do you have for Bozeman to make progress on this focus area to achieve your definition of success? Try to define whether your solutions address greenhouse gas mitigation, climate resiliency/adaption, or both. • Mitigation solutions lead to direct greenhouse gas emissions reductions • Resiliency solutions help the community prevent, withstand, respond to, or recover from a disruption Mitigation Solutions Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions Resiliency Solutions • Framing message to reach all groups (deniers) • Electrify buses • EV charging locations • Identify at risk populations and locations • Limit growth • Revise design standards • Frame message in relatable terms • Give information at decision points (relocation) • Raise awareness • Incentivize less convenient choice • Target populations (who do we want do what?) • Target health/mental health • Engage large organizations • Publicize • Incentivize • Expand options • Land use pattern changes • Public transportation can help with evacuations, to appointments, etc. • Options to add resiliency What solutions will address cross-cutting themes like climate equity and human health and well- being? • Disincentivize (charge to park) What City Assets should be considered? Appendix C - Page 20 Appendix C - Page 21 Appendix C - Page 22 Bozeman Climate Plan Climate Team Workshop #1 October 22, 2019 Appendix C - Page 23 WELCOME Mayor Cyndy Andrus Appendix C - Page 24 Agenda Time Agenda Item 1:00 p.m.Welcome from Mayor Cyndy Andrus 1:05 p.m.Introductions & 3 Vision Words 1:25 p.m.Project Grounding 2:00 p.m.Break 2:10 p.m.Vision Themes 2:15 p.m.Exploring Goals & Climate Solutions 3:20 p.m.Wrap-up & Next Steps Appendix C - Page 25 INTRODUCTIONS Appendix C - Page 26 Projects Across 30 States Hundreds of Projects +150 Clients Served 2,000+ energy assessments completed 12 million Metric Tons of greenhouse gas reductions identified Engaged1000s Brendle Group by the Numbers in sustainability planning 370 million gallons of water savings proposed Currently featured in the Smithsonian Places of Invention ExhibitAppendix C - Page 27 Meet the Project Team! Judy Dorsey Executive Project Manager Brendle Group Shelby Sommer Project Manager Brendle Group Sarah Martin Resiliency Planner Brendle Group Becca Stock Lead Engineer Brendle Group Katie Kershman Document Dev. & Design Brendle Group Megan Moore Engagement Coordinator Logan Simpson Bruce Meighen Plan Integrator Logan Simpson Natalie Meyer Sustainability Program Manager City of Bozeman Heather Higinbotham Energy Conservation Technician City of Bozeman Jon Henderson Strategic Services Director City of Bozeman Britt Ide Energy Expert Ide Energy Appendix C - Page 28 Introductions Name Organization & role Share your 3 vision words for the climate plan Appendix C - Page 29 PROJECT GROUNDING Why are we all here? Appendix C - Page 30 Everything you need to know about climate change Karin Kirk Yale Climate Connections Bridger Bowl …in 10 minutes Appendix C - Page 31 Climate change is real 1996 Appendix C - Page 32 Climate change is real 100 yr average temp Appendix C - Page 33 Image by Greg Goebel (CC BY-NC 2.0) We know the causes Appendix C - Page 34 We know the causes Appendix C - Page 35 43% more insulation since 1750 greenhouse gases trap heat Appendix C - Page 36 We know the causes “But…. it’s just a cycle! Appendix C - Page 37 Experts agree Appendix C - Page 38 What percentage of experts agree? Appendix C - Page 39 We know the solutions Appendix C - Page 40 We even know (mostly) how to implement them But HERE is the place for debate Appendix C - Page 41 World energy use Appendix C - Page 42 World energy use Appendix C - Page 43 But can we change… quickly? Appendix C - Page 44 How to talk about climate change Appendix C - Page 45 Places of disagreement •Taxes •Al Gore •Political anything Appendix C - Page 46 Get away from talking points Appendix C - Page 47 Don’t do this photo by Linda TannerAppendix C - Page 48 Try this instead Appendix C - Page 49 Tell me more about why you think that? Appendix C - Page 50 Or better yet, this Appendix C - Page 51 Places of easy agreement •Jobs •American competitiveness in the world •Energy efficiency •Saving money •Public health/pollution •Reduce influence of corporations “Americans are proven innovators and problem solvers…” Appendix C - Page 52 Strategies that often work •Be nice! •Appreciate where your audience is coming from. •Respect their intelligence and their values. •Frame your argument to match the values of your audience. •Be factual. Use facts that are relevant to your audience. •Use stories. A personal angle can be more convincing than data. •Make sure they can ‘save face’ while also, maybe changing their mind. •Offer a path forward. (motivate, inspire, lead by example, make it easy for others to follow) •Be nice.Appendix C - Page 53 Public opinion Appendix C - Page 54 Public opinion in Gallatin County Is it warming? Are humans causing it? Do most scientists think that humans are causing climate change ? 52%US avg 53% 68%US avg 67% 55%US avg 52% Are you worried?59%US avg 60% Appendix C - Page 55 Public opinion in Gallatin County Should we regulate CO2? Carbon tax paid by fossil fuel companies? Require 20% renewables from utilities? 64%US avg 66% 70%US avg 72% 62%US avg 62% Appendix C - Page 56 Solutions can be popular What are our immediate benefits? •Public health •Efficiency •Saving money •Less traffic •Less pollution •Resilient agriculture •More prepared for extreme weather •And so on! Appendix C - Page 57 Project Overview Goals 1.Align the City’s emissions reduction goals in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement. 2.Create an actionable project implementation and policy-making guide. 3.Include a diverse group of stakeholders in shaping Bozeman’s response to climate change. Define an emissions reduction target while adding climate resilience with an emphasis on our communities most vulnerable members. Appendix C - Page 58 Climate Team Roles & Responsibilities 1.Attending three 2-3 hour facilitated workshops. 2.Actively participate and engage during workshops by providing input, ideas, and feedback. 3.Represent your department, organization,and community. 4.Be a critical eye for credibility, transparency,and accuracy. 5.Review documents and solution analysis as needed. 6.Help generate public engagement and enthusiasm for the planning process, providing input to public forums and project communications and outreach efforts. Appendix C - Page 59 Previous Efforts Appendix C - Page 60 Success Stories Appendix C - Page 61 WHERE ARE WE NOW? Climate Profile Appendix C - Page 62 Appendix C - Page 63 GHG Emissions trends 2012 to 2016 Appendix C - Page 64 Impacts of Climate Change in Bozeman More Extreme Heat More Flood Events Longer & More Intense Drought Reduced Mountain Snowpack More Severe Wildfire More Severe Winter Storms Appendix C - Page 65 Where are we heading? Appendix C - Page 66 WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? Climate Profile Appendix C - Page 67 Paris Climate Agreement 2015 International Agreement Aims to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. US Targets & Status March 2016: First NDC submission from US •Committed to 26% GHG emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2025 •Intention to make best efforts to reduce emissions by 28% June 2017: US to cease all participation on climate change mitigation •Agreement specifies a 4-year exit process •Exit will be complete on November 4, 2020 Sources: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement and https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20America%20First/U.S.A.%20First%20NDC%20Submission.pdfAppendix C - Page 68 Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement Bozeman joined the Climate Mayor’s Agreement in 2017 Commits Bozeman to adopt, honor, and uphold commitments to the Paris Agreement goals Source: http://climatemayors.org/Appendix C - Page 69 State of Montana Context Executive Order Joins US Climate Alliance Establishes Climate Solutions Council Commits to issuing a Montana Climate Solutions Plan by June 1, 2020 Interim Goals Net greenhouse gas neutrality for average annual electric loads in the state by no later than 2035 Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide at a date to be determined by the Council Appendix C - Page 70 Goal Setting: Provisional Goals to Test 25-30% GHG emissions reduction below 2008 levels by 2025 (spirit of Paris) Net zero electricity by 2035 Net zero GHG emissions by 2050 Appendix C - Page 71 BREAK 10 minutes Appendix C - Page 72 Vision Themes Appendix C - Page 73 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS Strategy Brainstorming Appendix C - Page 74 Small Group Instructions Buildings Community Development Consumption & Waste Energy & Utilities Greenspace & Natural Systems Transportation 1.Each table has a facilitator and discussion guide. 2.Facilitator notes group participants on discussion guide. 3.Facilitator guides the conversation using the following prompts and time guidelines. 4.Facilitator takes notes and helps identify common themes for report outs. City AssetsHuman Health & Well-Being Climate Equity Appendix C - Page 75 Discussion Guide Goal Alignment (20 min) •What would success look like? •Relationship to Paris Climate Agreement? Goal ambition? •Equity issues to consider? Solution Exploration (30 min) •Brainstorm & Categorize Solutions •Mitigation Solutions: Lead to direct GHG emissions reductions •Resiliency Solutions: Help the community prevent, withstand, respond do, or recover from a disruption •Mitigation & Resiliency Solutions: Do both! •What solutions address cross-cutting themes like climate equity and human health and well-being? •What city assets should be considered? GHG Mitigation Resiliency Appendix C - Page 76 Report Out (3:10 pm) In 2 minutes or less, please share: Goals •What would success look like? •How ambitious would goals in this focus area need to be to achieve deep carbon reductions? Solutions •What are a few of the climate solutions that you identified? •Are they mitigation or resiliency solutions, or both? Appendix C - Page 77 WRAP UP & NEXT STEPS What’s next? Appendix C - Page 78 Next Steps Community Activities Community Forum Wednesday, October 23 4:30 to 6:30 pm Story Mill Community Center City Commission Briefing •Monday, December 16 •Project orientation & direction •Vision statement •Provisional goal Climate Team Post-workshop 1 homework •Vision statement •Provisional goal feedback Workshop 2 •Tuesday, December 17 Appendix C - Page 79 BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN – Climate Team Workshop 2 Summary December 18, 2019 12:30 – 3:30 p.m. Commission Room, Bozeman City Hall, 21 N Rouse Ave, Bozeman, MT Workshop Objectives • Recap outcomes from last Climate Team Meeting, Community Forum, and City Commission • Develop a shared understanding of scenario planning • Explore alternative pathways to achieve provisional goals • Brainstorm greatest risks by focus area and identify potential solutions Agenda 12:30 p.m. Welcome & Project Updates 1:00 Emissions Reduction Scenarios – Part 1 2:00 Break 2:15 Emissions Reduction Scenarios – Part 2 3:00 Vulnerability Assessment and Resiliency 3:20 Wrap up and Next Steps Participants Name (last, first) Affiliation Climate Team Members Bellamy, Heather NorthWestern Energy Blackler, Kristin Montana State University Blessing, Sara Bozeman Sunrise Movement Bode, Emma Forward Montana Boyer, Jennifer Farm 51 Bushnell, John NorthWestern Energy Carpenter, Randy Future West Catron, Wyatt Montana Weatherization Center Christenson, Lori Gallatin County Health Department Cunningham, Terry Bozeman City Commission Dorsi, Chris Montana Weatherization Center-MSU Extension Fischer, Douglas Bozeman School District Fox, Jeff Renewable Northwest Frandsen, Eli Montana State University-Student Body Giannetti, Danae Western Transportation Institute Hickey, Bonnie Bridger Bowl Jackson, Erin Gallatin Valley Farm to School Appendix C - Page 80 Name (last, first) Affiliation Jamison, Danica United Way Khumalo, Libby World Wildlife Fund Kirk, Karin Freelance Writing, Science Education Klimpke, Jason Mystery Ranch Lewendal, Anders Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Mastel, Candace Bozeman Area Bicycle Board, MSU Planning Melvin, Addie JM Engineering Mitchell, Owen Bozeman High School-Student Body Nash Wanzek, Riley Montana State University-Student Body Rowley, Nicole Gallatin County Schack, Lindsey Love Schack Architects Sinnott, Jay Bozeman Climate Partners Stoddart, Bill NorthFork Financial Vlases, Claire Bozeman High School-Student Body Willey, Edie Bozeman Health City of Bozeman Staff Andreasen, Tanya City of Bozeman Neighborhoods Greenhill, Frank City of Bozeman Stormwater Henderson, Jon City of Bozeman Strategic Services Higinbotham, Heather City of Bozeman Sustainability Jadin, Addi City of Bozeman Parks Lonsdale, Taylor City of Bozeman Transportation Meyer, Natalie City of Bozeman Sustainability Nordquest, Alex City of Bozeman Forestry Rosenberg, Sarah City of Bozeman Community Development Saunders, Chris City of Bozeman Community Development Consulting Team Dorsey, Judy Executive Project Manager, Brendle Group Sommer, Shelby Project Manager, Brendle Group Welcome & Project Updates Natalie welcomed everyone to the second workshop and shared an overview of the project and Climate Team roles and responsibilities (see slides 1-7). Shelby shared a recap of the process to-date, including a brief summary of the first Climate Team workshop, October Community Forum, Climate Team vision and goals survey, and the December 16 City Commission meeting (see slides 8 – 17). At their December 16 meeting, the City Commission voted to adopt Resolution 5118, establishing the draft vision statement and provisional goals for the Bozeman Climate Plan. At the workshop, Commissioner Cunningham provided a summary of the public comments and the Commission’s discussion. The meeting can be viewed online at: https://www.bozeman.net/services/city-tv-and-streaming-audio. The adopted vision and goals are as follows: Appendix C - Page 81 Position Statement The position statement establishes the overall intentions and direction for the City of Bozeman in the development and implementation of its Climate Plan. The words in the position statement reflect the themes from a three vision words activity shared by the Climate Team members at the workshop. The most commonly shared words were equitable, collaborative, inclusive, innovative, and ambitious. Through leadership and collaboration, the City of Bozeman will advance innovative solutions to cultivate a more equitable and resilient, low-carbon community for current and future generations. Guiding Principles The guiding principles help inform and direct City of Bozeman decision-making. The guiding principles summarize the Proclamation made by Mayor Andrus during the Climate Team workshop. Bozeman will be a leader in addressing climate change by: • Adopting bold targets for emissions reductions and renewable energy. • Weaving sustainability and resilience into the decision-making process. • Pursuing partnerships with other municipalities and our utility provider. • Seeking innovative, actionable solutions to mitigate climate change. • Inviting all Bozeman residents to join us, including current and future leaders. Vision Themes The vision themes will serve as the organizing chapters of the Climate Plan. The climate solutions will be organized under these theme-based chapters. The words in the vision themes reflect the focus area topics, blended with the vision word ideas from the Climate Team workshop and ideas shared by the public at the community forum. • Responsible and reliable renewable energy supply • Healthy, adaptive, and efficient buildings • Vibrant and resilient neighborhoods • Diverse and accessible transportation options • Comprehensive and sustainable waste reduction • Regenerative greenspace, food systems, and natural environment Note that equity, mental health and wellness, and City assets are cross-cutting topics that will be addressed in each of the theme-based chapters. Goals The Climate Plan will establish near and long-term goals for community greenhouse gas emissions reductions and climate resiliency. The following provisional goals are based on the results of the Climate Team survey and input from City staff. Targets specific to municipal operations will be developed once provisional goals are adopted. • 26% Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2025 *compared to 2008 • 100% Net Clean Electricity by 2030 • Carbon Neutral by 2050 Appendix C - Page 82 Emissions Reduction Solutions Overview Judy provided an overview of the emissions reduction scenarios purpose and development process (see slides 18 – 23). Highlights from her remarks include the following: • Emissions from building comprise 53% of total emissions. Buildings use both electricity and natural gas. • What does 2050 look like? o If we do nothing (Business as Usual), that's what we need to be planning for. o GHG forecasting is largely tied to population projections. o Forecast is informed by various City of Bozeman population growth estimates. • Potential Solutions by Focus Area • We are attempting to create a combination of emissions reduction solutions that add up to 100% by 2050. • The solutions proposed are a first attempt to lump and split, but definitely not inclusive of all solutions. These are common solutions that have some emissions reduction potential. • The color of each bar corresponds to vision theme/focus area. • The width of bar is an estimate of where Bozeman is today (minimum, continuation of current trend) and extends to a best in class scenario based on what we have seen in other communities (maximum, based on other communities and research). • Some of the bars are not starting at zero progress because there are already some existing activities and emissions reductions to take credit for. • Solutions include a mix of ideas ranging from requirements to incentives. • Polling questions focus on level of feasibility and likelihood based on what you know and have experienced. The group discussed clarifying questions and considerations related to the analysis, as follows: • Is neighborhood resiliency embedded within community development? o Yes - we're treating them as more or less the same things. • Do some of the bars actually start below zero? Are there places that we're losing ground? o Possibly, but for purposes of this analysis, we are starting assumptions at zero. • Why are there no color-coded options related to greenspace, food systems, and natural environment? o Will cover that qualitatively rather than quantitatively today because they represent more of a carbon sequestration opportunity than direct emissions reduction. Note that the quantified solutions discussed today are more directly tied to the current emissions inventory. • Current practices look to add up to approximately 35% of the goal. Is that accurate? o Yes, and more reductions are needed to reach 100%. o Also, these solutions are currently isolated for purposes of the analysis. A next step in the process will be to layer and combine them into scenarios and eliminate double counting where there are inter-relationships. • Is this plan looking at Bozeman City limits or taking more of a regional approach? o The inventory boundary is aligned with City boundaries. o Discussion that a large portion of the emissions are commuters currently outside of the community and concern that we not inadvertently push emissions outside of the inventory boundary. • How much of the information will be provided afterwards? o Will provide copies of these slides for detailed review. Today’s focus should be on group learning and sharing rather than detailed note-taking or analysis. Appendix C - Page 83 Next, Judy presented an assortment of emissions reduction solutions (see slides 25 – 57). Each started with an overview of what the solution means, followed by a quick summary of existing efforts. Then she shared examples of “best-in-class” potential for that solution, based on other community examples and research findings. After discussion, the Climate Team used keypad polling to share their feedback regarding the level of emissions reduction that Bozeman should target for each solution. The average (mean) polling score for each solution is provided in the notes below; detailed results are provided on the slides. Highlights from the presentation and group discussion are summarized below. Solution 1 - Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings • Impact on electricity and natural gas portion of GHG inventory. • Most cost-effective approach to climate planning is to address efficiency of existing buildings first. • Other cross-cutting benefits include comfort, safety, equity, etc. • Solutions are not additive; emphasis on existing buildings for this solution under current electricity and natural gas. • Mean polling result = 8.46 Solution 2 - Net-Zero Energy New Construction • Impact on electricity and natural gas portion of GHG inventory. • City must adhere with state building code but can incentivize beyond-code construction. • Some examples in the community of net-zero construction, but not a significant amount to show up in inventory. • Would require some ramping up over the next decade as new construction occurs; will not happen overnight. • What is net zero new construction? o On an annual basis, building produces all of the energy it consumes. o Does not include emissions or energy associated with consumption. • Does best in class include an endpoint of no new natural gas? o Perhaps, but the actual pathway is not prescribed at this level of analysis. • Net-zero energy is challenging - doesn't take into account efficiency of the existing building. o Does not do anything to address embodied emissions associated with construction or materials. o Net zero only focuses on zeroing out annually, not considering the overall energy load of the building. o Need to qualify what a net zero energy standard is; term “net” is challenging. • Mean polling result = 7.61 Solution 3 - Electrify Buildings • Impact on electricity and natural gas portion of GHG inventory. • Instead of using natural gas for heating, cooking, and other systems/appliances if the electricity supply is cleaner than natural gas. • Recommendation to separate out existing and new buildings. Easier to address with new construction than convert existing buildings and systems. • Beneficial electrification is a newer approach. • Electric heating is currently more expensive than natural gas heating in Bozeman. o On the carbon ledger, electric heating is more beneficial. o On the financial ledger, electric heating is currently more costly. • At some stage efficiency needs to come well before net-zero and electrification. • Does this relate to Smart Grid technologies? o Yes, somewhat related to grid impacts and advancing demand response technologies. Appendix C - Page 84 • Many consequences associated with many of these things - e.g., more above ground utility lines, more visible heat pumps, etc. Important to document impacts and co-benefits of various solutions. • Analysis focused on current electric supply, not future supply - benefits are more than additive when solutions are coordinated together. • Mean polling result = 7.07 Solution 4 - Increase Renewable Energy Mix • Impact on electricity portion of GHG inventory. • 2016 electricity supply is 22% coal. • 2019 - 61% renewable energy delivered. • Solution is more systemic than others as it touches all electric utility customers. • No capital purchase from end-user. • Is NorthWestern Energy's plan a reduction in emissions overall or just in MT? o Timeline for 90% reduction by 2045 for Montana portfolio. o This is a separate goal, not related to Colstrip purchase. o With the new acquisition, NorthWestern goes to 56% carbon free. • NorthWestern's plan isn't required, but a voluntary commitment - hope that it is followed through. o MSU example - very careful about committing to goals, not something to be taken lightly once a goal is announced publicly so expect that there is a serious commitment to achieve it. o This is a “no BS” carbon goal - actually something that NorthWestern can achieve with current technologies (no asterisk that says hoping that future technologies will be developed to get there). • What is in front of the Public Service Commission (PSC) right now? What is the plan for investing in renewable energy as opposed to coal or natural gas? o 20-year Supply Plan - planning horizon is 20 years but plan is updated every 2-3 years - plan for what they want not what they currently have. Can impact how resources are dispatched. Going out for a Request for Proposals to meet resource capacity needs. Currently limited to focus on lowest cost. Is cost just fiscal, or could it also include social, environmental, etc. • With the utility resource mix, the cost to achieve the last 10% increment could be significant. o It might result in passing along costs to consumers who already face a high economic burden. o Would it be better to increase rooftop solar for that remaining increment to make it more equitable from a cost perspective? o Utility resource mix is typically the lowest cost resource. • Not doing any cost analysis today focusing on emissions impact only as we consider “what it might take” to achieve Bozeman’s goals. • Mean polling result = 8.75 Solution 5 - Increase Participation in Green Power Program or Tariff • Impact on electricity portion of GHG inventory. • Customers opt-in to clean energy through a slight premium on electric bill. • Are the percentage numbers the same between solution 4 and 5? o Some slight differences between participation rate since one is mandatory and one is voluntary. • In general, the programs do green up the entire portfolio instead of shifting it elsewhere. • What accountability measures exist in these programs? o Benefits tracked with the environmental credits. o PSC charged with tariff design. Appendix C - Page 85 • How does this impact lower-income households? o Consumer choses to pay a premium above their current rate. o Precludes certain groups from participating if they choose not to pay. • REC - environmental benefits are dependent upon the grid it’s connected to and the power it is replacing (most benefit on an all-coal system). • Green tariff is a bundled REC solution - cannot track the individual electrons; know the generation is linked to the system where you are taking power. • Mean polling result = 7.24 Solution 6 - Distributed Generation through Community and Rooftop Solar • Impact on electricity portion of GHG inventory. • More visible, can be more expensive than utility-scale development. • Some installations and momentum in the community but pretty minor impacts. • How much electricity consumption in Bozeman currently? 