Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-22 Sustainability Advisory Board Agenda and Packet MaterialsA.Call to Order - 6:00 PM Via Webex: https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php? MTID=e71b130bf80106ff63921bf82c087e507 Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream or channel 190 • Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208 • Access code: 2558 106 0784 Public Comment: If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda, please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net prior to 4:00pm on the Monday before the meeting. You may also comment by visiting the City's public comment page. You can also comment by joining the WebEx meeting. If you do join the WebEx meeting, we ask you please be patient in helping us work through this online meeting. If you are not able to join the Webex meeting and would like to provide oral comment you may send a request to agenda@bozeman.net with your phone number, the item(s) you wish to comment on, and someone will call you during the meeting to provide an opportunity to comment. You may also send the above information via text to 406-224-3967. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the City's video page (click the Streaming Live in the drop down menu), and available in the City on cable channel 190. B.Disclosures C.Changes to the Agenda D.Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes from March 9, 2022 (Meyer) E.Public Comments This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Sustainability Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which THE SUSTAINABILITY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA SB AGENDA Wednesday, April 13, 2022 1 does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. General public comments to the Board can be found on their Laserfiche repository page. F.FYI/Discussion F.1 Electrification Campaign Work Session.(Meyer) F.2 Bozeman Climate Plan Dashboard Work Session.(Meyer) G.Adjournment For more information please contact Jon Henderson, jon.henderson@bozeman.net General information about the Sustainability Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository. This board generally meets on the second Wednesday of the month 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 (TDD 406-582-2301). 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Sustainability Board FROM:Natalie Meyer, Sustainability Program Manager Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes from March 9, 2022 MEETING DATE:April 13, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Approve minutes as submitted. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:In accordance with Commission Resolution 5323 and the City of Bozeman's Citizen Advisory Board Manual, all boards must have minutes taken and approved. Prepared minutes will be provided for approval by the board at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Staff will make any corrections identified to the minutes before submitting to the City Clerk's Office. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:1. Approve meeting minutes with corrections 2. Do not approve FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Attachments: 03-09-22_Sustainability_Board_Minutes.pdf Report compiled on: April 8, 2022 3 Bozeman Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 3/9/2022 Page 1 of 3 THE SUSTAINABILITY ADVISORY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES March 9, 2022 A) 00:02:18 Call to Order - 6:00 PM Present: Lumay Murphy, Matt Thompson, Emma Bode, Rebecca Kurnick, Kristin Blackler, Terry Cunningham, Benjamin Finegan Absent: Isabel Shaida B) 00:04:46 Disclosures  There were no board disclosures. C) 00:05:06 Changes to the Agenda  There were no changes to the agenda D) 00:05:16 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of February 9, 2022 Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 02-09-22 Sustainability Board Minutes.pdf 00:07:20 Motion D) Approval of Minutes Benjamin Finegan: Motion Rebecca Kurnick: 2nd 00:07:26 Vote on the Motion to approve D) Approval of Minutes. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Lumay Murphy Matt Thompson Emma Bode Rebecca Kurnick Kristin Blackler Benjamin Finegan Disapprove: 4 Bozeman Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 3/9/2022 Page 2 of 3 None E) 00:07:29 Public Comments  There were no general public comments. F) 00:11:22 Action Items F.1 00:11:30 Vote to Approve the Sustainability Advisory Board Work Plan 2022-2023. Sustainability Advisory Board Work Plan 2022-2023.pdf  Sustainability Program Manager Natalie Meyer presented on the 2022-2023 Sustainability Advisory Board Work Plan and spoke to each item included in the plan. The Sustainability Advisory Board discussed the Work Plan, asked city staff questions, and provided ideas related to the work plan. 00:57:02 Marcia Kaveney - Public Comment Ms. Kaveney commented on the Sustainability Advisory Board work plan and inquired on how the public can help support. 