339,894 MWh, 100MW demand in 2018 • Mean polling result = 8.25 Solution 7 - Move towards a Zero Waste Community • Impact on the methane portion of GHG inventory. • Very visible part of environmental practice. • Does this category include a human behavior change campaign around reducing consumption overall? o Current goals do not include accounting for a consumption-based inventory • Landfill methane reduction - no follow-up with landfill since recent workshop, need to make sure they are included. • Emissions from closed Story Mill landfill are included in current inventory. • Durable hardgoods - things like toys, clothes, furniture, blankets, pillows, etc. are problematic. Currently there is nowhere to take this stuff so it often ends up in the landfill. Solutions might need to include activities like sales, swaps, etc. • Mean polling result = 8.0 Solution 8 - Compact Development Patterns • Impact on the diesel and gasoline portion of GHG inventory. • Not only reduces number of trips, also results in more multi-family development that translates into greater energy efficiency. • With people who commute into Bozeman for work, are their emissions calculated into community inventory? o Yes, Bozeman's share of those total emissions within the City boundary. o Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Bozeman (trips on City roads) counted in inventory. • Walkable neighborhoods and more activity centers are vital to achieve these patterns (e.g., like the Union Development) • Note that numerous activity centers are distributed across the land use plan but often take decades to develop. • Mean polling result = 9.07 Solution 9 - Increase use of alternative transportation • Impact on the diesel and gasoline portion of GHG inventory. • Transit becomes more viable with higher density development. Appendix C - Page 86 • Current trend is a slight decrease in transit usage. • Transportation is 42% of inventory (includes airport emissions). • Is a public transportation link between Bozeman - Belgrade and Livingston viable? o Streamline system does provide limited service (1-3 routes daily) - busses are packed. • Some issues with nomenclature around "alternative transportation" o Use active transportation and transit instead as more specific options • Have Bozeman looked at light rail for a transportation solution? o Can put a lot of busses on the road for the cost of light rail • Are there opportunities to convert to electric busses? o At least double the costs (currently). Yes, a viable long-term alternative as costs come down. o WTI-HRDC-MSU put together a grant application for bus conversion – was not selected for grant award. o Potential funding through VW settlement? Matching requirement for grant funds still steep. Conditions required destruction of the old busses, but cannot currently meet currently demand for service so this was not practical for MSU to pursue. o Initial costs for electric busses are more expensive, but total costs are starting to be more even; also health and quality of life impacts from diesel busses • Economies of scale - significant opportunity long-term. • Why no transportation district in Bozeman? o Driven by population - has to go on the ballot at the County level? o Commission can vote to put it on the ballot as a Commission, or pushed to a petition; measure needs a petition of at least 25% of citizens to go on ballot. o Upcoming Census - if area population hits 50,000 or above, then new transportation requirements for federal funding apply. o Political support for transportation and transportation district has changed significantly in recent years. • Mean polling result = 9.18 Solution 10 - Decrease Direct Vehicle Emissions • Impact on the gasoline portion of GHG inventory. • MT is one of 4 states in the nation that does not have emissions standards. • Focus on light duty vehicles for this solution. • Equity needs to be a lens through which these solutions are viewed - not everyone can shift to an electric vehicle, especially considering large student impacts. • How can the City of Bozeman influence this type of solution? o Working with car dealerships - workshops, test drives o Lead by example with fleet purchases conversions o Charging infrastructure coordination o City of Boulder EV adoption as a good example - group buys • City fleet light duty vehicles - already purchase a lot of hybrid vehicles, could also make efficiency gains through enforcing anti-idling policies, conversion to low-sulfur diesel, upgrading to newer/modern vehicles • Planning horizon for this is quite long - hydrogen fuel cell alternatives potentially more viable during this period • Mean polling result = 8.64 Appendix C - Page 87 Solution 11 - Advocate for Increased Airline Fuel Efficiency • Impact on the diesel portion of GHG inventory. • Significant increase in airline emissions between 2012-2015. • Advocate for reduced air travel consumption as a community as one part of this solution. • How much of Bozeman's air travel is from out-of-state tourism? We do not know, the inventory accounts for Bozeman’s share of flights that originate from the airport. • Purchasing of carbon offsets from airline trips is very inexpensive. • Does this include private flights from Gallatin Field? Yes • Mean polling result = 6.24 Land Use Carbon Sequestration Opportunities • Carbon sequestration can occur through activities such as regenerative agriculture, managed grazing, afforestation, and urban forest. • These are not accounted for in the recent GHG inventories, but are also important elements to consider. Drawdown Scenario The project management team will be working to consolidate the polling results and feedback from the workshop into a more comprehensive scenario that shows potential contributions towards the emissions reduction goals. See slide 59 for an example of what this might look like when complete. Vulnerability Assessment and Resiliency Shelby presented a quick overview of key climate vulnerability and resiliency terms (see slides 60-72). Key points from the discussion are provided below. • Suggested community elements that appear to be missing from the Climate Vulnerability Assessment & Resiliency Strategy: o snow storage facility vulnerable if it reaches capacity o public and private schools o emergency preparedness steps for food/shelter o preparedness for the human elements, such as fear and anger during a shock or stress Next Steps If interested, Climate Team members should contact Natalie Meyer to sign up for one or more topical focus groups to be conducted in early 2020. Save the date for a community climate event the evening of February 18, 2020. Workshop 3 is tentatively scheduled for March 24 (time TBD). Appendix C - Page 88 Bozeman Climate Plan Climate Team Workshop #2 December 18, 2019 Appendix C - Page 89 Agenda Time Agenda Item 12:30 pm Welcome & Project Updates 1:00 pm Emissions Reduction Planning –Part 1 2:00 pm Break 2:15 pm Emissions Reduction Planning –Part 2 3:00 pm Vulnerability Assessment and Resiliency 3:20 pm Wrap-Up & Next Steps Appendix C - Page 90 WELCOME! Re-introductions and Project Updates Appendix C - Page 91 Re-Meet the Project Team! Judy Dorsey Executive Project Manager Brendle Group Shelby Sommer Project Manager Brendle Group Sarah Martin Resiliency Planner Brendle Group Becca Stock Lead Engineer Brendle Group Katie Kershman Document Dev. & Design Brendle Group Megan Moore Engagement Coordinator Logan Simpson Bruce Meighen Plan Integrator Logan Simpson Natalie Meyer Sustainability Program Manager City of Bozeman Heather Higinbotham Energy Conservation Technician City of Bozeman Jon Henderson Strategic Services Director City of Bozeman Britt Ide Energy Expert Ide Energy Appendix C - Page 92 Project Overview Goals 1.Align the City’s emissions reduction goals in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement. 2.Create an actionable project implementation and policy-making guide. 3.Include a diverse group of stakeholders in shaping Bozeman’s response to climate change. Define an emissions reduction target while adding climate resilience with an emphasis on our communities most vulnerable members. City Assets Human Health & Well-Being Climate Equity Climate Plan Focus Areas Cross-Cutting Topics Appendix C - Page 93 Climate Team Roles & Responsibilities 1.Attending three 2-3 hour facilitated workshops. 2.Actively participate and engage during workshops by providing input, ideas, and feedback. 3.Represent your department,organization,and community. 4.Be a critical eye for credibility, transparency,and accuracy. 5.Review documents and solution analysis as needed. 6.Help generate public engagement and enthusiasm for the planning process, providing input to public forums and project communications and outreach efforts. Appendix C - Page 94 Climate Team Roles & Responsibilities 1.Attending three 2-3 hour facilitated workshops. 2.Actively participate and engage during workshops by providing input, ideas, and feedback. 3.Represent your department,organization,and community. 4.Be a critical eye for credibility, transparency,and accuracy. 5.Review documents and solution analysis as needed. 6.Help generate public engagement and enthusiasm for the planning process, providing input to public forums and project communications and outreach efforts. Appendix C - Page 95 Climate Team Workshop #1 Mayor Andrus proclamation: bold City action Project grounding and overview of existing efforts Vision themes: 3 Vision Words activity Exploring goals and climate solutions by focus area Appendix C - Page 96 Oct. 23 Community Forum Nearly 100 attendees Strong representation from population under 35 years of age Presentations from •Bruce Maxwell – Montana Climate Assessment •Clare Vlases – Bozeman High School Student •Terry Cunningham – Bozeman City Commissioner Climate vision illustrations and ideas Over 250 potential climate solutions Appendix C - Page 97 Warm Up : Did you attend the October Community Forum? 1.Yes 2.No 3.Don’t remember Appendix C - Page 98 Warm Up : Did you attend the City Commission meeting on Monday evening? 1.Yes 2.No 3.Watched it remotely Appendix C - Page 99 Climate Team Vision & Goals Survey 21 survey participants General support for the vision components and goals Overall feedback •Maintain lens of “climate change” •Include current and future generations •Keep language concise, specific, and relevant Appendix C - Page 100 Climate Vision: Position Statement Through leadership and collaboration, the City of Bozeman will advance innovative solutions to cultivate a more equitable and resilient, low-carbon community for current and future generations. Appendix C - Page 101 Climate Vision: Guiding Principles Bozeman will be a leader in addressing climate change by: Adopting bold targets for emissions reduction and renewable energy. Weaving sustainability and resilience into decision-making processes. Pursuing partnerships with other municipalities and our utility provider. Seeking innovative, actionable solutions to mitigate climate change. Inviting all Bozeman residents to join us, including current and future leaders. Appendix C - Page 102 Climate Vision: Vision Themes Responsible and reliable renewable energy supply Healthy, adaptive, and efficient buildings Vibrant and resilient neighborhoods Diverse and accessible transportation options Comprehensive and sustainable waste reduction Regenerative greenspace, food systems, and natural environment Appendix C - Page 103 Provisional Goals 26% reduction in GHG emissions by 2025 (compared to 2008) 100% net clean electricity by 2030 Carbon neutral by 2050 Appendix C - Page 104 Warm Up: On scale of 1-10 how would you rank your climate mitigation expertise? Beginner 1 10 Expert Appendix C - Page 105 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS SOLUTIONS Possible Paths Toward Achieving Our Climate Goals Appendix C - Page 106 2016 GHG Emissions Summary by Sector •Transportation (42%) •Includes on-road vehicles and aviation •Buildings (commercial 30%; residential 23%) •Electricity and natural gas emission from commercial and residential buildings •Waste (7%) •Landfilled waste and wastewater methane and nitrous oxide emissions Appendix C - Page 107 What does 2050 look like? Estimate city population in 2050 based on previous projections from various plans including: •Community Plan •Wastewater Facilities Update •Water Resource Plan Used range of population estimates to establish a range of growth likely 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Population Estimate Year Growth Scenario Estimate Population Estimate Max Min Appendix C - Page 108 2050 Business-as-usual Forecast Use 2016 inventory for current conditions •This is the most recent year we have inventory data Project business as usual (BAU) emissions to 2050 •Start with 2016 per capita emissions •Used range of growth scenarios •Estimate BAU emissions by keeping per capita emissions constant Solutions impact will be examined as a percentage of max 2050 BAU emissions 0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000 2016 2050GHG Emissions MT CO2e)Business as Ususal GHG Emissions Projection High Growth Scenario Low Growth Scenario Appendix C - Page 109 Potential Solutions by Focus Area Buildings •Solution #1: Improve energy efficiency in existing buildings. •Solution #2: Invest in net-zero energy ready new construction. •Solution #3: Electrify buildings. Energy & Utilities •Solution #4: Increase renewable energy in electric utility resource mix. •Solution #5: Increase participation in green power program or tariff. •Solution #6: Increase distributed energy generation through community and rooftop solar. Consumption & Waste •Solution #7: Move towards a zero waste community. Community Development •Solution #8: Facilitate compact development patterns. Transportation •Solution #9: Increase use of alternative transportation •Solution #10: Decrease direct vehicle emissions •Solution #11: Advocate for increased airline fuel efficiency. Greenspace, Food Systems & Natural Environment •Carbon sequestration opportunities to use as community emissions offsets (land use emissions outside the scope of current inventory)Appendix C - Page 110 Relative Impact Potential by Solution Note: The same GHG emissions can be addressed through multiple strategies, so the percentages are not additive. For example, electricity emissions could be addressed through utility resource mix changes or green tariff or a combination of the two. 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% Solution 1. Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings Solution 2. Net Zero Energy-Ready Construction Solution 3. Building Electrification Solution 4. Utility Resource Mix Solution 5. Green Tariff Solution 6. Community and Rooftop Solar Solution 7. Zero Waste Community Solution 8. Compact Development Patterns Solution 9. Alternative Transportation Solution 10. Vehicle Emissions Reduction Solution 11. Improved Airline Fuel Efficiency Emissions Reduction from Low-Growth Scenario % Emissions Reduction From 2050 Business as Usual (Maximum Growth Scenario) Appendix C - Page 111 Solution 1. Improve Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings Invest in energy efficiency upgrades in existing commercial and residential buildings. Positive cash flow in most cases. Many projects have simple payback of less than 5-years. Can improve comfort and reliability of buildings. Can result in significant cost savings reducing utility bills. This can alleviate the burden on low-income homes and improving profitability of local businesses. Appendix C - Page 112 Current Efforts 13% electricity and natural gas emissions reduction (6% of projected 2050 emissions) •From NorthWestern Energy rebate program evaluation estimated energy efficiency potential to be 7% between 2015 and 2034 for existing efficiency programs. •Extrapolated this savings rate to 2050. Best in Class 51% electricity and natural gas emissions reduction (30% of projected 2050 emissions) •Based on a study by American Council for Energy-efficient Economy (ACEEE) •Used the advanced scenario that assumed a high penetration rate of known technologies Considerations: •This is a national study. Savings potential varies by climate zone. Solution 1. Improve Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings Appendix C - Page 113 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 6% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 30% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 114 Solution 2. Invest in Net-zero Energy Ready New Construction Use building codes or incentives to ensure new homes and businesses in Bozeman are built to net-zero energy standards. US Department of Energy has developed a Zero Energy Ready Certification Program for homes and businesses. Leading edge building techniques. Higher upfront costs, but low or no monthly utility costs. Often lower lifetime costs. Buildings more resilient to power loss. Petersen, A., Gartman, M., & Corvidae, J. (2019). The Economics of Zero-Energy Homes.Rocky Mountain Institute.Appendix C - Page 115 Current Efforts Negligible •Assume not a significant number of net-zero buildings in Bozeman Best in Class 22% electricity and natural gas emissions reduction (13% of projected 2050 emissions) •8 US Cities have pledged that all new construction will be net zero by 2030 through C40 Cities •Uses anticipated growth rate and assumes 50% energy use reduction for all buildings built after 2030 and 50% of buildings before 2030 Considerations: •Currently required to adopt state- wide code; could incentivize beyond code performance. Solution 2. Invest in Net-zero Energy Ready New Construction Appendix C - Page 116 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 0% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 13% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 117 Solution 3. Electrify Buildings Convert heating and cooking appliances in homes and businesses from natural gas to electricity. Allows energy needs to be met by renewable energy generation. Requires replacement of major gas appliances. Currently a higher fuel cost for electricity. Electric heating is more efficient than natural gas options. Rocky Mountain Institute recommends prioritizing: •Propane or heating oil conversion •New construction By Kristoferb at English Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=10795550 Appendix C - Page 118 Current Efforts Negligible •Assume no significant effort to electrify building energy loads in Bozeman Best in Class 80% natural gas emissions reduction (18% of projected 2050 emissions) •National Renewable Energy Laboratory study showed 80% of residential and commercial loads could be electrified. Considerations: •At scale, requires market transformation and workforce development. •Requires coordination with electric utility on grid impacts. Solution 4. Electrify Buildings Appendix C - Page 119 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 0% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 18% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 120 Solution #4: Increase Renewable Energy in Electric Utility Resource Mix Work with the utility to support transition to less carbon intense or carbon-free generation sources Benefits reach all residents Consumers don’t need to purchase new equipment Utility scale renewable energy projects are often the most cost effective May be associated with rate increases which can disproportionately affect low-income residents Utility still needs a dispatchable (can be turned up or down on demand) resource for grid stability NorthWestern Energy 2017 Environmental Stewardship: Our commitment to action http://www.northwesternenergy.com/docs/default- source/documents/environment/nwe_enviroreport_2017_ web.pdf Appendix C - Page 121 Solution #4: Increase Renewable Energy in Electric Utility Resource Mix Current Efforts 72% reduction in electricity emissions (26% of projected 2050 emissions) •Compares 2016 emissions factor to projected 2050 emissions factor From the NorthWestern Energy’s Supply Resource Procurement Plan (see graph below) •Assume continue trend of stabilized emissions factor from 2030 -2050 Best in Class 100% electricity emissions reduction (36% of projected 2050 emissions) •Based on pledges from Platte River Power Authority in Colorado, Idaho Power, and Xcel Energy Appendix C - Page 122 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 26% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 36% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 123 Solution #5: Increase Participation in Green Power Program or Tariff Use one of two market mechanisms increase the percentage of the electricity used in Bozeman that is carbon-free. Options outlined below. Green Power Purchase Program Allow customers to buy renewable energy credits (RECs) through your utility for your energy use. Short term or no commitment. These RECs are often purchased off the REC market and not tied to a local projects, so ensuring impact is difficult. Example: NorthWestern E+ Green Program ($2/100kWh) Green Tariff Allows customers to buy bundled renewable electricity from a specific project through a special utility tariff rate. Customers retail the RECs from energy generation (bundled RECs). Generally utilized by large business or industrial customers. Encourages local renewable energy projects. Often requires a long term commitment, but may allow customers to lock in a fixed price for the term of the commitment. REC:Certificate that represents the property rights to the environmental, social and other non-power attributes of renewable electricity generation. Can be retained by the energy consumer (bundled RECs) or sold on the market (unbundled RECs). Appendix C - Page 124 Solution #5: Increase Participation in Green Power Program or Tariff Current Efforts <1% electricity emissions reduction (negligible impact on projected 2050 emissions) •Looks at current income from the E+ Green Program through NorthWestern Energy •Consistent over the last 5 years •Estimate energy purchased using rate of $2/100 kWh •Scale the total energy purchased by the percentage of energy generated by NorthWestern delivered to Bozeman Best in Class 30% electricity emissions reduction (11% of projected 2050 emissions) •The largest green tariff program in Michigan is 412 MW of wind •This is more than enough to supply the entire City of Bozeman, so limited by number of subscribers •Assume municipal operations, MSU electricity, and 19% of community. •Community percentage is based on best performing green power program in the country. Appendix C - Page 125 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort <1% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 11% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 126 Solution #6: Increase Distributed Energy Generation through Community and Rooftop Solar Encourage residents and businesses to install solar generation on-site or install community solar gardens. Showcases local commitment to sustainability. Generally more expensive than utility scale projects. Can have resiliency benefits if combined with storage. Appendix C - Page 127 Solution #6: Increase Distributed Energy Generation through Community and Rooftop Solar Current Efforts <1% electricity emissions reduction (negligible impact on projected 2050 emissions) •Potential for community solar through utility •50kW net-metering cap Best in Class 20% electricity emissions reduction (7% of projected 2050 emissions) •Small building solar potential from Cities LEAP •Add 50 MW community solar based on stated goal in Fort Collins, CO Considerations: •Rooftop solar potential does not consider growth •Federal rebates for solar are expiring •Price of rooftop solar has been steadily declining Appendix C - Page 128 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort <1% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 7% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 129 15 MINUTE BREAK Sign up for Focus Group discussions! Appendix C - Page 130 Solution 7. Move Towards a Zero Waste Community Through waste reduction and recycling efforts reduce the total landfilled waste. Decomposing organic waste releases methane (a GHG 21 times more potent than CO2) . Limited GHG emissions benefits from landfill methane reduction. Significant upstream emissions benefits not reflected in Bozeman’s GHG inventory. Requires economy wide effort. Waste Hierarchy from Zero Waste DC https://zerowaste.dc.gov/about-zero-waste-dc Appendix C - Page 131 Current Efforts 38% landfill methane emissions reduction (2% of projected 2050 emissions) •Landfilled waste per person decreased by 9% between 2012 and 2016 •Tons of Recycling Collected increased 40% from 2015-2019 •Rate of recycling plateauing across the country, so estimate half the rate of reduction out to 2050 Considerations: •Waste reduction is strongly influenced by upstream production practices and availability of recycling •Population growth influences construction waste Best in Class 90% landfill methane emissions reduction (5% of projected 2050 emissions) •Austin, TX has a plan to reach 90% waste reduction by 2040 Solution 7. Move Towards a Zero Waste Community Appendix C - Page 132 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 2% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 5% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 133 Solution 8. Facilitate Compact Development Patterns By reducing the distance residents have to travel to work and basic amenities, transportation based emissions can be reduced. The most influential factor for the amount people drive is distance to downtown. Mixed-use neighborhoods have additional community building benefits. Vehicle Miles Traveled by Household From H+T IndexCenter for Neighborhood Technology https://htaindex.cnt.org/map/Appendix C - Page 134 Current Efforts Negligible impact to on-road emissions •Unified Development Code (4/2018)includes changes to standards such as allowing higher density requirements and smaller lot sizes. •Community Plan establishing future land use patterns Best in Class 31% on road vehicle emissions reduction (12% of projected 2050 emissions) •Based on the average increase in population density of the top performing cities. •Then the typical influence of distance to downtown and population density were then applied to this increase Solution 8. Facilitate Compact Development Patterns Appendix C - Page 135 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 0% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 12% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 136 Solution 9. Increase Use of Alternative Transportation Increase the percentage of residents using alternative transportation to commute. Most residents drive alone to work Transit use is more feasible in denser development, so this solution is tied to Solution 8 Appendix C - Page 137 Current Efforts Negligible impact to on-road emissions •The portion of Bozeman residents using alternative transportation decreased from 2012 to 2016 Best in Class 28% on road vehicle emissions reduction (11% of projected 2050 emissions) •Ithaca, NY has the highest alternative transportation rate of cities under 50,000 people Solution 9. Increase Use of Alternative Transportation Appendix C - Page 138 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 0% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 11% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 139 Solution 10. Decrease Direct Vehicle Emissions Work to improve the efficiency of vehicles in Bozeman through high efficiency cars and transition to electric vehicles. Near term most Bozeman residents will use a personal vehicle for transportation. Vehicle fuel efficiency is often the easiest way to influence on road emissions. Does not address other transportation issues like traffic congestion. Emissions by fuel type: Montana State average US DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.ht ml Appendix C - Page 140 Current Efforts 9% on road vehicle emissions reduction (4% of projected 2050 emissions) •Bozeman saw a 3% improvement in emission per mile traveled between 2012 and 2016 •This is similar to rates seen nationally •Expect these gains to start to plateau. •Projected half this annual rate of savings out to 2050 •Percentage of EVs in Bozeman is negligible Best in Class 69% on road vehicle emissions reduction (27% of projected 2050 emissions) •Efficiency gains likely from EVs by 2050 •Examined projected trends of EV sales light duty vehicles and typical vehicle turnover rate. •Anticipate nation-wide light duty rate is about 70% by 2050 •Best in class communities will likely be about 95% light-duty EVs •Does not assume significant EV adoption for heavy-duty vehicles since commercially viable technology doesn’t exist currently. Solution 10. Decrease Vehicle Emissions Appendix C - Page 141 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 4% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 27% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 142 Solution 11. Advocate for Increased Airline Fuel Efficiency Advocate for airline fuel efficiencies. Airlines have developed technology to improve fuel efficiency. Retrofits of existing airplanes is possible. By redlegsfan21 -Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=38043012 Appendix C - Page 143 Current Efforts Negligible impact on airline fuel efficiency •Bozeman saw a significant increase in airline emissions between 2012 and 2015 Best in Class 12% in airline emissions (1% of projected 2050 emissions) •Based on anticipated fuel efficiency gains and market penetration possible from Project Drawdown. Solution 11. Advocate for Increased Airline Fuel Efficiency Appendix C - Page 144 On scale of 1-10 what level of emissions reduction do you think Bozeman should target through this strategy? Current Level of Effort 0% total emissions reduction by 2050 1 10 Match Best in Class 1% total emissions reduction by 2050 Appendix C - Page 145 Land Use Carbon Sequestration Opportunities Regenerative Agriculture Practices* (0.4 MT CO2e per hectare) Managed Grazing* (0.63 MT CO2e per hectare) Afforestation* (4.7 MT CO2e per hectare) Urban Forest (145 lbs. per tree) *Photos and sequestration estimates from Project Drawdown: https://www.drawdown.org/Appendix C - Page 146 Drawdown Scenario to be Developed 100% Net Clean Electricity by 2030 26% Reduction in GHG Emissions by 2025 Carbon Neutral by 2050 Appendix C - Page 147 VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCY Defining and prioritizing susceptible systems Appendix C - Page 148 Climate Resiliency The ability and extent to which systems can prepare and plan for, absorb, respond to, recover from, and adapt to the effects of climate- related shocks and chronic stressors. Appendix C - Page 149 Resiliency Goal Survey Feedback Proposed Revised Goal Incorporate climate change resiliency considerations into all City decision making and be a community that prepares for, responds quickly to, and recovers from climate-related events and stressors through well-planned infrastructure, supportive social networks, and balanced economic prosperity. 60%Create a community that can respond quickly to and recover from climate related events and stressors through well planned infrastructure, supportive social networks, and balanced economic prosperity. 0%Understand and prepare for expected climate and weather changes due to climate change. 30%Incorporate climate change resiliency considerations into City decision making at all levels. 10% Other: •A mix of all 3 would be best •At minimum: "Incorporate climate change resiliency considerations into City decision making at all levels.” Appendix C - Page 150 Vulnerability Key Terms Key Term Definition Vulnerability Vulnerability is the degree to which an asset is susceptible or unable to cope with a climate hazard Risk The estimated impact that a hazard would have on people, services, facilities, and structures in a community Sensitivity The degree to which an asset is affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Adaptive Capacity The degree to which a system can currently cope and accommodate change caused by exposure to a climate hazard within existing resources and constraints. Shock A sudden acute event that refers to a high-impact, short-term event that may significantly affect basic services, public safety, or the environment Stressor A chronic stress that refers to an ongoing environmental, social, and/or economic issue that weakens a system Appendix C - Page 151 Climate Plan Focus Areas: What assets could be considered? Buildings •Homes •Businesses •Schools •Community Buildings Neighborhoods •Historic Preservation •Affordable Housing •New Development •Redevelopment Consumption & Waste •Landfills •Recycling Facilities •Disposal Infrastructure Energy & Utilities •Electricity •Natural Gas •Propane •Renewable Energy Greenspace, Food Systems & Natural Environment •Parks •Open Space •Agriculture •Urban Forest •Gardens Transportation •Road •Sidewalks •Transit System •Paths & Trails •Vehicles •Airlines City Assets Human Health & Well-Being Climate Equity Assets are the physical elements of a city that act as key resources for maintaining quality of life. Appendix C - Page 152 Major Climate Hazards Extreme Heat –More severe and intense Flooding –More severe Drought –More frequent and intense Mountain Snowpack –Decline in volume Wildfire –More extensive, frequent, and intense Winter Storms –More severe Appendix C - Page 153 Extreme Heat (Stressor) Future Conditions Increased annual and seasonal temperature averages Increased number of days with extreme heat Impacts on health, comfort, and well-being Increased energy use (air conditioning) Impacts on air quality and urban heat island Highly Vulnerable City Assets Law & Justice Center (old) Shops Complex Bozeman Senior Center Lindley Center Story Mill Community Center Appendix C - Page 154 Flooding (Shock) Future Conditions More frequent precipitation Potential inability to store increased volumes of water Increase risk to human health and safety Increase in extent and damage to City and private property Highly Vulnerable City Assets Bozeman City Hall Bozeman Fire Department Station #1 Story Mill Community Center Appendix C - Page 155 Drought + Mountain Snowpack (Stressors) Future Conditions Warmer average temperatures Decline in snowpack volume and earlier snowmelt More intense, longer, and more frequent droughts Challenges meeting needs of all water users Municipal operations and services at risk Potential tourism industry impacts Highly Vulnerable City Assets Water Treatment Plant operations Swim Center Appendix C - Page 156 Wildfire (Shock) Future Conditions Negative impacts on water quality (sediment, and heavy metals) Increase risk of damage to Hyalite Reservoir Increase risk of flash floods and landslides Unhealthy air conditions Appendix C - Page 157 Wildfire Highly Vulnerable City Assets Wildfire •Water Treatment Plant operations •Story Mill Landfill/Convenience Site/HHW •Lindley Center Smoke •Shops Complex •Alfred Stiff Professional Building •Bozeman City Hall •Law & Justice Center •Story Mill Community Center •Senior Center •Bozeman Public Library Appendix C - Page 158 Winter Storms (Shock) Future Conditions More frequent and severe winter storms High snow loading compromising building integrity Impacts to building equipment and functions Highly Vulnerable City Assets Parking Garage Beall Rec Center Swim Center Bozeman Senior Center Bozeman Fire Department Station #1 Appendix C - Page 159 Resiliency Discussion Which of our focus areas and assets (e.g., people, services, facilities, structures) are most vulnerable to these risks? Why? Which of our focus areas and assets (e.g., people, services, facilities, structures) have the most adaptive capacity? Why? Climate Plan Focus Areas City Assets Human Health & Well-Being Climate Equity Cross-Cutting Topics Appendix C - Page 160 WRAP UP & NEXT STEPS What’s next? Appendix C - Page 161 Next Steps Climate Team Post-workshop assignment (early 2020) Workshop 3 –March 24 Community Engagement Topical Focus Groups – January and February Save the Date: Community Event –February 18, 2020 evening Community Survey - February Community Forum -May Appendix C - Page 162 BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN Buildings Focus Group Thursday, February 6, 2020, 2:30-4:30 Bozeman City Hall (121 N Rouse Ave) - Commission Room Focus Group Objectives • Explore some of the preliminary climate solutions in more detail • Confirm what solutions are already happening and working well • Discuss opportunities for new or improved solutions • Examine the co-benefits and challenges of the solutions Agenda Time Agenda Item 2:30 – 2:50pm Welcome, Objectives & Introduction Presentations 2:50 – 3:20pm Climate Strategy #1: Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings 3:20 – 3:50pm Climate Strategy #2: Net-Zero Energy New Construction 3:50 – 4:20pm Climate Strategy #3: Electrify Buildings 4:20 – 4:30pm Open Discussion & Next Steps Attendees Name Organization Natalie Meyer CoB Sustainability Anders Lewendal Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Chris Dorsi MT Weatherization Training Center Chris Saunders CoB Community Development Douglas Fischer BSD7 Board of Trustees Jay Sinnott Bozeman Climate Partners Heather Higinbotham Davies CoB Sustainability Addie Melvin JM Engineering Jon Henderson CoB Strategic Services Lindsay Schack Love Schack Architecture Sarah Rosenberg CoB Community Development Tanya Andreasen CoB Community Development Wyatt Catron MT Weatherization Training Center Kristin Blackler Montana State University Jeff Fox Renewable Northwest Presentations Chris Dorsi, Montana Weatherization Training Center: Appendix C - Page 163 1. In the building and sustainability field for 40 years 2. Consistently high performance housing has been a tough sell 3. Responsibility to make sure this work doesn’t become window dressing 4. If we can’t do this here in Gallatin Valley, who possibly can? Should be one of the greenest cities on the planet 5. Important to split out new and existing buildings: almost unrelated to one another o Different methods, materials, approaches, funding streams, incentives 6. Full electrification implies decarbonized grid, which we don’t yet have 7. Education is the disconnect 8. Builders associations will deliver that which the home buyers and developers need and want. We need to drive the demand Natalie Meyer/Heather Higinbotham, City of Bozeman Sustainability (see attached presentation) Discussion Questions City of Bozeman • What is the City's role in implementing this strategy? • Are there new programs, policies, or assets that need to be considered? Community Partnerships • What community organizations and partnerships can support implementation of this strategy? • How should they be engaged and what are their roles? Community Members • What is the role of neighborhoods in implementing this strategy? • What can individuals do to support this strategy? Market Considerations • What market transformations are needed for implementation to be effective? • What incentives should be explored or considered? • What is the role of business community in implementation? Challenges and Benefits • Who might be left out or impacted negatively by implementation of this strategy? How? • Who stands to benefit from implementation? How? • Are there resiliency co-benefits? Are there human health co-benefits? Preliminary Solution Ideas These preliminary ideas are pulled from the Climate Plan community engagement activities and are provided to help inform the discussion. Discussion Notes: Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings • City Policy/Program/Codes/Engineering Standards o Limit use of outdoor gas/electric heaters o Benchmarking program ▪ Building energy use disclosure for large commercial Appendix C - Page 164 o Efficiency programs to target low income populations, renters, mobile homes, and/or owners of older homes ▪ Messaging: it is easier to sell comfort, safety, durability, children’s health than efficiency/kWh. EE= “happier, healthier, wealthier” ▪ Community Partnerships: • MSU students with infrared cameras • HRDC & section 8 applicants: home buyer education on utility bills and opportunities for improvement o Buildings recommissioning programs ▪ Need to identify incentives o Energy Use disclosure at point of listing (MLS) ▪ Home Energy labeling, Energy Star, Pearl ▪ Require efficiency upgrades before selling • Tie to home loans? ▪ Challenges and benefits: • Motivations are challenging—people want granite counter tops and don’t care about efficiency • Tabs on MLS for Energy Star, LEED, ACH, etc. have been there for years; nobody asks about them or uses them • Most loans are sold to Fannie and Freddie. If they don’t require it, industry is less likely to do it • There is a lot of opportunity in homes 10-40 years old with air sealing, HVAC upgrades, furnace exchanges • Education for general public—they in general have no idea that their homes are leaking air or furnaces could be more efficient ▪ Market considerations: • Must have tangible value to Realtors and banks • Could incentivize banks to offer lower interest loans because of better health and durability and lower default risk, loans could be more secure • When capital is available for home purchase, tie into mortgage • Banks sometimes offer lower down payments if a home can demonstrate lower utility bills • Educate banks to talk to borrowers about benefits of energy efficiency o Residential rental licensing program with safety and energy efficiency provisions ▪ Help address split incentive for landlords/tenants ▪ Market considerations: • Can landlord charge more for energy efficient rentals to recoup costs? Generate $ for EE and affordable housing • ~50% of housing in Bozeman is rentals • If market is slow, rating system and reviews might be beneficial. Slow market may not/probably won’t last. Also rentals change quickly from year to year • If more rentals become energy efficient, will pressure less efficient properties to upgrade ▪ Community Partnerships: • MSU education: rate property manager/rental • NWE on-bill financing, Universal System Benefits (USB) funds? ▪ Challenges: • Large shares of the city have no records • Can City charge higher licensing fees for less efficient buildings? More stick than carrot o Use thermal imaging/drone technology to identify least efficient buildings Appendix C - Page 165 ▪ Community Partnerships: • MSU students with infrared cameras to target older homes • FLIR • Potential for private company entrepreneurship • SWMBIA • Education o Promote energy efficient lighting o 10% energy reduction challenge o Yard sign recognition o Certified contractors network ▪ Builders as educators: this is the entry point ▪ Direct training o Improve conversion rates after energy audit ▪ Community partnerships: • Couple service providers • On-bill financing through NWE o Green home tours and energy efficiency retrofit tours o Who are the captive audiences in town? First time home buyer classes (four hundred in past few years), folks applying for section 8 rental housing vouchers (approximately 700 people in community) ▪ Divide efficiency programs into incentives, materials/product exchanges (similar to toilet exchange), and straight up funding. We need to pay people who can’t pay to make their home more efficient. Incentives make sense for building community, and perhaps less sense for individual with less cash (referring to those who are receiving housing assistance) o MSU/City partnership to educate students as they are moving off campus. Can/should include info on energy efficiency. ▪ Program will include online platform to search for roommate, room to rent, rental house, and opportunities to rate that property or property manager. Could include energy efficiency or other components as items to rate ▪ Challenge: some students just aren’t heating their houses in winter • State Law or State Energy Code o Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing ▪ Identify heat leaks and offer support loans to address ▪ Air sealing renovation is key ▪ Air sealing is the most cost effective energy efficiency measure in older homes ▪ Community Partnerships: • On-bill financing through NWE o Incorporate incentives? o Should be revenue generating for NWE • Utility/Regulatory o Tiered utility rate structure that penalizes high energy demand o Support real time electrical usage to impact behavior change o City petition PSC to open investigation into what NWE is using the USB funds for, and whether there are other/better uses for those funds their customers are paying to NWE each month. Work with NWE to develop program to incentivize. NWE residential incentives have gradually disappeared. o NWE audit program is underutilized. Audit-lite. Conversion rate is 1-2%. A lot of consumers may believe having the audit done is actually doing the work. How can we leverage, couple service providers with auditors to increase conversion rate? Could partner with MSU students to drive around with infrared cameras and identify biggest needs. ▪ Ask NWE to send audits to energy efficiency contractors, if homeowner agrees. Opt in or opt out? Appendix C - Page 166 Net-Zero Energy New Construction • City Policy/Program/Codes/Engineering Standards o Prohibit or restrict installation of outdoor gas/electric heaters o Stretch Code ▪ Incentivize efficient building envelopes • South-facing, solar, EV, 50-amp outlet, passive heating, natural lighting ▪ Incentivize solar PV for commercial buildings ▪ Encourage LEED, Passive House, and 3rd party certifications ▪ Encourage passive heating and cooling • Building orientation: it doesn’t cost any more ▪ Disclose carbon intensity of materials • Use carbon negative materials such as hempcrete • Incentivize • Require life cycle analysis • Provide a list of various building materials that show carbon intensity for builders to be able to compare/decide • Partnerships: o All manufacturers have that information. LCA: how do we help people quantify? ▪ Incentivize smaller homes • Identify unintended consequences of home limitations. Measure to inside walls instead of exterior, that won’t inadvertently require more building materials because of not being able to use standard sizes ▪ City require 3rd party verification of ACH ▪ Community Partnerships: • Pearl home certification for residential. Private for profit targeting real estate community more than buyers or sellers • Potential for statewide stretch code ▪ Challenges and Benefits: • Code does not require proper ventilation o Must include health and safety in conversation about efficiency • Struggle to find true incentive could offer at city level that would be of value to builders • 2018 IECC includes performance path for rating system; could be simple tool to use • Introduces builders to performance testing for the first time o Stretch Code Incentives ▪ Market differentiation/recognition • City seal, certification • Motivates home buyer, builder ▪ Reduced fees ▪ Expedited review o Benchmarking ▪ Building energy use disclosure for large commercial o Design EV service equipment-ready for large commercial and multi-family o Charge (even) higher fees for larger homes and/or further from city center ▪ Impact fees are difficult to prove life cycle savings, especially when considering occupant behavior ▪ At some point, get to the plateau of addressing discretionary consumption. We’ve come a long ways in terms of reduction o Require net zero energy for all buildings receiving public funding Appendix C - Page 167 o CoB incentivize or require energy modeling ▪ 3D heat mapping of buildings (specifically commercial but can work in residential): can change windows, shading, orientation, etc. prior to building the building o Require builder/contractor training • Education o Promote energy efficient lighting o Promote pilot projects o Certified contractors network o Builder training o Promote above code construction o Green home tours o Low energy cooling systems o Explore green or cool roofs o Bird-friendly glass o Community Partnerships: ▪ HOA model best practices, including how to revoke solar PV prohibitions • How to work with existing HOAs to make changes? • Model covenants would save developers legal fees to draft covenants ▪ Banks: Could incentivize banks with lower interest loans because of better health and durability and lower default risk ▪ Any potential with insurance companies? o Challenges and Benefits: ▪ Private capital, education, banks, Realtors ▪ Resiliency component ▪ School district: uphill battle to convince board to prioritize efficiency, because tradeoffs for teacher salary, whiteboards, etc. District not considering LEED or Living Building Challenge • MSU backstop: State High Performance Building Standard • Always discussion with financial decisions, pay now or pay later • All schools built through bonds; operating costs paid from general fund • State Law or State Energy Code o Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing ▪ C-PACE ▪ Community Partnerships: • Banks o Require solar PV or PV-ready on all new construction o Require 3rd party testing of building envelopes (blower door/duct testing) Electrify Buildings • City Engineering Standards, State Energy Code, and Utility Incentives o Encourage conversion of natural gas appliances to electric o Require all electric in new construction ▪ Do not allow new gas lines • Don’t build for obsolescence ▪ Multi-family attrition of gas lines: pure physics. Cheaper to build all electric because of cost of installing vent lines in each residence and multiple sets of utilities and infrastructure ▪ If NWE is installing gas lines for free and people aren’t using them, cost to utility o Convert propane and heating oil systems to electric • Community Partnerships o HOAs • Challenges and Benefits o Is it legal to ban natural gas? Must provide utility easement—phone, power, cable, fiber, etc. Appendix C - Page 168 ▪ Unknown if HOA could prohibit gas. Could put in covenants but utility has right to do whatever they want in that easement; it is their easement. They could still install gas lines, but developer doesn’t have to allow homes to hook up • Private HOA covenants are powerful in MT. ▪ NWE concern about being able to meet peak capacity with existing natural gas; having to use diesel o Restrictions on utility to provide services o NWE may not be properly planning for electrification loads and putting in proper rights of way o Technology limitations for heat pumps in extreme cold Suggested Reading & Resources City of Bozeman Sustainability • Commercial Efficiency: https://www.bozeman.net/government/sustainability/bozeman-energy-project • Residential Efficiency: https://www.bozeman.net/government/sustainability/residential-energy- efficiency Municipal Natural Gas Bans, Climate Law Blog: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2020/01/09/municipal-natural-gas-bans-round- 1/?utm_source=FINAL+Jan+30+2020+USDN+Weekly+Update&utm_campaign=Jan+30+2020+Weekly+Update&ut m_medium=email PACE Nation, What is PACE Financing? https://pacenation.org/what-is-pace/ Appendix C - Page 169 BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN Energy & Utilities Focus Group Bozeman Fire Station #3 (1705 Vaquero Pkwy) – Community Room Monday, February 10, 2020, 2:30pm-4:30pm Focus Group Objectives • Explore some of the preliminary climate solutions in more detail • Confirm what solutions are already happening and working well • Discuss opportunities for new or improved solutions • Examine the co-benefits and challenges of the solutions Agenda Template Time Agenda Item 2:30 – 2:50pm Welcome, Objectives & Introduction Presentations 2:50 – 3:20pm