00:59:59 Kathy Powell - Public Comment Ms. Powell commented on the Sustainability Advisory Work Plan and provided ideas for working with homeowners associations. 01:15:18 Motion Vote to Approve the Sustainability Advisory Board Work Plan 2022-2023 Matt Thompson: Motion Emma Bode: 2nd 01:16:19 Vote on the Motion to approve Vote to Approve the Sustainability Advisory Board Work Plan 2022-2023. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Lumay Murphy Matt Thompson Emma Bode Rebecca Kurnick Kristin Blackler Benjamin Finegan Disapprove: None G) 01:22:35 FYI/Discussion G.1 01:23:30 CleanUp Week 2022  Sustainability Specialist Ali Chipouras presented on the plans for CleanUp Week 2022. The advisory board members provided ideas and comments related to CleanUp Week. 5 Bozeman Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, 3/9/2022 Page 3 of 3 G.2 01:48:43 Information Sharing from Sustainability Advisory Board Members H) 02:08:25 Adjournment For more information please contact Jon Henderson, jon.henderson@bozeman.net General information about the Sustainability Board can be found in our Laserfiche repository. 6 Memorandum REPORT TO:Sustainability Board FROM:Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director SUBJECT:Electrification Campaign Work Session. MEETING DATE:April 13, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Electrification Campaign Work Session. 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. BACKGROUND: Action 1.A.3 of the Bozeman Climate Plan calls for energy efficiency information and resources for private parties, Action 1.B.1 calls for high performance building resources and training for the development community, and Action 1.C.3 calls for outreach and incentives for high- efficiency electric appliances and equipment. These are priority actions needed to address energy efficiency of existing buildings (Solution A.), net zero energy new construction (Solution B.), and building electrification (Solution C). The City of Bozeman has been recently accepted into Rocky Mountain Institute’s 2022 Electrify Community Cohort. The goal for this effort is to help communities launch Electrify campaigns to accelerate heat pump adoption for space heating/cooling and water heating, particularly in underserved neighborhoods. The City has partnered with the Montana Weatherization Training Center to help reach a wide audience. This is a high priority campaign with national, state, and community partnerships in place to build an outreach and bulk purchasing campaign. During our presentation, we will discuss the environmental and health imperative of building electrification, why heat pumps are the preferred solution, common barriers to electrification, and our anticipated community engagement strategy. We would like the Board to consider the following questions during the discussion: What do you see as the local barriers to residential heat pump adoption? 7 For new construction in Bozeman, how do we effectively provide resources and trainings for the development community (architects, designers, engineers, contractors, distributors, realtors etc.)? For existing homes in Bozeman, how do we encourage homeowners and landlords to consider heat pumps retrofits? What can we do to make heat pumps more attainable for low-income and median-income residents? Useful background information can be found in Rocky Mountain Institute's article "Building Electrification: A Key to a Safe Climate Future ", along with the attached program map, and attached heat pump economic analysis. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Sustainability Citizen Advisory Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:$25,000 has been included in the City Manager's recommended FY23 budget to support outreach and marketing materials. Attachments: 2022 Electrify Cohort Participants Map.pdf RMI Heat Pump Economic Analysis by City_2021.pdf Report compiled on: April 7, 2022 8 9 RESIDENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION AUSTIN: SINGLE-FAMILY HOMESROCKYMOUN T AI N INSTIT U T E RMI analyzed the costs of a new all-electric home versus a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. In Austin, the all-electric home saves $4,400 in net present costs and 15 tons of CO2 emissions over a 15-year period. 