Climate Strategy#1: Utility Renewable Energy Mix 3:20 – 3:40pm Climate Strategy#2: Green Power Programs 3:40 – 4:20pm Climate Strategy#3: Distributed Solar Generation 4:20 – 4:30pm Open Discussion & Next Steps Attendees Name Organization Natalie Meyer City of Bozeman Sustainability Danica Jamison Greater Gallatin United Way Chris Pope HD65 MT Legislature Britt Ide Ide Energy Karen Kirk Science writer John Bushnell NorthWestern Energy Terry Cunningham City of Bozeman Commissioner Jay Sinnott Bozeman Climate Partners Jeff Fox Renewable Northwest Jon Henderson City of Bozeman Strategic Services Emma Bode Forward Montana Foundation Kristin Blackler MSU Office of Sustainability Heather Higinbotham Davies City of Bozeman Sustainability Claire Vlases Bozeman High School Presentations Natalie Meyer, City of Bozeman Sustainability Appendix C - Page 170 (Acknowledgment of World Resources Institute and Rocky Mountain Institute for use of some graphics) • City commission signed 100% net clean energy provisional resolution o 140 cities across 30 states (not including Bozeman or Helena) • Cities are increasingly collaborating with utilities to identify solutions to reach those 100% renewable energy goals o Formal and informal partnerships: six across six states o Case study through Duke Energy, six communities working together o Collaborations focus on integrated resource planning, distribution grid planning, smart cities strategies, EV infrastructure, data transparency • NWE grid portfolio: 61% carbon free energy o Three cities with 100% renewable energy goals: Missoula, Helena, Bozeman o Proposed Colstrip purchase: 56% carbon free energy o 2019 Resource Procurement Plan details carbon intensity ▪ Two major decreases relate to qualifying facilities KELP and YELP • City targets are based on sense of responsibility to constituents and guiding principles around equity and climate action and resiliency • NWE responsibilities are to investors; NWE is a business • Opportunities around energy efficiency, renewable energy, distributed resources, electrification of buildings and transportation, demand response, energy storage • Grid transformation: increasing clean energy percentage base grid mix o Resource planning, accelerating coal and natural gas plant retirements, clean energy portfolios as alternative to new gas and coal • Important to recognize that utility planning is on a long-term scale o Immediate opportunities: energy efficiency and local renewable energy o Emerging opportunities: smart metering, demand response, pricing to incentivize time of use, distributed resources, electrification, storage o Long-term: grid mix • Challenges: cold snaps and variable weather with climate change • Unique regulatory environment in Montana • We know generation assets do not meet capacity needs • Legal limitations: MT code requires “adequate, reliable electricity supply service at the lowest long-term cost” • Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs): have always been available to City of Bozeman to purchase to offset, but the City has never purchased RECs and doesn’t see that as best tool to make a difference • Onsite solar: limitations with 50kW net metering limit o Economies of scale more difficult to reach within constraints of 50kW • Community solar: in MT, it would have to be utility-led o Can pair with local assets to bring down price o Successful examples across the country o No enabling legislation in MT: three projects in state are led by co-ops o Colorado Excel Energy program is very successful o Third party can help with admin burden • Sleeved Power Purchase Agreement (PPA): work with utility to identify/develop a project, come to contract agreement on price, bundled RECs (energy + REC) are sold to utility and passed through to end customer o Has been done at the city level; originated at corporate level with companies like Walmart o Would require a large customer as the anchor or flexible off-taker to lead project with utility Appendix C - Page 171 • Green tariffs: similar to PPAs but open to an entire customer class (commercial, residential). Developer works with utility, sells bundled RECs to utility, customers can participate o Can be larger scale so possibly more cost effective o Additional renewables on grid o Fixed predictable long-term price for energy • NWE has offered E+Green program, which is unbundled RECs (different from a green tariff) • Rocky Mountain Power and SLC area partnership to develop legislation that allows communities that opt-in to work with utility to achieve 100% net renewable energy by 2030 o Key parts of legislation: collaboration with cities and utility; agreement to guiding principles around cost shifting; no REC shifting; no impact to low-income customers; o Distinction between legislation and green tariff or sleeved PPA: with green tariff, everyone has to opt in. With RMP/SLC example, whole community opts in, and individuals can choose to opt out o This would require enabling legislation in Montana ▪ Montana constitution guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment Discussion Questions City of Bozeman • What is the City's role in implementing this strategy? • Are there new programs, policies, or assets that need to be considered? Community Partnerships • What community organizations and partnerships can support implementation of this strategy? • How should they be engaged and what are their roles? Community Members • What is the role of neighborhoods in implementing this strategy? • What can individuals do to support this strategy? Market Considerations • What market transformations are needed for implementation to be effective? • What incentives should be explored or considered? • What is the role of business community in implementation? Challenges and Benefits • Who might be left out or impacted negatively by implementation of this strategy? How? • Who stands to benefit from implementation? How? • Are there resiliency co-benefits? Are there human health co-benefits? Preliminary Solution Ideas These preliminary ideas are pulled from the Climate Plan community engagement activities and are provided to help inform the discussion. Utility Renewable Energy Mix • Wind development • Biothermal energy from composting facility • Utility scale renewable energy projects Appendix C - Page 172 o Utility scale solar is more cost effective than rooftop solar • Geothermal electricity • Municipal utilities or co-op utilities o Don’t forget possibility of public utilities • Decouple utility revenue from electricity sales • Support the development of Green Banks in Montana o Sometimes banks are the ones holding up green options because they are worried the building might not be sellable o Rooftop and community solar o Funding specifically with goals to invest in climate action planning ▪ Green banking ▪ Public banking: need around investment o Crosses multiple focus groups o Impact investing, Blackrock announcement ▪ Companies wanting to invest in smart climate solutions o Predicted that banks would identify the risks of climate change and modify portfolios accordingly o Need an economic model: identify the things that will actually pencil and have ROI ▪ Educate the community ▪ How to include non-economic? I.e. electric school buses and children’s health o Partnerships: ▪ North Fork Financial ▪ Community Renewables Steering Committee • Demand response strategies o Smart metering (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) o Coordinate with utility on rebate/incentive programs to increase energy audit conversation rate o Time of use rates plus education for time-of-use impacts, peak loads, shifting behaviors to off-peak hours. How do consumers get that info? Currently not available from NWE ▪ NWE in process of deploying AMI technology for gas and electricity; will come into Montana with years of experience deploying in SD. NWE pilot for AMI in Bozeman encouraged ▪ Currently working on widget on NWE home page to share resource mix in real time for consumers to make informed decisions ▪ Nothing exists today for consumers to get this information. How does utility get info out, but also how does this group/coalition get the info out? What are best practices of when to avoid utilities’ peak demand periods? • We know when the grid is peaking in summer and winter; that is in resource procurement plan ▪ Bozeman has AMI for water; nobody has resisted. Not entire city has upgraded, but probably 60% of customers ▪ Emphasize customer choice ▪ Challenges: • Some people will not agree due to privacy concerns. Turn conversation into incentive based rather than punitive: you can save $20/month on utility bills if you participate • How do we advocate for the group of folks that can’t afford the higher utility costs with time of use pricing? ▪ Partnerships: • NWE: app for utility grid mix • Could NWE take the ~$20M planned to upgrade/repair Colstrip into other renewables instead? o Challenges: Appendix C - Page 173 ▪ Capacity issue: wind and solar aren’t always there when needed. Must incorporate storage ▪ How do we minimize capacity peak so we can use wind/solar/storage? ▪ Constraints around what NWE can do with procurement in legal framework in which they operate Green Power Programs • Green tariff program o Potential to structure program to allow federal/state agencies, universities, municipalities, other large users to participate and drive demand o Statewide partnership to electrify bus fleet and pair with green tariff program ▪ Improve air quality, reduce air pollution: ▪ NWE can give time of use rate for bus charging • Increase participation in green power purchase program Distributed Solar Generation • Community solar gardens o Low-income household carve out o Gives people opportunity to invest who can’t afford or whose roofs aren’t feasible for rooftop PV o NWE could potentially still lead a community solar program. NorthWestern Energy would not likely support community solar virtual net-metering as this would result in a cost shift. o A separate community solar could be proposed to the PSC that does not result in a cost shift o Bulk bidding: 50% of project cost is customer acquisition o Challenges: ▪ If the community solar project has to be in City limits, it will be more expensive due to property value • Smart grid requirements for new neighborhoods • Rooftop solar installations o Low hanging fruit, near term wins: onsite generation o Rooftop solar is economical with a 7-10 year ROI (with Investment Tax Credit) o Challenges: ▪ Acknowledge net metering may have some components of cost shifting, but it is the law of the land today and a solid investment: additional benefits to community including supporting jobs in town, monetary benefits to taxpayers if installed on public buildings ▪ Upfront capital costs ▪ Not supported by utility ▪ More expensive to install than large scale • Economic/cost analysis of rooftop solar residential vs. rooftop solar commercial vs. purchasing land for large scale: valuable exercise to come up with economic models and assessment of solar resources and location availability o Land, sidewalk, covered parking o How to increase efficiency of solar based on where it’s sited ▪ How to ensure something being built as “solar ready” is truly solar ready: Jabs Hall example at MSU o Partnerships: ▪ How to collaborate with utility to make it less threatening? ▪ Solarize campaigns: education, bulk pricing, community adoption, increased scale ▪ MSU: feasibility research, campus solar assessment, revolving loan fund example • PACE financing for renewables • Solar or wind development on closed landfill Appendix C - Page 174 o Can we work with NWE to determine site constraints at landfill? Are there technological ways of getting around them? Can we develop community solar in partnership with NWE? o Landfill site is not near substation, initial assessment with Bozeman Solar Project revealed Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) to be a better location. Still a lot of space available at WRF; anticipated space is for expansion of WRF and redundancy to land-apply waste • Landfill gas to energy • Solar farm at Idaho Pole site o City doesn’t own it • Build on success of Bozeman Solar Project o How do we work with NWE to ensure that Bozeman gets picked for NWE projects? Partnership. Put Bozeman taxpayer $ down to fund upfront cost and benefit from return • Financial incentives for solar installations • Advocate for utility policies that support distributed generation installations • Renewables on City/public buildings, schools o Assess all public buildings o Procure in bulk o Benefits come back to tax payers: can say exactly when taxpayer will start saving money o Takes commitment, financial dexterity, upfront capital ▪ Solar bonding program? • Challenges: o We don’t have time to exclude the externalities and just focus on low hanging fruit o How to monetize the benefits of immediate returns of cleaner air, healthier kids • Partnerships: o Given the net metering limitations, entities like MSU can generate substantial amounts of solar and use it all (non-export system) without being impacted by net metering limitations. Can City cooperate with entity like MSU to develop a solar farm? The energy that MSU could generate and use would reduce GHG emissions. o NWE: developing MOU with Missoula and laying out work plan for collaboration with utilities; will be in place by the end of March Other • Citizens Climate Lobby: lobbying for carbon fee and dividend on a national level through bipartisan bill o Letter from Kristen Walser talked about what a carbon tax could do for the City of Bozeman ▪ Economic incentives to reduce carbon with dividend back to citizens ▪ City could include specific clause in Bozeman Climate Plan: • “The City of Bozeman recognizes the effectiveness of a federal carbon fee and dividend policy to lower greenhouse gas emissions county-wide, while supporting households during the transition, creating jobs, and community health. We encourage our federal delegation to work in a bipartisan way to pass and implement a robust and fair federal carbon fee and dividend policy like HR 763.” • Show support as a City for legislation at the national level o Would the City become an advocate of helpful legislation on any other level, whether it be international, federal, state, or even county? Include support for advocacy in the Climate Plan including support for carbon fee and dividend and any other legislation that will help the City meet goals o Support elimination of all fossil fuel subsidies o “Request that all departments of the City use a carbon price in their planning to assess ways to transition off fossil fuels; for example, prices for (fill in from Kristen’s letter) Appendix C - Page 175 ▪ Assessing city services at a greater amount than the cost to deliver ▪ Pricing would figure into decision making as to how green facilities should be, and drive departments to push for more efficient vehicles or energy efficiency in buildings so it wasn’t a perpetual premium on city services o “Use the revenue to pay for energy efficiency measures until a federal law is enacted” o Challenges: ▪ Carbon tax might not be high enough to motivate change ▪ Doesn’t provide any money for just transition or low-income community members to make changes. Sierra Club had concerns about federal bill ▪ If tax is not effective in reducing carbon pollution, no recourse ▪ Elimination of fossil fuel subsidies might be more clear way to not perpetuate GHG emissions ▪ City does not have the ability to tell all gas stations to increase gas prices by $0.16/gallon; could only apply carbon price to direct/internal City costs and operations ▪ Advocating for Carbon Fee & Dividend is a “Letter to Santa Claus” ▪ Idea: Colstrip could be ideal test case to demonstrate how to help a community with a just transition from fossil fuels to convert to green energy/climate solutions. Could be a pilot bill the legislature could work together on: labor component, energy, environment • Community partners: o Group that met in Big Sky (Missoula, Helena, Bozeman, NWE, etc.): community renewables steering committee o MACO, MT Association of Cities, labor groups, chambers of commerce • Determine best “bang for the buck” in the money we do have to spend to offset carbon o Economic accountability, responsibility—example 5%, need to show return/cost, climate efficiency o Partnerships: ▪ Epic-N (City-MSU classroom partnership) • School buses good potential for added storage to the grid in off-use hours. Large pollution source in terms of resident health o Unknown how much storage they would provide • Sleeved PPA with other large customers o Best bang for buck: pool with other large entities like Missoula, Helena, Walmart, etc. and determine best place to site it • Natural gas as transition fuel: rapidly dropping cost of the next electron o In next 10 years, prospect for our access to renewables to grow tremendously o What position should the City of Bozeman take (smart, scientific, data driven)? Get ahead of the conversation with residential construction to build EV ready, make stronger recommendations that homes are heated by heat pumps before natural gas o This applies at the building level but also at the utility level o Data driven planning, right-of-way planning for EVs, building electrification o Challenges: ▪ If you build new facilities (plants, pipelines), out 40 years to recoup infrastructure costs ▪ Heating in Montana ▪ Utility planning for adequate supply • Support legislation to ease permitting for brownfield sites for renewable energy (i.e. solar at Colstrip) • Leadership role that Bozeman and Missoula are playing is really important: provide benefits not only to our municipalities but to other communities in the future • Is there a capacity project the City could support for NWE? o RFP, partner with bidders • Worth mentioning: not that much low hanging fruit left Appendix C - Page 176 o City make a commitment that this won’t be easy or most fiscally affordable, accept that it is going to take money and will be hard because we’ve waited so long to act o Acknowledge the cost of inaction • Market consideration: environmental economics of maintaining a healthier environment. Economic value in preserving our resources now. • Consider potential to be carbon negative, not just carbon neutral: reverse the amount of carbon we’ve put out, ex: look into what Microsoft is doing • Acknowledging feelings of helplessness: things we can’t do now, but reaching toward those targets and having them on the books • Health component and data on air pollution: o The phase outs of coal over the past 10 years have saved 26,000 American lives o Air pollution kills ~100,000 Americans annually o Cost implications: $1 trillion/year in associated health care costs o Payback period is essentially instant: when shut off sources of air pollution, health improvements are evident within weeks o Actionable, quantifiable, locally relevant o City of Bozeman to report on air quality? • Local renewable portfolio standard for the City for energy: community and City timeline. 100% renewable energy target for City Suggested Reading & Resources NorthWestern Energy Carbon Statement, December 2019: http://www.northwesternenergy.com/docs/default-source/documents/colstrip/carbon_statement_2019-12- 10.pdf NorthWestern Energy 2019 Environmental Stewardship Report (pages 1-11): http://www.northwesternenergy.com/docs/default- source/documents/environment/environmental_report_2019_v2_5-25x8_web.pdf Pathways to 100: An Energy Supply Transformation Primer for U.S. Cities Find “Pathways to 100” at: bit.ly/PathwaysTo100 Appendix C - Page 177 Greenspace, Food Systems & Natural Environment Focus Group Tuesday, February 4, 2020, 1:00-3:00pm Bozeman City Hall (121 N Rouse Ave.) – Madison Conference Room Focus Group Objectives • Explore some of the preliminary climate solutions in more detail • Confirm what solutions are already happening and working well • Discuss opportunities for new or improved solutions • Examine the co-benefits and challenges of the solutions Agenda Template Time Agenda Item 1:00 – 1:30pm Welcome, Objectives & Introduction Presentations 1:30 – 1:55pm Climate Strategy #1: Urban Farms & Gardens 1:55 – 2:20pm Climate Strategy #2: Water Supply & Conservation 2:20 – 2:50pm Climate Strategy #3: Carbon Sequestration & Land Management 2:50 – 3:00pm Open Discussion & Next Steps Attendees Name Organization Natalie Meyer City of Bozeman Sustainability Danica Jamison Greater Gallatin United Way Alex Nordquest City of Bozeman Forestry Division Jessica Ahlstrom City of Bozeman Water Conservation Division Frank Greenhill City of Bozeman Stormwater Division Addi Jadin City of Bozeman Parks Division Kate Wright Open and Local Erin Jackson Gallatin Valley Farm to School Selena Ahmed MSU Sustainable Food Systems Jay Sinnott Bozeman Climate Partners Jennifer Boyer Farm 51 Libby Khumalo Citizen-at-large Eli Frandsen MSU Geography (recent graduate) Emma Bode Forward Montana Foundation Appendix C - Page 178 Presentations Addi Jadin, City of Bozeman Parks Division • Related to urban farms and gardens, the Park Plan doesn’t reference these topics, but developing partnerships would be the best in-road to develop urban agriculture programming in City Parks o There are examples of growing partnerships underway: Gallatin Valley Farm to School will be hosting camps at Story Mill Community Park, MSU Extension is interested in becoming the organizing body for our community gardens, the Food Bank has entered into collaboration to manage garden plots at Story Mill Community Park (which is a park that will continue to have a strong partnership with the Trust for Public Lands for ongoing stewardship programs) • Related to water supply & conservation, the current code says new developments are required to provide parkland based on a ratio to the number of housing units o In Bozeman, you can’t include natural open space and wetlands in this, only active parks o Developers can ask for a waiver of parkland dedication, including protection of critical habitat o Waivers can be presented by the developer, but there is no structure or definition for critical habitat, which The Parks Division hopes to address this in the new park plan • Related to carbon sequestration and land management, Parks works with Water Conservation on natural landscape design o Currently the standards for parks only requires sidewalks and irrigation for turf • Ideas included in the Climate Plan can be built upon in the Parks Plan • The Parks Division staffing plan calls for a second planner, which they would like to be a landscape architect, who could help shape park landscaping policy Alex Nordquest, Forestry Division • The Forestry Division maintain City-owned trees, including boulevards and parks o They do not maintain private trees o Trees are a unit of city infrastructure that intersect with sustainability, water conservation, and stormwater • In reference to urban farms and gardens, use caution when considering orchard-style fruit trees that require a high level of maintenance • Pollinator friendly tree species are encouraged in the street tree guide • In reference to water conservation, trees may require more water up front, but over time the trees replace turf and create shade that reduces irrigation requirements • Drought-tolerant species are encouraged, not necessarily all native, encourage a diverse palette to resist insects & diseases • In reference to carbon sequestration, trees contribute and they encourage climate friendly species and drought tolerant species • Trees are part of green infrastructure o They have pilots that include permeable surfaces, overflow for stormwater runoff, and are buffered by trees • Have 25,000 trees currently o Goals of planting new trees tend to overshadow the maintenance requirements o When considering expanding the urban forest, maintenance is the most challenging o Boulevard trees are city-owned, but depend upon residents to water, mulch, and call city for pruning/replacement options Appendix C - Page 179 o Water bags sold with boulevard trees to simplify watering requirements along with plastic shields to protect trees from rodents and mowing damage • Current Forest Resource Plan includes species diversity to build in climate resilience Frank Greenhill, City of Bozeman Stormwater Division • Stormwater is a regulated utility operating under an MS4 permit • They manage infrastructure, including cleaning pipes/inlets • Provide flood protection by upsizing pipes to mitigate flooding/improve public safety • Develop water quality projects with mechanical separation that remove pollutants, sediment, and debris o A total of 53 tons of debris were removed from Bozeman and Mandeville Creek in 2019 • Street sweeping contributes to water quality improvements • They encourage rain barrels to help capture water and reuse, as well as rain gardens, and trees • New developments are required to implement control measures that provide for capture or reuse for the first 0.5 inch of a 24-hr storm event • Related to carbon sequestration, maintaining wetlands (natural or constructed) serve to sequester carbon o They facilitate sedimentation and eventually run out of capacity—dredging of wetlands is expensive and permitting is difficult • Permeable paver patio in front of City Hall is a great example of green infrastructure in which the snowmelt/rainwater does not run-off, mimics natural filtration process • Proper management of herbicides/pesticides encouraged • RFP out to update City engineering standards to reflect changes in runoff patterns, including intense storms and rapid spring runoff o Updating the Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) curve they expect to see that a 50 year event is now a 10 year event o Result will likely lead to more Low Impact Development from development community • Good example of a municipal wetland in Billings, Shiloh Conservation Area • Sanding material Streets Division uses includes magnesium chloride, the amount variable based on temperature o The percentage is lower than most communities, but necessary o Water runoff from streets can still be used to irrigate street trees • Street sweeping debris T-clip analysis (general toxicity test) has never had a “hot hit” (exceeding max allowable threshold) o Material can be used for building trails, parks, etc. • Oridnance protecting net loss of wetlands? o Wetlands can be lost within city with new development and most of west side of town includes wetlands o The wetland mitigation bank in Three Forks allows developers to offset locally lost wetlands. ▪ Wetlands must be maintained within the Upper Missouri river. ▪ Code indicates we should encourage/enforce developers to prioritize keeping wetlands on site. ▪ Developers easily describe jobs/housing as community benefit to justify use of wetland mitigation bank ▪ The code could be less subjective and say that it must be a one to one replacement within valley or set distance from the project o The Commission has asked staff to create a white paper on the cost of maintenance and describe the difficulty of the issue to help determine whether it should remain a priority. Appendix C - Page 180 Jessica Ahlstrom, Water Conservation Division • City Water Conservation Program started five years ago and has included all voluntary measures • The 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan looks at water supply and growth • New water rights are not readily available and growth in demand is exceeding what the plan projected • The Plan calls for 18,000 additional acre-feet and half of that should come from water conservation • Transitioning the program from all voluntary and education-based to having some teeth in code, especially for new development o Looking at revising landscaping code, including putting sidebars on how much water a landscape can require o The City requires that parkland is irrigated, looking at specifying efficiency irrigation standards o HOA’s often require green turf, looking at opportunities to address this in code o Natural landscapes in city property, lots of opportunity in code to look at native grasses with lower maintenance and water requirements • The Drought Management Plan identifies 4 stages of drought o If in stage 3 or 4 drought, the city could ask residents to stop watering lawns, but not trees o This is something to consider when discussing urban farms and gardens o Could restrict times that residents water or completely restrict irrigation o Permanent time of day irrigation restrictions are possible, but may be countered by HOA penalties for not maintaining green lawns o Watering restrictions would apply to exempt wells, but difficult to enforce o DNRC issues permits for wells (exempt wells) as a permit, but not a water right • Goal in October to review landscaping requirements for commercial, residential, and parks o Generally assume that most food production would not exceed the water demands of turf grass, but this should be quantified Danica Jamison, Greater Gallatin United Way and Erin Jackson, Gallatin Valley Farm to School • Natural systems conversation not complete without considering humans and our need to eat • Food systems critical to everyone o Consider times that you have been “hangry” and what that experience would be if you were food insecure o The middle to upper economic class in Bozeman is accustomed to being able to go to grocery store at any point to get what they want • See Bozeman Food Plan • Food system includes complex web of food processes required to get food from farm to table o All components of the Climate Plan tie into the food system • Discussion of the focus areas brings to light the ability of city to impact the food system in a more holistic framework • Food for human consumption can be the lens from which to address all the other topics we have discussed in the Climate Plan Dr. Selena Ahmed, MSU Sustainable Food Systems (see presentation) • Climate change and food systems, critical to have a role for food system as the largest contributor to global climate change and it is impacted by climate change • 20-30% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions from food systems • Already seeing impacts of climate change on reduced food security • Farmer’s in MT are perceiving that climate change is impacting productivity and nutritional quality • Anxiety among farmers increasing due to uncertainty presented by climate change • Food systems have the ability to help mitigate climate change • This translates so local level policy recommendations related to greenspace and irrigation Appendix C - Page 181 • MSU integrating pollinator gardens that include diverse, native plants, and edible landscapes • The illustration of carbon footprint of various food sources is locally nuanced. Ex: role of hunted wildlife and bison; local versus imported o Another nuance is that keeping cattle producers on land prevents prairie from being plowed up, which releases a lot of carbon • Kelly Wiseman from Bozeman Food Co-op emphasizes how food insecure we may be o One major snow storm can prevent food truck deliveries o We currently have an on-demand food system o Has city considered emergency food supply? Have we assessed our food security to determine how resilient our food system might be? o 90% of food produced out-of-state • See components of Bozeman Food Vision Plan and Building a Climate Resilient City Discussion Questions City of Bozeman • What is the City's role in implementing this strategy? • Are there new programs, policies, or assets that need to be considered? Community Partnerships • What community organizations and partnerships can support implementation of this strategy? • How should they be engaged and what are their roles? Community Members • What is the role of neighborhoods in implementing this strategy? • What can individuals do to support this strategy? Market Considerations • What market transformations are needed for implementation to be effective? • What incentives should be explored or considered? • What is the role of business community in implementation? Challenges and Benefits • Who might be left out or impacted negatively by implementation of this strategy? How? • Who stands to benefit from implementation? How? • Are there resiliency co-benefits? Are there human health co-benefits? Preliminary Solution Ideas These preliminary ideas are pulled from the Climate Plan community engagement activities and are provided to help inform the discussion. Urban Farms & Gardens • Work with partners to create a Bozeman/Gallatin Food Council • Analyze food system for vulnerabilities • Food security: HRDC is also concerned about food reserves in Bozeman during emergency Partnerships: Appendix C - Page 182 • MSU Sustainable Food Systems, MSU Office of Sustainability, Food Producers, Open & Local, Gallatin Valley Farm to School, Gallatin County Emergency Management, Members of the Triangle Plan Coordinating Committee ▪ Triangle Plan Section on Agriculture, 1) Encourage development designs that integrate significant agricultural opportunities such as cluster development, community gardens, and agrihoods 2) support & encourage farm to table opportunities in triangle area 3) protect conservation easements 4) protect existing agricultural activity 5) encourage new appropriate and compatible agricultural opportunities within the triangle area ▪ Planning Coordination Committee is recommending adoption in Bozeman, Belgrade, and Gallatin County. Now going to planning boards for review and adoption in early March • Support food producers through City Economic Development • There is a need to develop the food sector, not just high-wage industries--Food producers all operate on tight margins • Support a Bozeman food hub • Open & Local examining • Can create another income stream for farmers and ranchers • Work with County to encourage cottage food businesses • Allow public farms in green spaces • Consider how to support agrihoods within the planning framework • Definition is a housing development centered around community agriculture • Over 200 models exist, should work with partners to bring speakers to Bozeman to learn about opportunities • Nutrition and Physical Activity Committee led by Bozeman Health, part of Community Health Improvement Plan is interested in bringing speakers to Bozeman • Review city codes for barriers to food production • Policies around yards and gardens • Obstacles to light industrial agriculture Challenges & Benefits o Food System bigger than “urban farms and gardens” referenced in Climate Plan. Food systems are the nexus of food insecurity, food waste, physical activity, and social cohesion o Need plan to ensure that planted food is managed and harvested, not just a bear and wildlife attractant • Convert lawns to garden space • Encourage developments to have gardens and fruit trees Market Considerations o Gardens require a person or group interested in maintaining • Gardens part of every park • Community gardens City of Bozeman o Improve management and model for community gardens in Bozeman o Pockets of community gardens not organized in a way that can pool resources to re-invest in garden infrastructure o Examine Helena and Missoula Community Partnerships o Potential among Master Gardeners to assist with management and other groups using gardens for therapy Challenges & Benefits Appendix C - Page 183 o Community gardens can provide tons of food to food bank • Support farmers markets • Set goals for food security Water Supply & Conservation • Replace lawns with drought-tolerant, native plants (climate/pollinator friendly lawns) • Encourage rainwater capture and use • Provide education and limit any HOA landscaping requirements City of Bozeman: o Water Conservation is evaluating options ▪ City cannot limit HOAs, but whichever code is most restrictive is the code that applies, so landscaping and irrigation code must be carefully written if we wanted the city code to apply o City promoted HOA language as an educational tool ▪ Include food vision ideas, allowing gardens on all sides of home, etc. ▪ Include expiring language in HOA covenants Partnerships: o Could we find one HOA to change and lead by example? Volunteer led Food System Council could lead the effort ▪ Record of HOAs filed at Courthouse and most HOAs managed by property management companies Market Considerations: o Changing HOA covenants difficult because they typically require 80% vote to overturn, but cannot rarely get a quorum • New development should pay their way and offset their demand in community or within the development • Make water more expensive • Don’t wait for drought before implementing water use restrictions o Consider seasonal time of use irrigations restrictions • Review all codes pertaining to landscaping o Avoid contradictions between water conservation and vegetation requirements, including 75% live vegetation requirement o Incorporate limits on irrigation for new developments • View parking code in relation to water conservation o What is the impact of a the parking lot on the surrounding vegetation that requires irrigation ▪ Climate Plan should recommend eliminating parking minimums for a variety of reasons ▪ Parking islands, however, needed for stormwater management where there is parking Carbon Sequestration & Land Management • Quantify carbon sequestration potential and irrigation requirements of different types of vegetation o Need performance measure to indicate the goal and verify performance ▪ Example: Denver has goal of 99.2 acres in active agriculture. If set the goal, have multiple ways to get to it. o Carbon sequestration potential could fit within a stretch code • Maintain and expand functional wetlands o Ordinance to ensure wetland mitigation stays within watershed o Need to prioritize wetlands for the many benefits of habitat, water infiltration, water retention, and native species • Low Impact Development standards • Climate friendly landscaping on every parking bulb and median Appendix C - Page 184 • Encourage permeable surfaces (and green infrastructure) (ground water recharge/mitigate urban flooding) City of Bozeman: o Incentivize Partnerships: o Montana State University Facilities Market Considerations: o Challenge because it is expensive to install and maintain Challenges & Benefits: o Quantify externalities and benefits related to flood mitigation, etc. Cost of not doing it? • Connect habitat corridors • Limit pesticides and herbicides in city parks • Promote Phosphorous-free city o Look for natural ways to fertilize instead of chemical inputs • Implement a Biochar program o Biochar is made through the pyrolysis process, along with biogas or oil that can be used for heavy- duty diesel • Wood from urban forest may be the best application • Biochar creates longest carbon sequestration potential from wood (1,000 yrs) • MSU researchers studying, potential for a mobile biochar truck Market Considerations: o Phosphorous found in detergents, some cities have banned • Maintain and expand urban forest o App to monitor tree health and carbon sequestration o Work with schools on tree planting programs o Afforest cemetery and other public space for carbon sink and cooling • Grow a more natural forest to build carbon sequestration, such as at the Water Reclamation Facility or Water Treatment Plant o Require developers to replant trees they cut down • Greenways along all bike/walking paths • Proportionally expand greenspace with new developments Challenges & Benefits: o Anything with plants, need to consider and document water demand o Would it result in lower water use? What is impact on affordable housing? • Climate justice major value of Climate Team. How to manage greenspace in affordable housing? • In affordable housing developments, stormwater control measures allowed for in open space, but not parkland • Improve access to greenspace and open space to all residents o Trust for Public Lands mappings shows that only 80% of community members live within a 10- minute walk of a park (4-5k without easy access) Appendix C - Page 185 Partnerships: o Need to use existing infrastructure to create more parks and gardens within city o Can we formalize agreement with MSU that articulates how the general public can use certain green spaces? Challenges & Opportunities: o Much easier to keep on board with other climate programs if people have access and appreciate the outdoors • Support/incentivize regenerative agriculture • Support managed grazing practices through partnerships, including purchase of carbon offsets Education • Develop a strategy and action tools for individuals to make personal improvements related to food, water conservation, stormwater, carbon sequestration, and land management Suggested Reading and Resources Denver FoodVision 2017: https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/771/documents/CH/Final_FoodVision_120717.pdf Forestry Division Website: https://www.bozeman.net/government/forestry Parks Division Website: https://www.bozeman.net/government/parks Prairie Climate Center Climate Resilient City Agriculture: http://prairieclimatecentre.ca/wp- content/uploads/2017/04/pcc-brief-climate-resilient-city-agriculture-food.pdf Stormwater Division Website: https://www.bozeman.net/government/stormwater Water Conservation Division Website: https://www.bozeman.net/government/water-conservation Attachments: Trees and Climate Change comment submitted by Aida Murga, Bozeman FoodVision, submitted by Climate Team members Danica Jamison and Erin Jackson Appendix C - Page 186 BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN Neighborhoods Focus Group Thursday, January 30, 2020, 12:00-2:00pm Bozeman City Hall (121 N Rouse Ave.) – Madison Conference Room Focus Group Objectives • Explore some of the preliminary climate solutions in more detail • Confirm what solutions are already happening and working well • Discuss opportunities for new or improved solutions • Examine the co-benefits and challenges of the solutions Agenda Template Time Agenda Item 12:00 – 12:15pm Welcome & Objectives 12:15 – 1:45pm Climate Strategy: Compact Development Patterns 1:45 – 2:00pm Open Discussion & Next Steps Attendees Name Organization Addi Jadin City of Bozeman Parks Chris Naumann Downtown Bozeman Partnership Danica Jamison Greater Gallatin United Way Jennifer Boyer Farm 51 Libby Khumalo Citizen-at-large Sarah Rosenberg City of Bozeman Community Development Jay Sinnott Bozeman Climate Partners Chris Saunders City of Bozeman Community Development Randy Carpenter Future West Candace Mastel MSU and Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Eli Frandsen MSU Student Body, recent Architecture graduate Natalie Meyer City of Bozeman Sustainability Presentations Chris Saunders, City of Bozeman Community Development o 2009 Community Plan is 6th edition, currently working on 7th version ▪ Consistent priorities over the years: affordable housing appeared in 1972, compact development appeared in 1982, and preservation of environment is always a theme o Community Plan cross references multiple plans, city has 26 diverse plans across the organization Appendix C - Page 187 o Western boundary of city has not moved for over 20 years, while population has gone up 72%, land area up 58% o 2010 census 33% of all homes in Bozeman had one person living in it, major implications for affordable housing and density o Compact development driven by demand for services, parks, demographics, and social trends o Everything checked on the list in the agenda (see presentation) has been in place for 10 years or more o Community Plan update will go out for public comment mid-March; elements tied to climate action, affordable housing, etc. “The literature suggests that doubling residential density across a metropolitan area might lower VMT by about 5-12%, and perhaps by as much as 25%, if coupled with higher employment concentrations, significant public transit improvements, mixed uses, and other supportive demand management measures.” –Driving the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions (2009). Discussion Questions City of Bozeman • What is the City's role in implementing this strategy? • Are there new programs, policies, or assets that need to be considered? Community Partnerships • What community organizations and partnerships can support implementation of this strategy? • How should they be engaged and what are their roles? Community Members • What is the role of neighborhoods in implementing this strategy? • What can individuals do to support this strategy? Market Considerations • What market transformations are needed for implementation to be effective? • What incentives should be explored or considered? • What is the role of business community in implementation? • Challenges and Benefits • Who might be left out or impacted negatively by implementation of this strategy? How? • Who stands to benefit from implementation? How? • Are there resiliency co-benefits? Are there human health co-benefits? Preliminary Solution Ideas These preliminary ideas are pulled from the Climate Plan community engagement activities and are provided to help inform the discussion. Compact Development Patterns: • Mixed use developments o Increase access to grocery stores and restaurants in residential areas o Encourage home daycares/eldercare in residential areas Appendix C - Page 188 City of Bozeman o Most city falls within mixed use zoning, no zones for single family homes only, city has been working at this for a long time o City needs to be able to articulate expectations and sustainability goals to developer and Commissioners ▪ Identify leverage points for shifting expectations: engineers, consultants, lenders, realtors, appraisers o Use a recognition program to raise profile of excellent developments (put all city awards under one heading to raise the profile of the event). Encourage market advantage of being “green” Community Partnerships o Consultants could have a role in the education/influence with lenders/developers and can push better design philosophy ▪ Could highlight successfully sold non-conventional developments (education) ▪ Need thought-leaders from private sector to educate and build partnerships ▪ Need a lot of entities to build educational/conversational discussion ▪ Use Envision Tomorrow software tool to demonstrate impacts of new development on traffic, emissions, maintenance, etc. ▪ Message based on convenience, safe, fun, efficient (not climate change/sustainability) • Majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and more want to see sustainability, so who are we trying to convince o Southwest Montana Building Industry Association to assist with movement away from spec homes o Seat at the Table Community Members o Difference between moving from knowledge to being willing to change o Help educate neighbors around connection between density, reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled, improved air quality, and reduced emissions Market Considerations o City enters the conversation relatively late in the process. The realtor sets the sale price and lenders buy off on initial land purchase. There is a high degree of frustration among city staff that they can’t spend enough time on education, but also recognize critical decisions already made by the time they see the project o There are numerous provisions authorized in code, but these may not be used for a variety of factors, such as awareness, property configuration, private covenants, etc. o People funding the projects really have the power, they just want to know if they can sell the development o Lenders (ex: Blackrock) signaling shift, need to think ahead to take advantage of these shifts Challenges & Benefits o Developers hugely powerful in separating people by economic class o Recognize the need for a cultural shift to overcome NIMBYism; ▪ Acknowledge climate change as part of the difficult discussion around parking and downtown density • Use growth policy to encourage more compact city City of Bozeman • If developer can still build single family homes in highest density zones, is the lot size too big? • Site constraints related to utility provisions in compact development Appendix C - Page 189 o Compact Development Standards are being developed to review the city’s requirement for physical separation from water/sewer utilities o Review new compact development standards to account for building electrification/EV Service Equipment • Planned Unit Developments o City can prioritize affordable housing and sustainable design o Points for LEED Platinum, gardening, etc. o Get rid of open space performance points, it provides an out to density requirement (unless it is wetlands) o Ex: Billings Clinic needs to be annexed, requires performance points ▪ What do we need to require? Solar, sustainable materials, superior quality of materials, local gardening on campus, LEED Platinum building design, EV charging on-site, ▪ Nothing is codified as to what they must to do and what the relaxations will be ▪ Development will grow around this facility • Zoning around should accommodate a variety of housing types • Need opportunity to bike less than 2 miles for amenities ▪ Could the city require use of a recognition system, like LEED or State of MT High Performance Building Standard? • City cannot offload regulatory responsibility or delegate approval authority by mandating LEED certification, but can recognize that a certification is valuble to the city. • Could create a zoning standard that duplicates LEED, but would need a staff person to administer Market Considerations o In assessing the best opportunities for sustainability in a project, the consultant has the best opportunity and sees project much earlier than city o Zoning code allows for a lot, but rate of change very slow o Potential allowed, but real world circumstances are obstacles ▪ Ex: carsharing allowed in code for 10 years, political process recently resulted in only 1 of 4 proposed space for a carshare, which is impractical. Need to educate leaders on purpose of progressive code provisions ▪ Lenders may dictate the amount of parking required ▪ Ex: Previously city had to force parkland requirement, now there is market understanding that it is a very valuable asset ▪ Developer can meet all the standards on paper, then hold a lot intended for density. City can’t compel them to sell the lot adjacent to multi-million dollar single family Challenges & Benefits o Must plan for climate migrants, even greater population growth o Account for human health and mental health to build community resilience and adaptation to climate change. Relationships are critical in response situations. Where do people go for grieving? ▪ Salt Lake City actively promotes the Good Grief Network ▪ City Strategic Plan describes a Safe, Welcoming, Community with neighborhood centers ▪ Mental health should be addressed on a neighborhood scale ▪ Radical changes can happen after individuals go through process of grieving around climate change ▪ The city can offer facility spaces (for free) for people to support one another Appendix C - Page 190 ▪ Components of physical design standards influence where people gather, relate to each other (parks, urban forest) • Accessory dwelling units City of Bozeman o R-1 zoning closest thing to single-family zoning, but this zoning still allows for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and 4,000SF lots o Allow/encourage conversion of homes to duplexes ▪ ADUs allowed since 1998 as interior or exterior, less than 1% have been interior conversions despite the lower cost and ease of permitting • Encourage smaller homes City of Bozeman o Minimum house size is the minimum allowed within the building code. Community Development has issued permits for sub-300SF homes • Neighborhood orientation to encourage passive solar design • Walkable neighborhoods o Complete streets o Trail connectivity, paved bike paths, bike lanes Market Considerations o The community was designed around Single Occupancy Vehicles o Perpetuating Single Occupancy Vehicles paradigm in development will not result in a reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled ▪ Need 15-22 homes per acre to support a neighborhood business without access (parking) for SOVs • Regional coordination to encourage urban growth City of Bozeman/Community Partnerships o Coordination with adjacent government bodies is a long-standing theme. Belgrade, Gallatin County, City of Bozeman developed the Triangle Plan for cross-jurisdictional planning on streets, utilities, etc. • Encourage preservation of natural wetland infrastructure City of Bozeman o Educate residents on functional role of wetlands in flood mitigation o Incorporating natural systems with subdivision meandering drives was good, but it also perpetuates expansive suburbs; these natural system features should be designated, mapped features o Community Plan lightly discusses keeping wetlands local. Planning with the natural environment is a section of the Community Plan; the new park plan update will include a broader discussion of the definitions of critical wetlands/habitat in order to promote/incentivize opportunities to maintain these systems • Provide development bonuses for higher density developments City of Bozeman o Does the city offer development bonuses? ▪ Depends on how you think of what constitutes a bonus; ex: the City only requires additional parkland up to a certain level depending on zone, then it is free and additional density does not require more parkland. ▪ Other examples related to parking reductions • Master plan for EV infrastructure in new developments to help avoid conflict with compact development City of Bozeman o Review new compact development standards to account for building electrification/EV Service Equipment • Support HOAs with city-approved climate resilience language for covenants Appendix C - Page 191 City of Bozeman o Provide legally reviewed standard language for sustainable HOA best practices ▪ It can be very difficult to find the representatives of a HOA, but the city is always accessible. State law prevents city from restricting HOAs. ▪ Ensure sun-setting or re-affirmation of covenants provision; eliminate HOA covenants with annexation; or after full build-out of subdivision ▪ No turf requirements (city requires 75% live vegetation, but HOA can require turf) ▪ Allow clotheslines, climate friendly yards, food gardens on all sides, and solar on any surface ▪ Encourage smart irrigation of turf in parks, need to maintain meeting space/sports spaces in parks • Encourage co-housing, cottage development, and sharing economy City of Bozeman o Cookie-cutter housing only practical to a subset of residents ▪ Need shared storage/lockers and reduced residential square footage ▪ Unified Development Code Article 5 emphasizes shared storage and can be used towards open space requirement ▪ “Thingery Sheds” to promote sharing of household and yard equipment ▪ City is in process of annexing a co-housing development; applicant will only need to submit site plan (no PUD, no variances); ▪ If city identifies affordable housing as priority and the development provides this, it is easier for parks to consider habitat restoration in lieu of parkland Community Partnerships o Shared storage could be promoted through HOA o MSU partnership, using ag-land, promote for their staff Market Consideration o The edge of town is sometimes the only place with a piece of land available that would support a larger co-housing/cottage housing development o Cottage Development is in code and allows for small homes with shared services. Obstacle has been that developers usually try to do this on left-over piece of land that has major obstacles, such as wetlands Suggested Reading and Resources 2019 Community Plan: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/doc/201141/Electronic.aspx 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan: https://downtownbozeman.org/uploads/2019_DBIP_Final_Draft_low-res.pdf Appendix C - Page 192 BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN Transportation Focus Group Focus Group Objectives • Explore some of the preliminary climate solutions in more detail • Confirm what solutions are already happening and working well • Discuss opportunities for new or improved solutions • Examine the co-benefits and challenges of the solutions Agenda Template Time Agenda Item 2:30 – 2:45pm Welcome & Objectives 2:45 – 3:15pm Climate Strategy #1: Transit & Active Transportation 3:15 – 3:45pm Climate Strategy #2: Direct Vehicle Emissions 3:45 – 4:15pm Climate Strategy #3: Airline Fuel Efficiency 4:15 – 4:30pm Open Discussion & Next Steps Attendees Name Organization Maia Madrid Energy Corps Service Member, MT DEQ Energy Office Kyla Maki MT DEQ Energy Office Danae Giannetti Western Transportation Institute Owen Mitchell Bozeman High School Emma Bode Forward Montana Foundation Terry Cunningham City of Bozeman Jay Sinnott Bozeman Climate Partners Heather Higinbotham Davies City of Bozeman Lori Christenson Gallatin County Health Department Danica Jamison Greater Gallatin United Way Taylor Lonsdale City of Bozeman Karin Kirk Freelance Journalist, Bridger Bowl Bonnie Hickey Bridger Bowl Jeff Fox Renewable Northwest Candace Mastel MSU and Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Chris Saunders City of Bozeman Natalie Meyer City of Bozeman Appendix C - Page 193 Presentations Danae Gianetti, P.E., Research Engineer, Western Transportation Engineer • Streets as places from the lenses of equity, community, economic vitality, environmental sustainability, health. Equity was a focus of our Climate Plan word cloud • Ithaca, NY referenced as best in class community during Climate Team meeting #2, thus will look to their strategies for best practices • Reviewed Bozeman plans, including Strategic Plan, Triangle Plan, Community Plan, and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) • Mode share map shows higher rate of biking, walking, transit near university, and less in the northwest where there is less infrastructure • City responsible for 215 miles of maintenance o $18.5M planned for transportation expenditures with $9.9M in capacity expanding projects, $100K for annual pedestrian ramp repair, $150K HRDC Streamline and $2 mil per year needed for Streamline and Galavan combined • Provided highlights of TMP recommended capacity expanding projects for 5-lane arterials • Wide roads can be stressful to non-motorized commuters • Bozeman sill very dependent upon single passenger vehicles (71%) • Ithaca, NY in contrast 46% commute by vehicle • Many similarities in Ithaca, but provides for green hierarchy of transportation that prioritizes pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, freight, and private vehicles. They also have a strong Transportation Demand Management program (TDM) • Cannot build our way out of congestion o Instead of building capacity to move more cars, should plan to move people more efficiently • TDM program has included ridesharing app (Bozemancommute.org), traffic calming pop-up projects, and recent efforts with Bridger Bowl • How can we support Transportation Demand Management? How will widening roads support multimodal transportation and our GHG emissions reduction goals? Kyla Maki, Montana DEQ Energy Office, Montana Electric Vehicle Activities & Barriers • Transportation Demand Management critical before or in conjunction with vehicle electrification • Offers an opportunity for smart mobility, but reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled is critical backbone--efficiency first! • Bad news in 2016 transportation overtook the electricity sector for emissions. Good news is that electricity emissions are coming down and there is an opportunity to electrify transportation • Every state has a different emissions profile, but 90% of the country will reduce emissions by transitioning to electric vehicle, including MT • Adoption in MT is relatively low, Plug-in Electric Vehicle registrations are low relative to WA, OR, CA where they have state tax credits • Range anxiety is a major obstacle in MT where we are large geographically with low population density, little fast charging available over long distances, and the infrastructure challenge is substantial • Demand charges from utility are an obstacle • Need to build infrastructure for people to feel comfortable purchasing an EV • Level II and fast charging (Level III) increases adoption rates. MT only has 3 Level III publicly available stations • State has signed the Regional Electric Vehicle Plan for the West with 7 other states (CO, UT, NV, WY, AZ, ID, NM). Focuses on I-15, I-90, and I-94 as interstate corridors in MT. All states have put 15% of VW funding towards EV charging infrastructure Appendix C - Page 194 • MT $12.6M from VW emissions scandal for EV infrastructure, Electric Transit, diesel reduction, $1.89 mill for Level II stations, will fund up to 10 DC fast charging stations o Considering Interstates and Yellowstone Glacier corridors o Locations will be more defined for fast charging, likely up to $25k for each station • No major policies from the state to drive adoption, local jurisdictions play an important role • Policy direction primarily coming from Governor Bullock’s Climate Solutions Council Executive Order to promote alternative modes of transportation and electrification of the transportation sector • Fast charging station locations should be spaced 65-80 miles apart, according to NREL o Fast charging costs range dramatically with soft costs making up 90%, Level III stations average around $80k • Mountain Line in Missoula now has 8 EV transit buses o They are charging overnight, which is best for the grid and they are exploring EV transit rate design with NorthWestern Energy • Do not need extensive fast charging infrastructure in town, primarily need Level II, NREL has EV-Pro model indicates the entire state would only need 30 fast charging stations • 80% of time charging occurs at home o Level II infrastructure in town is more affordable and equitable Discussion Questions City of Bozeman • What is the City's role in implementing this strategy? • Are there new programs, policies, or assets that need to be considered? Community Partnerships • What community organizations and partnerships can support implementation of this strategy? • How should they be engaged and what are their roles? Community Members • What is the role of neighborhoods in implementing this strategy? • What can individuals do to support this strategy? Market Considerations • What market transformations are needed for implementation to be effective? • What incentives should be explored or considered? • What is the role of business community in implementation? Challenges and Benefits • Who might be left out or impacted negatively by implementation of this strategy? How? • Who stands to benefit from implementation? How? • Resiliency co-benefits? Preliminary Solution Ideas These preliminary ideas are pulled from the Climate Plan community engagement activities and are provided to help inform the discussion. Discussion Notes: Appendix C - Page 195 Transit & Active Transportation • Prioritize walking and non-motorized transportation in the transportation planning hierarchy o CoB ▪ Transportation Plan includes some conflicting priorities, city should commit to non- motorized hierarchy ▪ Dense development supports transit and active/non-motorized transportation ▪ Add teeth to vision/goals in planning documents • Amplify the message of saving lives and making transportation safer ▪ Bike network expansion • More separated path infrastructure is needed to convert drivers to bikers o Provide for major N-S and E-W separated path corridor o Prioritize maintenance of separated paths o Ex: of Pinellas Trail in Fl with over-passes, tunnels for bike/ped o Don’t assume it is more expensive if all infrastructure within the acquired right-of-way ▪ Ensure bike paths/sidewalks are safe and well lit • Maintain bike paths, clear of snow and sweep • Need enforcement around sidewalk shoveling • Allow adults to ride bikes on sidewalks where there is capacity/low congestion • Rules about adults vs. children on sidewalks should be evaluating • When streets become constricted due to snow storage, remove on-street parking on a long- and/or short-term basis • Winter maintenance a challenge because shoveling would fall to adjacent property owners, likely to see less access ▪ Safe pedestrian crossings • For safety, all potential crossing lanes should be stopped when pedestrian crossing signal is active • Ensure islands are included in design for 5-7 lane roadways (including existing) o Community Partnerships ▪ Inclusive planning in development of Metropolitan Planning Organization o Challenges & Benefits ▪ Consider aging population design within multi-modal infrastructure and transit ▪ Plan for all, particularly those with limited mobility ▪ Engage in design thinking based on empathy for all users, be aware of elite projection (privilege based on physical and financial status) • Use walking audits to help inform design • Predictable, convenient, and reliable transit system o CoB ▪ Signal priority for transit during development review process o Community Partnerships ▪ MSU, HRDC, Gallatin County, City of Belgrade ▪ Explore on-demand transit services for first/last mile, such as Via (Mobility as a Service) ▪ Expanded Belgrade Park and Ride needed ▪ Map goal of a convenient/reliable system, identify distance to key destinations from stops and time on bus between major hubs • Set goal of 75% of city is within ¼ mile of bus stop (see TMP goals) ▪ Install sensors on buses that activate green traffic signal Appendix C - Page 196 ▪ Bike share programs • Consider in conjunction with e-bikes/electric scooters for first/last mile transit o Market Considerations ▪ Requires sustainable transit funding, such as support from large employers or creation of an urban Transportation District once Bozeman forms a Metropolitan Planning Organization upon reaching the 50,000 population threshold ▪ There is a bus driver shortage and the Motor Vehicle Division is under-funded, can’t get drivers licensed in a timely manner ▪ Some large employers should fund dependable circulator routes ▪ We don’t know exactly what the outcomes will be for disruptive technologies, including Mobility as a Service (MOS) ▪ There are battery leasing models to help fund EV transit o Challenges & Benefits ▪ Support a just transition from taxi drivers to bus drivers ▪ Need creative solutions, such as affordable housing for drivers ▪ E-scooters as transit or tourist novelty that induces trips? • Carpooling programs o Community Partnerships (WTI, HRDC, Gallatin County) ▪ Support carpool services to major recreation areas, such as Hyalite ▪ Support carpool to airport • Use existing Riding Amigos rideshare app ▪ Mobility as a Service with curated trip planning ▪ Promote carshare to support residents who do not want to own a car, but may need one periodically o Market Considerations ▪ High participation rate needed for rideshare apps to be efficient/useful ▪ Uber/Lyft can increase emissions due to idling/circulating • Train system to connect regional destinations o Market Considerations ▪ State-level support required • Incentives for choosing non-motorized transportation and transit o CoB ▪ Charge for parking to equitably distribute the city’s cost of supporting the convenience of Single Occupancy Vehicles ▪ Make parking easier for compact vehicles ▪ Reduce the amount of parking o Market Considerations ▪ Parking requirements/standards in development should be developed in consideration of the current social reality (ex: carshare parking reduction allowance in development code does not reflect reality that most MT households have more than one car parked at home) ▪ Communications should reflect options and choices and steer away from guilt while also noting the urgency of our situation because we are past the point of education-only approaches ▪ Streamline traditionally funded as a need-based system and transitioning to convenience- based system, need holistic community conversation about transit, how we invest/plan/support it • Climate Plan discussion can spark that planning Appendix C - Page 197 ▪ A large portion of Streamline funding comes from MSU student fees, thus charging a fee may not be cost-effective since 60% of riders should not have to pay twice; national trend moving towards fare free system that is funded by Urban Transportation Districts • This is how Missoula, Great Falls, and Billings fund their systems. Can raise funds to increase service based on voter approval o Challenges & Benefits ▪ The level of planning precision to achieve all of these goals is extremely high • These decisions may change the character of the community and may outpace the rate of social change ▪ City code does not require parking to be free, some charge/close private parking • It’s private business that chooses not to charge • A social change is required, which is harder than a code change Direct Vehicle Emissions • Vehicle Electrification o CoB and Community Partnerships ▪ Convert city and state fleet light duty fleet to EVs ▪ Electric vehicle (EV) group buy • Offer tax incentive ▪ Encourage residents to convert to EVs ▪ Public access to EV charging infrastructure • Offer Level III charging on I-90 corridor, Level II around town ▪ Convert to electric buses • Use dedicated street impact fees for a scheduled road improvement & expansion to instead fund EV transit and EV infrastructure that will serve the area of the foregone street expansion o Justify with reduced congestion on roadway • Need creative funding solutions, including state DEQ VW settlement funds ▪ Coordinate with utility to plan for EV infrastructure o Challenges & Benefits ▪ State DEQ EV transit funding requires retirement of diesel buses, which are needed in our growing system • However, some buses are or will likely be due for retirement ▪ Focusing on transit electrification more equitable than SOV electrification ▪ Dealerships are not interested/able to sell EVs locally, they don’t make as much off maintenance ▪ Utility connections, placement of conduit, transformers is a major challenges • If need significant on-the-ground resources, this translates to affordable housing issues • Trip Reduction o CoB and Community Partnerships ▪ City ordinance to ban vehicles from driving exclusively for advertising (ex: driving downtown during crowded events with banner advertisement) ▪ Encourage efficient meeting/video conferencing • Charge for doing the most polluting things, such as driving downtown/tolls • State authorized a 2 cent gas tax during last legislative session, need County to authorize on ballot o Community Members Appendix C - Page 198 ▪ Make the case to community members not to drive as much, support with education ▪ Partner to develop messaging for individuals about how small things add up (ex: cost of owning a vehicle and cost of commuting from out of town) • Anti-idling policy • Transition to alternative fuel vehicles for heavy duty fleets (hydrogen, propane, natural gas) • Infrastructure improvements to improve traffic flow (roundabouts?) Airline Fuel Efficiency • Encourage alternative transportation modes for short airline trips o Revive southern passenger rail (coordinate with other cities, like Missoula) o Support bus line to neighboring cities, cost is too high for current routes • Purchase carbon offsets • Promote less flying, most important o CoB ▪ CoB should not help fund airport expansions, it makes no sense to plan for expanded air travel in a post-carbon world • Airport cannot be used in 25 years Appendix C - Page 199 BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN Consumption & Waste Focus Group Wednesday, February 5, 2020, 1:30-3:30 Bozeman City Hall (121 N Rouse Ave) - Commission Room Focus Group Objectives • Explore some of the preliminary climate solutions in more detail • Confirm what solutions are already happening and working well • Discuss opportunities for new or improved solutions • Examine the co-benefits and challenges of the solutions Agenda Time Agenda Item 1:30 – 1:50pm Welcome, Objectives & Introduction Presentations 1:50 – 2:20pm Climate Strategy #1: Waste Diversion 2:20 – 2:50pm Climate Strategy #2: Recycling 2:50 – 3:20pm Climate Strategy #3: Construction Waste Management 3:20 – 3:30pm Open Discussion & Next Steps Attendees Name Organization Anders Lewendal Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Ray Harrison Gallatin County Solid Waste Patty Howard Gallatin County Solid Waste Emma Bode Forward Montana Heather Higinbotham Davies CoB Sustainability Kristin Blackler MSU Sustainability Russ Ward CoB Solid Waste Terrence Gotz Republic Services of Montana Erin Jackson Gallatin Valley Farm to School Danica Jamison Greater Gallatin United Way Natalie Meyer CoB Sustainability Presentations Russ Ward, City of Bozeman Solid Waste • City, Republic Services, L&L Site Services service area for trash, recycling, compost • CoB offers commercial, residential, construction waste, cardboard recycling, curbside recycling and yard waste composting in summer months Appendix C - Page 200 • Recycling: curbside is single stream for regular residential and commercial accounts o Cardboard only recycling available for commercial accounts • CoB is in early stages of working with a company called ReCollect, an online tool with information on what can be recycled where in the community, and what is not recyclable o Glass: no local market, no place to ship it • Specialty programs: o Partnering with MSU for students moving off campus and picking up bulk items around town. Program was larger than anticipated: in one month period, picked up over 170 couches ▪ If there isn’t an outlet for those types of items, ends up being abandoned on curbs or streets- -great partnership with MSU ▪ Large item pickup for a fee also offered to regular customers o CoB will pick up hazardous materials, with charge for removal of Freon, etc. at the Logan Landfill. o Christmas tree and pallet pickup included in composting o CoB collects used motor oil at the vehicle maintenance shop o Composting partnership with MSU: new program in its second year ▪ CoB is composting food scraps from MSU dining halls ▪ Ag-bag system at the landfill to mix food scraps with wood chips with 90-day turnaround (it would take 2 years in a traditional compost pile) ▪ Pre- and post-consumer waste ▪ MSU weighs compost as it goes out; last year they diverted 350,000 pounds of food waste, which is good but shocking ▪ MSU focusing efforts on front-end reduction: They went tray less and instituted smaller plates/serving utensils and education to reduce food waste from consumption; those efforts reduced food waste by half ▪ CoB wants to offer curbside food waste compost pickup to general public; waiting for policy direction from City Commission. • Used compostable plates and cups for City picnic as a pilot to make sure items are actually being composted • This system would be able to include food-soiled items like pizza boxes ▪ Finished product is used for city parks, reduced need for fertilizer, improves soil water holding capacity, etc. ▪ Concern: grass clippings are large part of compost pickup, and residents/businesses use a lot of chemical weed killers. • The curing pile is one of the only ways to get rid of the residue ▪ CoB is communicating with Happy Trash Can and Yes Compost • Obvious concern is for the City to not take away business from those companies, possible opportunities for partnership Patty Howard, Gallatin Solid Waste Management District • Gallatin Solid Waste Management District website has information on what the Logan Landfill accepts for recycling • Gallatin County offers Household Hazardous Waste days at the convenience site at the Story Mill Landfill o They sort it onsite, then a contractor hauls it out of state to a facility where it can safely be disposed of. o They are at capacity currently with HHW collection once a month o HHW program is being subsidized by the Logan Landfill to be able to offer it for free to the community Appendix C - Page 201 o Over 5,200 items dropped off last year (not including oil, gasoline, light bulbs, batteries, mercury thermometers). ▪ Storage capacity also limits ability to collect more ▪ Ideally, they don’t want to grow that collection and encourage people to use more HHW; the goal is to reduce the quantities of HHW being used • In 2019, over 156,000 tons of material were brought to Landfill: 30% is construction; 61% is household waste; 4% is special waste o A lot of household waste can be reduced o Recycling is great but we don’t want to encourage people to consume more o Plastic is only recyclable up to 9 times; paper is only recyclable up to 7 times o Reduction and reuse should be priority over recycling o More efficient shipping (i.e. via rail) would help reduce emissions from recycling transport Natalie Meyer, City of Bozeman Sustainability • Half of City waste emissions are estimated to be from organic material in the closed Story Landfill • There is a methane extraction system that converts methane to CO2 but not enough volume or quality to do co-generation • Once organics are in the landfill, it’s a long term problem and little we can do beyond flaring Kristin Blackler, MSU Sustainability • Last year had a pilot for move-out day where MSU collected items from the dorms and sold items at a garage sale in the police parking lot during move-in day (i.e. microwaves, mini fridges, futons, fans) o Goal wasn’t to make a profit but to divert from landfill o Sold out by 1:00 p.m. o Main challenge is storage space o Exploring partnering with Goodwill who is developing a model for Universities o Goal is to help students who need it most o Shifting timing this year because of international students that move in early and family/grad apartments o Group also mentioned partnering with HRDC • MSU was able to host two zero-waste events last year o When the conversation first came up, everyone said it wasn’t possible o Two largest events on campus (first dinner for new students and families, and welcome back event for staff and faculty) were successful zero-waste events o Looking at how to implement at basketball games, football games o Once infrastructure is in place, these events grow Discussion Questions City of Bozeman • What is the City's role in implementing this strategy? • Are there new programs, policies, or assets that need to be considered? Community Partnerships • What community organizations and partnerships can support implementation of this strategy? • How should they be engaged and what are their roles? Appendix