15-Year Net Present Costi 15-Year Greenhouse Gas Emissionsii Up-front Cost Comparison Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home Key Findings The new all-electric home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home, presenting savings on both up-front costs and utility bills. •A mixed-fuel home (with gas furnace, water heater, air conditioning, and new gas connection costs) has a higher up-front cost than the all-electric home, which uses the heat pump system for both heating and cooling. •The all-electric home has 7% lower annual utility costs. There are significant energy savings with a heat pump space and water heater over corresponding gas appliances, even though electricity is significantly more expensive than gas per unit energy in Austin. •Carbon emissions from heating, water heating, and cooking are 65% lower over the appliance lifetime in the all-electric home, due to more efficient appliances and increasingly low-carbon electricity. Mixed-Fuel All- Electric Difference Annual Electricity & Gas Costsiv $ 2,070 $1,920 -$150 (-7%) Electricity Usage (kWh)15,460 17,210 1,750 (+11%) Gas Usage (kWh equiv.) 7,750 (260 therms)n/a -7,750 (-100%) $17.3k $12.9k Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home 23 tons 8 tons Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home $11.0k i. Net present cost calculation incorporates up-front costs and bill impacts, discount rate of 7%, and 15-year assumed equipment lifetime .ii. CO2 emissions are equipment lifetime projections and areconservative because these numbers do not include methaneleakage. See calculation methodology.iii. Results are rounded.iv. Annual utility cost includes electricity and gas costs, wherepresent. Standard 2020 residential tariffs were used. Annual Energy Usage and Utility Bill Impactsiii $13.9k 10 RESIDENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION BOSTON: SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ROCK Y MOUN T AI N INSTIT U T E RMI analyzed the costs of a new all-electric home versus a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. In Boston, the all-electric home saves nearly $1,600 in costs and 51 tons of CO2 emissions over a 15-year period. 15-Year Net Present Costi 15-Year Greenhouse Gas Emissionsii Up-front Cost Comparison Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home Key Findings The new all-electric home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home, with savings on up-front costs and nearly equivalent annual energy bills. • A mixed-fuel home (with gas furnace, water heater, air conditioning, and new gas connection costs) has a higher up-front cost than the all-electric home, which uses the heat pump system for both heating and cooling. • The all-electric home has 3% higher annual utility costs. There are significant energy savings with heat pump space and water heater over corresponding gas appliances, which outweigh the high cost of electricity in Boston. • Carbon emissions over the 15-year period from heating, water heating, and cooking are 69% lower in the all- electric home, due to more efficient appliances and increasingly low-carbon electricity. Mixed-Fuel All- Electric Difference Annual Electricity & Gas Costsiv $3,700 $3,820 $120 (+3%) Electricity Usage (kWh)10,640 17,410 6,770 (+64%) Gas Usage (kWh equiv.) 24,650 (840 therms)n/a -24,650 (-100%) $29.5k $27.9k Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home 74 tons 23 tons Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home $15.6k i. Net present cost calculation incorporates up-front costs and bill impacts, discount rate of 7%, and 15-year assumed equipment lifetime .ii. CO2 emissions are equipment lifetime projections and are conservative because these numbers do not include methane leakage. See calculation methodology.iii. Results are rounded.iv. Annual utility cost includes electricity and gas costs, where present. Standard 2020 residential tariffs were used. Annual Energy Usage and Utility Bill Impactsiii $18.3k 11 RESIDENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION COLUMBUS: SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ROCK Y MOUN T AI N INSTIT U T E RMI analyzed the costs of a new all-electric home versus a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. In Columbus, the all-electric home saves $3,900 in net present costs and 38 tons of CO2 emissions over a 15-year period. 15-Year Net Present Costi 15-Year Greenhouse Gas Emissionsii Up-front Cost Comparison Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home Key Findings The new all-electric home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home, presenting savings on both up-front costs and utility bills. • A mixed-fuel home (with gas furnace, water heater, air conditioning, and new gas connection costs) has a higher up-front cost than the all-electric home, which uses the heat pump system for both heating and cooling. • The all-electric home has 6% lower annual utility costs. There are significant energy savings with a heat pump space and water heater over corresponding gas appliances, even though electricity is significantly more expensive than gas per unit energy in Columbus. • Carbon emissions from heating, water heating, and cooking are 57% lower over the appliance lifetime in the all-electric home, due to more efficient appliances and increasingly low-carbon electricity. Mixed-Fuel All- Electric Difference Annual Electricity & Gas Costsiv $1,940 $1,830 -$110 (-6%) Electricity Usage (kWh)10,930 16,420 5,490 (+50%) Gas Usage (kWh equiv.) 