C - Page 202 Community Members • What is the role of neighborhoods in implementing this strategy? • What can individuals do to support this strategy? Market Considerations • What market transformations are needed for implementation to be effective? • What incentives should be explored or considered? • What is the role of business community in implementation? Challenges and Benefits • Who might be left out or impacted negatively by implementation of this strategy? How? • Who stands to benefit from implementation? How? • Are there resiliency co-benefits? Are there human health co-benefits? Preliminary Solution Ideas These preliminary ideas are pulled from the Climate Plan community engagement activities and are provided to help inform the discussion. Waste diversion • Limit junk mail • More frequent opportunities for hazardous waste disposal o Challenges: ▪ Limitations in space and staff capacity • Food recovery program • City-wide compost drop off • Yard waste and kitchen waste curbside compost o Vermont, other communities have fines for not composting organic waste o Create best management practices to educate and encourage people to use less harmful products and encourage them to use alternatives ▪ City has best management practice for City property to use “least aggressive solution possible” but not a ban on Round Up: certain weeds they have no alternatives o Challenges: ▪ Weed killers/pesticides on grass clippings. Could part of the solution include ban or educational campaign on Round Up, neonicotinoids, and other harmful products in the compost? That would be a policy change through the City commission ▪ Difficult to enforce a ban o Partnerships: ▪ Company that does biological fertilization ▪ YES Compost, Happy Trash Can ▪ Lawn care companies • Composting for restaurants, large buildings and multi-tenant properties • Encourage utilization of waste from food processors (Ex: livestock, game, Amsterdam Meats) • Ban single use plastics (e.g., water bottles, straws, bags, etc.) o There is a group locally working on a single use plastic ban in the community. Currently doing education and they hope City Commission will take up the issue. o Partnerships: ▪ Roxy’s in Big Sky is sourcing all aluminum for water bottles, to get rid of plastic water bottles. Appendix C - Page 203 o Challenges: ▪ Ban on campus difficult: contracts get negotiated every seven years, and only had one bidder so not much leverage. • Explore regulating Styrofoam ban • Compostable poo bags for pets • Buy Nothing Day • Community swaps • Sharing sheds, The Thingery o Registry/library of things to use ▪ Could be physical space or registry of who has what and how to contact them to borrow it o Shed or mobile unit or building with tools, equipment, etc. that people may only need to use once or a handful of times o Resiliency co-benefit ▪ Also builds relationships with neighbors—those connections are important in times of emergency o Fix-it Clinic, maker space: they have a shop with memberships to use their tools • Bulk buying in grocery stores • Working with businesses on supply chain and packaging • Improve metrics: weigh recycling and waste at truck • Fiscal reason for having less “stuff”: happier, healthier, wealthier • Safety and emissions consideration: having a truck only go through a neighborhood once a week to pick up everything vs. three times/week or every day to pick up different items • Partnerships: o Developers—they are often the ones that create the HOAs. HOA rules are enforceable o Logjam: zero waste facility because their musicians demand it. How can we capitalize on that and apply it to DBA and Music on Main, Art Walks, etc.? ▪ Put it in the public sphere where people are participating anyway and this becomes the norm and doesn’t feel like a compromise o Tie in to Leave No Trace ethic: what you do on weekends shouldn’t be different than what you do in day-to-day life ▪ Do good to feel good! o Sunrise Movement to help with education campaign o Neighborhood associations o Junior achievement community service work to partner with businesses Recycling • Better access to free recycling services o Incentivize recycling, increase cost to landfill (recycling bin free) ▪ New rates for trash. ▪ Bozeman is unique—we compete with Republic Services and L&L, which factors into all decisions around pricing for services. ▪ Challenges: • Educate on cost savings • People need incentives: not everyone is in the mindset of doing good for the sake of doing good • Commission is sensitive to anything that implies punishing middle class. Socioeconomic challenges • Consider equity piece Appendix C - Page 204 • Recycling currently is lower cost than trash, but current pricing is barely sustaining the program. If costs are lowered for customers, City would have to subsidize that difference—it’s not “free” o Penalize for not recycling o Opt-out instead of opt-in for recycling service o Pay-as-you-throw pricing structures: research communities where this has been implemented ▪ How can we incentivize and still incorporate equity considerations? ▪ Challenges: • Scales fail often • Education on recycling o Reducing waste leads to behavior change o Challenges: ▪ So much of recycling is feel good right now, wishful recycling that ends up in landfill somewhere else ▪ Plastics 3-7 are not being recycled right now ▪ People need to change their behaviors, but also need to demand that manufacturers change the way they design and package things ▪ How do we change this feel good to something that actually changes behavior? ▪ Targeted campaigns such as Story of Stuff ▪ Education on reduction component o Partnerships: ▪ MSU • Transient population, especially with international students that need everything when they arrive • More plastic recycling options o Partnerships: ▪ Group at MSU with a grant to study how plastics 3-7 can be used in road construction. Tie R&D in with local businesses, university research • Glass recycling expansion o Partnerships: ▪ Big Sky is bringing in a glass crusher. Is there a way to partner with them? ▪ MSU engineering: feasibility study for glass in foundations or other construction applications o Challenges: ▪ Glass can be used in paving, but it’s basically sand, and it’s cheaper to just buy sand ▪ Only up to 10% can be used in roads • Improve curbside recycling o Challenges: ▪ Make sure we don’t generate more emissions than we’re saving (i.e. with glass) ▪ Costs to separate materials ▪ Is it the City’s responsibility to create these markets? • We are charged with the responsibility to lead, not wait for others ▪ Bigger, systemic problem: we don’t have a circular economy. Look at this as a system and figure out how we can change the system. Extended producer responsibility laws • As our system exists, it doesn’t matter how well we design the recycling system—our consumption system is designed to keep us consuming • Can’t have this conversation in isolation, and can’t place responsibility only on City or citizens • Look at packaging Appendix C - Page 205 ▪ Reduce and Reuse are much more important than recycling ▪ Unintended consequences of increasing demand by increasing recycling options ▪ Include some carrot and some stick: how can we incentivize private industry? o Partnerships: ▪ Non profits ▪ Manufacturers ▪ School district education • Reduce waste, food education ▪ Developers creating HOAs ▪ Bozeman High School ▪ Downtown Bozeman Partnership • Music on Main zero waste ▪ Seven-point strategy to reduce waste o Sunrise Movement: education and outreach Construction and demolition materials management • Complete a waste audit • Construction waste ban or limits o Roll off bins are expensive/cost prohibitive. Opportunities to reduce that cost should be good incentive. o The City does offer wood-only bins for half the cost, but not all contractors use them. Also space constraints to have multiple containers in urban environment o A need for more education o Opportunity to use glass in aggregate fill for garages (not structural) o Opportunity to use sheet rock scraps in landscaping to improve pH in soil o Tie into stretch code incentive/recognition o Streamlined permitting o Equity piece is easier to incorporate with construction waste ▪ Contractors do pay for what they throw away. Some use smaller bins by choice, but not many ▪ Increase education about availability of options and cost savings of smaller bins o Partnerships: ▪ SWMBIA: education, best practices ▪ Bozeman version of stamps/recognition for projects that are building more efficiently, wasting less o Challenges: ▪ Competition limitations in terms of changing pricing structures Other • Methane capture and Landfill Gas to Energy at both landfills • Waste truck alternative fuels o No sources of certified biodiesel o Using biodiesel in some trucks, but ran into quality issues with others and fuel impacting vehicles/reducing vehicle life span • Transfer station o Study and proposal to manager of landfill for new transfer station, centrally located, relatively close to rail spur. Current site is not sustainable with the amount of current volume. o Not at Mandeville site; that site has been sold o Transfer station can sort everything and only send landfill materials to Logan Appendix C - Page 206 o Promising solution that this group has identified in the past o Tried two years ago, proposed a consolidation station, but it was not funded o Idaho Pole site? •Biochar: produced by burning compostable, organic waste anaerobically instead of composting o It produces biochar (charcoal) and bio oil/biogas o Bio oil/gas can be used in heavy duty vehicles in place of diesel o Biochar can be land applied, used in ag. applications, Stormwater treatment (great purifier), into plastics as conductor for biodegradable plastic products o Carbon sequestration is much longer term than composting o Two options for conversion plant ▪Put facility in same area as composting facility ▪Agriculture: instead of slash and burn or composting, convert organic wastes to biochar. Offer a mobile truck to use at area farms o Cardboard: unreliable market, low demand. Turn cardboard into biochar and return to ground. o Could also convert paper and food waste, but weigh pros/cons of food waste in compost vs. biochar, nitrogen retention, benefits to the soil ▪Compost nitrogen rich materials and biochar for more carbon heavy materials o Biochar is biomimicry, emulating the natural role of fire in the ecosystem o Scalable systems that can be used for different applications ▪UM has a mobile biochar system for logging operations o Construction waste good opportunity for biochar ▪Treated wood is not allowed in scrap and emissions profile is unknown for treated wood o Urban forest good opportunity for City with regard to biochar o Challenges ▪Staff and space, pre-sorting o Partnerships: ▪University of Montana ▪MSU ▪Logan Landfill •Incorporate local food system in conversation about waste reduction •At end of this process, final products are the City’s Climate Plan and a Citizen Climate Plan o Easily readable action booklet showing City actions, and separate section or toolkit of all the individual actions community members, neighborhoods, and businesses can take to reduce their impacts and help the City meet Climate Plan goals o Colorful pictures, engaging o Incorporate a competition, block by block campaign or program like the water counter o Best practices o Non-profit support if neighborhoods applied for support or funding o Challenges/partnerships: ▪Need energetic partners to be successful with effort like this ▪Republic Services—national network, ability to assess new technologies (i.e. CNG for trucks) Suggested Reading & Resources City of Bozeman Curbside Recycling Program: https://www.bozeman.net/government/garbage- recycling/recycling/acceptable-materials Gallatin Solid Waste Management District: https://gallatinsolidwaste.org/recycling/ We Recycle MT: http://www.werecyclemt.com/ask-us/ Zero by Fifty, Missoula’s Pathway to Zero Waste: https://www.zerobyfiftymissoula.com/ Appendix C - Page 207 BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN – Climate Team Workshop Series #3 Climate Team Work Sessions Topic Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Waste & Natural Environment Neighborhoods & Transportation Date Tuesday, 6/23 Wednesday, 6/24 Thursday, 6/25 Focus Areas Covered •Healthy, adaptive, and efficient buildings •Responsible and reliable renewable energy supply •Comprehensive and sustainable waste reduction •Regenerative greenspace, food systems, and natural environment •Vibrant and resilient neighborhoods •Diverse and accessible transportation options Participants Name (last, first) Affiliation Work Session Participation Climate Team Members Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Waste & Natural Environment Neighborhoods & Transportation Bellamy, Heather NorthWestern Energy Blackler, Kristin Montana State University x x x Blessing, Sara Bozeman Sunrise Movement Bode, Emma Forward Montana x x Boyer, Jennifer Farm 51 x x Bushnell, John NorthWestern Energy x x x Carpenter, Randy Future West Catron, Wyatt Montana Weatherization Center x Christenson, Lori Gallatin County Health Department Cunningham, Terry Bozeman City Commission x Dorsi, Chris Montana Weatherization Center-MSU Extension Fischer, Douglas Bozeman School District x Fox, Jeff Renewable Northwest x Frandsen, Eli Montana State University-Student Body Giannetti, Danae Western Transportation Institute x Hickey, Bonnie Bridger Bowl x Holm, Ryan Mystery Ranch x Jackson, Erin Gallatin Valley Farm to School x x x Jamison, Danica United Way Khumalo, Libby World Wildlife Fund x Kirk, Karin Freelance Writing, Science Education x x Appendix C - Page 208 Name (last, first) Affiliation Work Session Participation Lewendal, Anders Southwest Montana Building Industry Association Mastel, Candace Bozeman Area Bicycle Board, MSU Planning x Melvin, Addie JM Engineering Mitchell, Owen Bozeman High School-Student Body Nash Wanzek, Riley Montana State University-Student Body Naumann, Chris Downtown Bozeman Partnership x Pope, Chris Montana Legislature – HD65 x Ross, Sunshine Human Resources Development Council- Streamline/Galavan x Rowley, Nicole Gallatin County x Schack, Lindsey Love Schack Architects x Sinnott, Jay Bozeman Climate Partners x x x Stoddart, Bill NorthFork Financial Vlases, Claire Bozeman High School-Student Body Willey, Edie Bozeman Health City of Bozeman Staff Kevin Handelin City of Bozeman Solid Waste x Henderson, Jon City of Bozeman Strategic Services x x Dani Hess City of Bozeman Neighborhoods x Higinbotham, Heather City of Bozeman Sustainability x x x Jadin, Addi City of Bozeman Parks x x Lonsdale, Taylor City of Bozeman Transportation x Kohtz, Shawn City of Bozeman Engineering x Kyle Mehrens City of Bozeman Stormwater x x Meyer, Natalie City of Bozeman Sustainability x x x Nordquest, Alex City of Bozeman Forestry x Rosenberg, Sarah City of Bozeman Community Development x x x Saunders, Chris City of Bozeman Community Development x x x Consulting Team Dorsey, Judy Executive Project Manager, Brendle Group x Ide, Britt Ide Energy x Sommer, Shelby Project Manager, Brendle Group x x x Stock, Becca Project Analyst, Brendle Group x x Observers Kack, David Western Transportation Institute x Kurnick, Rebecca Montana Ale Works x Johnson, Karl YES Compost x Wright, Kate Open and Local x Appendix C - Page 209 Approach Objectives • Orient the group to the draft Climate Plan • Discuss draft actions and preliminary priorities • Clarify next steps for providing feedback and community engagement Agenda 11:50 a.m. Join the meeting early for an optional technology check 12:00 p.m. Welcome & Project Updates • Web meeting logistics and participation ground rules • Project status and process updates 12:05 p.m. Draft Plan Orientation • Overview of all focus areas & solutions • Emissions reduction analysis & key takeaways 12:20 p.m. Focus Area Review – Part A • Orientation to each solution and supporting actions • Discussion (for each solution) o Are the proposed actions clear? o Do you have any first reactions to the preliminary priorities? o Do you see a role for you or your organization in implementation? 12:55 p.m. Focus Area Review – Part B • Orientation to each solution and supporting actions • Discussion (for each solution) o Are the proposed actions clear? o Do you have any first reactions to the preliminary priorities? o Do you see a role for you or your organization in implementation? 1:20 p.m. Wrap up and Next Steps Discussion Outcomes Climate Team members shared their feedback on the proposed actions, prioritization, and implementation roles. A summary of the major discussion themes and subsequent plan revisions is provided in the Summary of Preliminary Draft Plan Revisions section below. Climate Team Survey In addition to soliciting feedback on the preliminary draft plan through a series of three topic-specific work sessions, all Climate Team members were encouraged to review the preliminary draft plan and provide feedback via a survey. A total of 14 Climate Team members provided suggestions on action refinement and prioritization. Their comments are reflected in revisions to the draft plan, and summarized in the following section by focus area. Appendix C - Page 210 Summary of Preliminary Draft Plan Revisions Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Focus Area 1. Healthy, Adaptive & Efficient Buildings •General Revisions o Added various new implementation partners and text revisions o Reinforced that the City cannot adopt more aggressive code requirements than State, so need to influence State code/policy •Reprioritization & Refinements o Action 1.B.5. Offer a Voluntary Pathway & Incentives for Above-Code construction - reworked to de- emphasize third party rating systems due to legal concerns and implementation/timing challenges. Shifted to Level 3 and revise to emphasize adoption of new above-code options & incentives in code (rather than third party) o Action 1.B.2. Advocate for Adoption of State-Wide Net Zero Energy Code – shifted from Level 2 to 1. o Expanded Action 1.B.3. Encourage High Performance Construction for All Publicly Funded Buildings to include other community institutions (note that City cannot mandate this for other entities but can look into policy options for City-funded projects) o Action 1.B.4. Analyze and Support Opportunities for District Energy - kept as Level 2 due to need to collaborate on an approach and find resources for studies. Focus Area 2. Responsible & Reliable Renewable Energy Supply •General Revisions o Added more discussion of public/private partnerships. o Reinforced that a MOU is in development with NorthWestern Energy (related to comments about getting a more formal commitment). •Reprioritization & Refinements o Action 2.E.1. Support Green Tariff Program Development & Participation - revised to "Advance" to elevate the role of City of Bozeman in helping shape this. o Action 2.F.2. Streamline Solar Permitting and Adopt Solar-Ready Code Provisions - shifted from Level 2 to 1. o Action 2.F.3. Advance Distributed Solar Policies with NW Energy – shifted from Level 3 to 2 to coordinate with solar permitting and code revisions. o Action 2.F.4 . Promote Education & Incentives for Distributed Renewable Energy and Storage - kept as Level 3 so that earlier actions addressing solar permitting and solar policies can be addressed and included in this action. Waste & Natural Environment Focus Area 5. Comprehensive & Sustainable Waste Reduction •Reprioritization & Refinements o Action 5.M.1 Actively Promote Source Reduction, Recycling & Repair - shifted from Level 2 to 1. o Action 5.M.3. Improve Waste Policies, Services & Operations – addressed the need to consider more efficient options for transport to Logan Landfill (i.e., transfer/sorting station) as part of improved operations. Focus Area 6. Regenerative Greenspace, Food Systems & Natural Environment •General o Emphasized ongoing climate-water research and forecasting with local partners in focus area narrative, so did not add as a separate action. o Did not include suggestion to study legal issues related to construction outside of planning areas since that is better addressed in Growth Policy efforts. Appendix C - Page 211 o Mentioned water catchment and greywater systems as potential long-term opportunities but current regulatory structure is prohibitive, so did not add as an action. o Noted that the City already has tiered water rates and is making some landscape code changes that will address submetering for large water users, so did not add as new actions. • Reprioritization & Refinements o Action 6.N.3 Encourage Local Agriculture and Food Production, Processing & Distribution – separated into 2 actions. • 6.N.3. Encourage Local Agriculture and Preservation of Working Lands (Level 2) • 6.N.4. Support Local Food Production, Processing, and Distribution (Level 3) o Action 6.P.2 Expand & Maintain Urban Forest - keep at Level 1 and revised title to Maintain & Expand. o Action 6.P.4 Provide Outreach on Water Pollution Prevention & Carbon Sequestration Strategies • Shifted from Level 3 to 2. • Included discussion of vest management practices and limiting neonicotinoid use in city limits, especially in public parks and shared spaces. o Action 6.P.3 Promote Greenspace and Carbon Sequestration for New Development • Shifted from Level 2 to 1 • Added extra emphasis on native landscapes and greenspace preservation within the suburban development occurring. • Emphasized enhancing or replacing wetlands and expanding green infrastructure. Neighborhoods & Transportation Focus Area 3. Vibrant & Resilient Neighborhoods • General Revisions o Incorporated emphasis on green infrastructure throughout section and especially into Action 3.G.2. Revise Development Code to Enhance Compact and Sustainable Development. o Will pull out all actions that link to Development Code updates into a summary section in the Implementation Chapter of the plan. • Reprioritization & Refinements o Action 3.H.3 Support Residential and Business Preparedness Outreach - shifted from Level 3 to 2. o Added new action 3.H.4 Incorporate Resiliency into Infrastructure Plans. o Action 3.I.1. Support Community and Neighborhood Resilience Programming - addressed institutionalization of mutual aid programs such as the one that organically formed from the COVID- 19 pandemic. o Action 3.I.1. Support Community and Neighborhood Resilience Programming -addressed social cohesion, mental health, and personal resilience as critical components. Focus Area 4: Diverse & Accessible Transportation Options • General Revisions o Revised language around a new MPO being established in 2021 and reframed actions around prioritizing multi-modal planning within City and region. o Suggestion to remove Electrifying VMT - did not remove but are stressing/emphasizing multi-modal over this action. o Expanded introduction to discuss alternative technologies and fuels and the benefits/impacts of telecommuting. • Reprioritization & Refinements o Action 4.J.2. Expand Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections Network • Referenced City Transportation Plan that identifies improvements for network connectivity. • Linked to new Transportation Demand Management Position and linked to integration of Safe Routes to School as part of a TDM program. o Action 4.J.4. Pursue Sustainable Transit Funding and Expansion - shifted to Priority 1 from 2. o Action 4.J.8. Develop Bike and Car Share Programs - shifted from Priority 2 to 3. o Action 4.K.3. City Fleet & Transit EV Investment – • Kept at Priority 2 (need sustainable transit funding first). • Expanded to include alternative fuels and new technologies for heavy duty vehicles. Appendix C - Page 212 o Action 4.K.4. Advocate for EV Utility Rates, Incentives, Infrastructure, and Efficiency Standards – refined to address emissions standards for State of MT. o Action 4.K.5. Limit Wasteful Vehicle Emissions - shift up from Priority 3 to 2 o Action 4.J.6. Regional Transit Service Coordination & Outreach •Moved under Solution J. Increase Walking, Bicycling, Carpooling & Use of Transit •Shifted from Priority 2 to 1. •Included advocacy for restoration of southern public rail line (Hiawatha Route). o Action 4.L.1. Build Awareness through Employee Air Travel Policies – •Shifted from Priority 3 to 2. •Shift to leveraging City's influence with other community orgs and members •Increased awareness of carbon impacts of "binge flying" o Action 4.J.7. Leverage Parking Policies to Encourage Other Modes of Transportation - new action added to address comments about parking management and infrastructure. Appendix C - Page 213 Appendix D: Community Forum Summaries D1 APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY FORUM SUMMARIES BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN – Community Forum 1 Summary October 23, 2019 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. Story Mill Community Center Forum Objectives •Build an understanding of the Climate Plan purpose and process •Help shape the plan vision •Explore potential climate solutions Agenda 4:30 p.m. Open House 5:15 pm Welcome and Project Overview: Natalie Meyer, City of Bozeman Sustainability Program Manager 5:20pm Our Climate Plan Perspectives: Bruce Maxwell, Montana Climate Assessment 5:25 pm Our Climate Plan Perspectives: Claire Vlases, Bozeman High School 5:30 pm Our Climate Plan Perspectives: Terry Cunningham, City Commissioner 5:35 pm Open House Project Overview Natalie, Sustainability Program Manager and Bozeman Climate Team Project Manager for the City of Bozeman, welcomed everyone, provided an overview of the agenda and forum objectives. Highlights of her presentation include the following: •The City has already agreed to upholding Paris ClimateAgreement, this process will explore more specifically whatthis means for Bozeman. •7 focus areas and two cross-cutting themes will beaddressed. •This effort builds on various related efforts: •2008 Municipal Climate Action Plan •2011 Community Climate Action Plan •2019 Climate Vulnerability & Resiliency Assessment •NOAA indicated that 2017 was the costliest on record fornatural disasters. •There are already many local climate action success storiesto report - see the display boards for a few examples. Our Climate Plan Perspectives Three members of the Bozeman community provided brief presentations that shared their hopes and perspectives for the Bozeman Climate Plan: APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY FORUM SUMMARIES Appendix D - 1 •Bruce Maxwell with the Montana Climate Assessment provided an overview of the State of Montana climategoals. He stressed the importance of local action in light of the United States’ exit from the Paris ClimateAgreement. The climate planning efforts at the state and local level can build on the work of the MontanaClimate Assessment. The state plan will identify the role of state agencies and how they interact with localgovernment on climate. They need communities like Bozeman to share information and ideas, such as majorimpediments to climate action, information gaps, and help identifying where to spend and focus stateresources. •Claire Vlases, solar club president from Bozeman High School, shared her story about learning about theconcept of a carbon footprint and how we leave footprints everywhere we go. She challenges us to all focuson how we can all clean up our footprints for future generations, as well as from previous generations. Sheshared that when she had the idea to install solar at her middle school. At first, she encountered a lot ofskepticism and “no” responses. She persevered and noted the need to be resilient and persistent – climatejustice cannot wait. The overwhelming success of the school solar project has created momentum for statelegislation that will support solar installations at all Montana schools. •Terry Cunningham, Bozeman City Commissioner, read a poem by Warsan Sire (see attached slides for fullpresentation): “Later that night I held an atlas in my lap ran my fingers across the whole world and whispered where does it hurt? it answered everywhere everywhere everywhere.” He noted that if an asteroid was heading towards earth, the global response would be massive and resolute – we would put aside our differences and cooperate to save the planet. He shared that Bozeman chooses to engage in finding climate solutions, and then read the proclamation issued by Mayor Cyndy Andrus on October 22, 2019 (see images below). Appendix D - 2 Open House Activities & Stations Welcome & Sign-in As participants entered the open house, they signed-in, provided email addresses for project-related updates, and indicated which portion of the community they live in by putting a pin on a map and noting the quadrant on the sign-in sheets. The following information was collected on the sign-in sheets: •79 contacts (over 100 people werepresent during the presentations) •11% from Northwest Bozeman •30% from Northeast Bozeman •4% from Southwest Bozeman •41% from Southeast Bozeman •6% from outside City limits •8% did not provide a location Appendix D - 3 Our Climate Vision Participants at this station wrote or drew their “vision” for the Bozeman Climate Plan and many posed for a picture with their vision. These photos and vision ideas will be used in the Climate Plan document and will inform the vision statement development. Appendix D - 4 Appendix D - 5 Focus Area Stations The following pages show the ideas for the climate solutions generated by participants for each focus area. These ideas will be added to the “solution inventory” for exploration and consideration during the planning process. Refer to the display boards PDF file to see the full display board content since some of the information is covered by community ideas. Buildings Appendix D - 6 Community Development Appendix D - 7 Consumption & Waste Appendix D - 8 Energy & Utilities Appendix D - 9 Greenspace & Natural Systems Appendix D - 10 Transportation Appendix D - 11 Kids Activities City of Bozeman Parks & Recreation Staff led children in a coloring activity to help them understand their ecological footprint. Appendix D - 12 Bozeman Climate Plan Community Forum -October 23, 2019 Story Mill Community Center Appendix D - 13 WELCOME Appendix D - 14 Orientation Objectives Build an understanding of the Climate Plan purpose and process Help shape the plan vision Explore potential climate solutions Activities Guest Speakers Vision Photo Booth Solution Brainstorming Appendix D - 15 Climate Plan: Project Overview Goals 1.Align the City’s emissions reduction goals in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement. 2.Create an actionable project implementation and policy-making guide. 3.Include a diverse group of stakeholders in shaping Bozeman’s response to climate change Appendix D - 16 Appendix D - 17 What is our Goal? In 2017, Bozeman passed a to join the Climate Mayors, a partnership of over 400 United States mayors committing to uphold the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement through local action. Appendix D - 18 Paris Climate Agreement 2015 International Agreement Aims to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius Requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts US Targets & Status March 2016: First NDC submission from US •Committed to 26% GHG emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2025 •Intention to make best efforts to reduce emissions by 28% June 2017: US to cease all participation on climate change mitigation •Agreement specifies a 4-year exit process •Exit will be complete on November 4, 2020 Sources: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement and https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20America%20First/U.S.A.%20First%20NDC%20Submission.pdf Appendix D - 19 Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement Bozeman joined the Climate Mayor’s Agreement in 2017 Commits Bozeman to adopt, honor, and uphold commitments to the Paris Agreement goals Source: http://climatemayors.org/Appendix D - 20 State of Montana Context Executive Order Joins US Climate Alliance Establishes Climate Solutions Council Commits to issuing a Montana Climate Solutions Plan by June 1, 2020 Interim Goals Net greenhouse gas neutrality for average annual electric loads in the state by no later than 2035 Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide at a date to be determined by the Council Appendix D - 21 Impacts of Climate Change in Bozeman More Extreme Heat More Flood Events Longer & More Intense Drought Reduced Mountain Snowpack More Severe Wildfire More Severe Winter Storms Appendix D - 22 Previous Efforts Appendix D - 23 WHAT OUR CLIMATE PLAN MEANS TO ME Local Perspectives & Inspiration Appendix D - 24 BRUCE MAXWELL Montana Climate Assessment Appendix D - 25 CLAIRE VLASES Bozeman High School Appendix D - 26 COMMISSIONER TERRY CUNNINGHAM City of Bozeman Appendix D - 27 Appendix D - 28 Appendix D - 29 Everywhere Appendix D - 30 Everywhere Appendix D - 31 Everywhere Appendix D - 32 Appendix D - 33 The Response…. •Immediate. Urgent. Top Priority. •Massive. Unprecedented. No Holes Barred. •International. Cooperative. Collaborative. •Technology. Innovation. Creativity. Can-do Spirit. •Leadership. Accountability. Appendix D - 34 The Response? •Deny the Science. •Declare It’s Just a Cyclical Global Event. •Deal With it Later. •Point Finger of Blame at Others. •Politicize The Issue. Appendix D - 35 City of Bozeman Strategic Plan •6.3 Climate Action -Reduce community and municipal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, increase the supply of clean and renewable energy; foster related businesses. •a) Update the Climate Action Plan. Update the Climate Action Plan and revisit greenhouse gas emissions inventories, review reduction targets, and explore a voluntary energy efficiency incentive program or stretch code to encourage new residential and commercial construction to exceed the performance standards of the currently adopted building energy code. •b) Increase Solid Waste Recycling Services. Adopt incentive programs to increase the public’s utilization of city recycling and solid waste services. •c) Create Solar Energy Policies. Review three-year data from NorthWestern Energy’s Community Solar Installation to inform planning and policies. •d) Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation. Increase the community’s resiliency and preparedness in response to climate change. Appendix D - 36 We Hold These Scientific Truths To Be Self Evident: •Global warming & climate change is occurring. •Climate change is caused in large part by human activity. •Climate change is resulting in serious and damaging effects, and this pace is likely to accelerate in the coming decades. It is an emergency. •The federal government is largely ignoring the issue, even rolling back environmental protections. •Absent federal leadership, local municipalities must fill the void by providing the impetus for change. Appendix D - 37 Mayoral Proclamation of Intent: •Bozeman shall be a leader in addressing climate change by developing a climate action plan that identifies bold targets for carbon reduction and climate change mitigation, and •We will create a policy document that will weave sustainability and climate change resilience into the City of Bozeman’s decision-making processes, capital planning and city budgets, and •Bozeman will pursue partnerships with other municipalities and our utility provider to reach a goal of 100% net renewable energy for the City of Bozeman by 2030, and •We call upon the Montana governor’s office, state agencies, the state legislature, the Public Service Commission, Gallatin County, Northwestern Energy and all Bozeman residents to join us as we seek aggressive, actionable solutions to address one of the most critical issues that mankind has ever faced. Appendix D - 38 The Response… •A community-wide effort. •Diverse group of stakeholders. •Create an actionable project implementation and policy-making guide. •Align the City’s emissions reduction goals in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement & other identified goals. •Do what is necessary, not just what is viable. Appendix D - 39 Where Will We Need Your Help? Everywhere Appendix D - 40 Everywhere Appendix D - 41 Everywhere Appendix D - 42 Open House Instructions 1.Sign-in and make a name tag 2.Visit the photo booth and share your vision 3.Review the 6 focus areas and help brainstorm potential climate solutions 4.Listen to the project overview (5:15 pm) 5.Get inspired by our guest speakers (5:20 pm) Appendix D - 43 DRAFT BOZEMAN CLIMATE PLAN – Community Workshop October 01, 2020 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. Webex Virtual Workshop Forum Objectives • Orient the community to the draft Climate Plan • Answer community questions about the draft plan • Clarify next steps for plan refinement and adoption Agenda 6:30 p.m. Welcome & Draft Climate Plan Introduction 6:50 p.m. Part 1. Buildings & Energy 7:10 p.m. Part 2. Neighborhoods & Transportation 7:30 p.m. Park 3. Waste, Food & Natural Environment 7:50 p.m. Wrap-Up & Next Steps Participants Alex Weber, Bruce Maxwell, Duncan Small, Eva Molina, Janelle Sanchez, Jennifer Boyer, Julia Ryder, Kate Burnaby Wright, Kristen Walser, Kyrie Dawson, Mark Chavez, Matt Thompson, Peter Aengst, Rachel just, Seth Kane, Ted Weaver, Will Swearingen Presentation Summary Slides (see attached) Part 1. Buildings & Energy Q&A 1. How are you going to increase rooftop solar in Bozeman, especially when the utility is continuously trying to kill net metering? a. Looking for legislative opportunity to increase the cap for net metering. b. Increased opportunities for non-export systems especially for large commercial. c. Follow-up: Some businesses are interested in solar if the cap can be adjusted. d. See action 2F3. 2. Are there any initiatives to push building code beyond the current green building standards? a. Locally not allowed to adopt a code that is more stringent than the state-wide code. b. 1B2: Advance at the state-wide standard though advocacy. c. Can incentivize above code construction locally as well. 3. What kind of input did NorthWestern Energy give to the plan process? 2 a. Have been working with NorthWestern energy for many years. b. Most promising opportunity is a green tariff in collaboration with other MT communities. c. Also work on DSM, efficiency, and smart metering. d. Follow-up: Green tariffs allow Bozeman to be a leader in the state. 4. How do you recommend advocating for more stringent energy and water regulations? a. State code council makes a recommendation every couple years. b. Need to watch the schedule - a hearing coming up soon. i. Can follow-up with information with how to engage. ii. Ted and Alex are interested in this information. 5. Will transportation emissions overcome stationary energy emissions? a. This is starting to happen in some communities and will come soon to Bozeman. 6. Are you coordinating or referencing how these recommendations are supported or support the Governor's Climate Solutions Council recommendations? a. Did reference the draft climate solution recommendations, there are a variety of parallels. b. Report seems to be generally in line. c. Both documents can benefit from identifying where there is consistency with the Governor's recommendations. d. Were very closely coordinated during the drafting process, but implementation needs to be coordinated as well. Part 2. Neighborhoods & Transportation Q&A 1. What are "resiliency hubs within cities"? a. A neighborhood stronghold, likely a city facility, that is designed to withstand shocks and stressors providing a safe pace for community members to go during a disaster. b. Looking to public safety center to serve in this capacity. 2. Has there been any thought or conceptual planning measures to use an urban growth boundary similar to Portland that would encourage infill development and discourage extensive land use for expanding land development? a. Very fortunate to have good relationships among departments allowing strong collaboration. Working to coordinate with future community plan that is happening now. In alignment in presenting a plan that provides higher density development that is amenable to transit and alternative transportation. b. Incentives and policies will be in place to help encourage this type of development. c. Parking policy is also involved in management of sprawl. d. Sphere of influence limited to City limits, so limited ability to establish this type of boundary. e. Focus on incentivizing this type of development. 3. Recommendation: Pressure MSU to change their policy to be consistent with most other universities and not allow freshman to have personal vehicles. Would get students in the habit of taking alternative transportation in their first year. a. There is a good opportunity to work with MSU on coordinated parking policies. b. Goes hand in hand with transit access. 4. There is not a bus out to the airport. Maybe at the peak student times (thanksgiving/end of the school year) a. Funding issues right now. b. There has been a bus during peak times in the past. 5. Perhaps incentives for freshman without vehicles. Part 3. Waste, Food, and Natural Environment Q&A 1. Have there been any conversations on creating a community wide composting system? a. Yes - City of Bozeman has been working on scaling up household compost service for a couple years as well as working with MSU's cafeteria 3 b. Have talked to local composting businesses to increase capacity through these private businesses. c. Working on modeling costs and acquiring the necessary equipment. 2. I think we should keep yard waste separate from food waste to create two streams of end-products. One that can be used as reclamation material and mulch (yard waste) and one that can be used as high-quality fertilizer/compost for use on organic farms. a. Thank you for your suggestion. 3. Also, I think we should have a "re-use" zone at the landfill where usable items can be stored and then taken for free by other patrons. Lots of good stuff ends up just getting tossed. This exists in a lot of other locations 4. Thinking about green spaces, food systems, and the natural environment. Have the surrounding tribal communities been involved in this planning process? a. One Climate Team member identified as a Native American, but outreach and participation could be more robust. b. Follow-up: Will be able to help make connection. 5. Are there alternatives to composting that may have been explored such as biofuels. a. There was discussion about biochar as a possibility. b. Composting is a good opportunity for returning nutrients to the earth. 6. Encouraged to work with MSU. Community-wide composting increases participation considerably. How does the city's operations work with the small producers right now? Can we help promote these producers in the meantime? a. City has been mindful of the existing local composters and looking for ways to partner and collaborate. It seems to be feasible and mutually beneficial. 7. Owner of Yes Compost - it has been good working with the City to figure out how to make composting more accessible. A lot of that may be able to be done though educational events to improve awareness. Most people just don't know the programs exist and are happy to participate when they learn. Biofuel works well with high carbon materials. Composting returns the compost back in the ground - circular cycle rather than a downgrade. 8. Clearly constrained by what can be influenced where it is harder to go fast. Funding is important to get things done to meet the commitments. Across the board, if people don't know about it, they can't do anything. Share the strategies and build a base of supporters. Build a culture of sustainability - relatively low cost and high payback. a. Good point. Education and outreach that is included in this plan will be exciting and important. Part 4. Wrap-up & Next Steps Q&A 1. Note - this is a remarkable plan that will be a great model for other communities. Being contacted by other communities to help build their own plans and it is nice to be able to show this plan. Address how you stand as an island in the county and the state. How can this be scaled to higher levels? a. Always looking to build coalitions and collaboration with other communities. Seeing more interest across the state. 2. Is there somewhere in the report that talks about the cost associated with each of the solutions? a. This can be found in Chapter 4 implementation guide Virtual Community Workshop October 1, 2020 Logistics and Ground Rules •This meeting is being recorded. •Use of video is optional. •Please keep yourself muted unless prompted to speak. •Use the “raise hand” feature if you wish to speak. •Use the chat feature to provide feedback, ask questions, or raise any technical issues. •If you are on the phone only, please announce who you are when speaking. 2 Workshop Overview Agenda Time Agenda Item 6:30 p.m.Welcome & Draft Climate Plan Introduction 6:50 p.m.Part 1: Buildings & Energy 7:10 p.m.Part 2: Neighborhoods & Transportation 7:30 p.m.Part 3: Waste, Food & Natural Environment 7:50 p.m.Wrap-Up & Next Steps Objectives •Orient the community to the draft Climate Plan •Answer community questions about the draft plan •Clarify next steps for plan refinement and adoption 3 Meet the Project Team! Judy Dorsey Executive Project Manager Brendle Group Shelby Sommer Project Manager Brendle Group Sarah Martin Resiliency Planner Brendle Group Becca Stock Lead Engineer Brendle Group Katie Kershman Document Dev. & Design Brendle Group Megan Moore Engagement Coordinator Logan Simpson Bruce Meighen Plan Integrator Logan Simpson Natalie Meyer Sustainability Program Manager City of Bozeman Heather Higinbotham Energy Conservation Technician City of Bozeman Jon Henderson Strategic Services Director City of Bozeman Britt Ide Energy Expert Ide Energy 4 Draft Climate Plan Available at: www.bozeman.net/climateplan Community Survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.co m/r/cobclimatesurvey Share survey comments by October 25 Submit general comments to: agenda@bozeman.net 5 Process & Timeline 6 Local Climate Change Impacts High Temperature Forecast in Montana (Jul 2017) Ditch Flooding on College St.Bridger Foothills Fire (Sep 2020) © Rachel Leathe/Chronicle Beall Park,-39°F Record Low (Mar 2019) 7 Draft Climate Plan Orientation:Climate Trends and Goal Contributions Total 2018 Emissions: 607,139 MT CO2e Since 2008: Emissions ↑ 16%, Population ↑ 37%8 9 Draft Climate Plan Orientation Draft Climate Plan Orientation:The Cost of Inaction Projected Cost of Energy Use and Social Impacts of Carbon Emissions Under Business as Usual in the High-Growth Scenario $- $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 2016 2025 2030 2050Community CostsMillionsElectricity Natural Gas Gasoline Diesel Social Cost of Carbon $193 $232 $407 $120 10 Bozeman’s Climate mitigation solutions save $217.5 million by 2050 and avoid the projected social impacts of carbon emissions estimated at $102 million in 2050. Draft Climate Plan Orientation: Climate Resiliency Conserve natural resources Strengthen infrastructure to natural disaster Increase social cohesion Mitigate property and economic losses Protect human health 11 Draft Climate Plan Orientation: Vision –Position Statement Through leadership and collaboration, the City of Bozeman will advance innovative solutions to cultivate a more equitable and resilient, low-carbon community for current and future generations. 12 Draft Climate Plan Orientation: Vision -Guiding Principles Bozeman will be a leader in addressing climate change by: •Adopting bold targets for emissions reduction and renewable energy. •Weaving sustainability and resilience into decision-making processes. •Pursuing partnerships with other municipalities and our utility provider. •Seeking innovative, actionable solutions to mitigate climate change. •Inviting all Bozeman residents to join us, including current and future leaders. 13 Draft Climate Plan Orientation: Climate Mitigation Goals 26% reduction in GHG emissions by 2025 (from 2008) 100% net clean electricity by 2030 Carbon neutral by 2050 14 Focus Areas & Cross-Cutting Themes 15 PART 1: OVERVIEW 16 Solution A. Improve Efficiency of Existing Buildings Solution B. Achieve Net Zero Energy New Construction Solution C. Electrify Buildings 17 Solution D. Increase Utility Renewable Energy Mix Solution E. Increase Community Participation in Utility Green Power Programs Solution F. Increase Community-Based Distributed Renewable Energy Generation 18 Part 1: Discussion WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! (raise hand or chat feature) •What questions do you have about these topics? •Is anything missing? •How do you plan to advance the solutions identified? POTENTIAL WAYS TO ENGAGE: Reduce energy use during peak energy demand (4pm to 8 pm) Learn about and begin to make changes to your energy behaviors Contact NorthWestern Energy, or other qualified auditor, to schedule a home energy audit and make efficiency improvements to your home Advocate for more stringent state-wide energy and water efficiency regulations Explore opportunities to install on-site renewable energy and storage on your property PART 2: OVERVIEW 20 Solution G. Facilitate Compact Development Patterns Solution H. Reduce Vulnerability of Neighborhoods and Infrastructure to Natural Hazards Solution I. Enhance Social Infrastructure and Community Preparedness 21 Solution J. Increase Walking, Bicycling, Carpooling, and Use of Transit Solution K. Decrease Direct Vehicle Emissions Solution L. Limit Emissions from Air Travel 22 Part 2: Discussion WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! (raise hand or chat feature) •What questions do you have about these topics? •Is anything missing? •How do you plan to advance the solutions identified? POTENTIAL WAYS TO ENGAGE: Plan a neighborhood activity to help build social connections Get to know your neighbors and swap contact information for times of need or emergency Review City maps to understand if you are in a location that is vulnerable to flooding, fires, or other hazards and develop an emergency plan Walk, bike, carpool, or take transit to destinations instead of driving alone Limit idling and combine trips when using a vehicle for transportation Consider investing in an electric vehicle for your next vehicle purchase Find alternatives to air travel, avoid binge flying, and/or purchase offsets for your next airline trip23 PART 3: OVERVIEW 24 Solution M. Move Toward a Circular Economy and Zero Waste Community 25 Solution N. Cultivate a Robust Local Food System Solution O. Manage and Conserve Water Resources Solution P. Manage Land and Resources to Sequester Carbon 26 Part 2: Discussion WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! (raise hand or chat feature) •What questions do you have about these topics? •Is anything missing? •How do you plan to advance the solutions identified? POTENTIAL WAYS TO ENGAGE: Review your waste and consumption practices and look for opportunities to reduce, reuse, or share products Volunteer at or donate to a local food bank Learn to garden and grow your own food Plant and maintain a tree Update irrigation equipment and landscaping to use less water Reduce pesticide and herbicide use WRAP UP & NEXT STEPS What’s next? 28 Draft Climate Plan Orientation:Climate Trends and Goal Contributions 29 Upcoming Community Events & Activities •2040 Virtual Screening and Presentation, October 5, 2020, 7:00 p.m. Register at GallatinValleyEarthDay.org. •Draft Climate Plan Virtual Community Workshops by Focus Area o Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, October 8, 2020, 12:00-1:30 p.m. o Transportation & Neighborhoods, October 15, 2020, 12:00-1:30 p.m. o Waste, Food Systems, Greenspace, & Natural Systems, October 20, 2020, 12:00-1:30 p.m. •Community Survey (Oct. 1 to Oct. 25) Visit the project website for all documents, survey, and registration details! www.bozeman.net/climateplan 30 Plan Review Process Next Steps •City Commission Work Session 2, Draft Bozeman Climate Plan Community Feedback Summary, November 17, 2020, 6:00-11:00 p.m. •Bozeman Climate Plan Commission Hearing and Resolution for Adoption, December 8, 2020, 6:00-11:00 p.m. Visit the project website for all documents and meeting details! www.bozeman.net/city-projects/bzn-climate-plan 31