22,360 (760 therms)n/a -22,360 (-100%) $21.6k $17.7k Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home 67 tons 29 tons Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home $12.6k i. Net present cost calculation incorporates up-front costs and bill impacts, discount rate of 7%, and 15-year assumed equipment lifetime .ii. CO2 emissions are equipment lifetime projections and are conservative because these numbers do not include methane leakage. See calculation methodology.iii. Results are rounded.iv. Annual utility cost includes electricity and gas costs, where present. Standard 2020 residential tariffs were used. Annual Energy Usage and Utility Bill Impactsiii $15.5k 12 RESIDENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION DENVER: SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ROCK Y MOUN T AI N INSTIT U T E RMI analyzed the costs of a new all-electric home versus a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. In Denver, the all-electric home saves $2,900 in net present costs and 12 tons of CO2 emissions over a 15-year period. 15-Year Net Present Costi 15-Year Greenhouse Gas Emissionsii Up-front Cost Comparison Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home Key Findings The new all-electric home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home, presenting savings on both up-front costs and utility bills. • A mixed-fuel home (with gas furnace, water heater, air conditioning, and new gas connection costs) has a higher up-front cost than the all-electric home, which uses the heat pump system for both heating and cooling. • The all-electric home has 2% lower annual utility costs. There are significant energy savings with a heat pump space and water heater over corresponding gas appliances, even though electricity is significantly more expensive than gas per unit energy in Denver. • Carbon emissions from heating, water heating, and cooking are 25% lower over the appliance lifetime in the all-electric home, due to more efficient appliances and increasingly low-carbon electricity. Mixed-Fuel All- Electric Difference Annual Electricity & Gas Costsiv $1,590 $1,560 - $30 (-2%) Electricity Usage (kWh) 11,350 15,900 4,550 (+40%) Gas Usage (kWh equiv.) 16,160 (550 therms)n/a -16,160 (-100%) $19.0k $16.1k Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home 48 tons 36 tons Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home $12.6k i. Net present cost calculation incorporates up-front costs and bill impacts, discount rate of 7%, and 15-year assumed equipment lifetime .ii. CO2 emissions are equipment lifetime projections and are conservative because these numbers do not include methane leakage. See calculation methodology.iii. Results are rounded.iv. Annual utility cost includes electricity and gas costs, where present. Standard 2020 residential tariffs were used. Annual Energy Usage and Utility Bill Impactsiii $15.3k 13 RESIDENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION MINNEAPOLIS: SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ROCK Y MOUN T AI N INSTIT U T E RMI analyzed the costs of a new all-electric home versus a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. In Minneapolis, the all-electric home saves $1,900 in net present costs and 28 tons of CO2 emissions over a 15-year period. 15-Year Net Present Costi 15-Year Greenhouse Gas Emissionsii Up-front Cost Comparison Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home Key Findings The new all-electric home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home, with roughly equivalent up-front costs and substantial annual bill savings. • Up-front costs for the all-electric and mixed-fuel homes are roughly equivalent. The Minneapolis climate requires a higher capacity heat pump than other cities in the study. This requirement comes at a higher cost, outweighing the equipment and labor cost savings seen with heat pump systems in milder climates. • The all-electric home has 9% lower annual utility costs. There are significant energy savings with heat pump space and water heaters over corresponding gas appliances, even though electricity costs more per unit energy than gas in Minneapolis. The all-electric home also benefits from a lower electricity rate during winter months. • Carbon emissions from space heating, water heating, and cooking are 51% lower in the all-electric home, due to more efficient appliances and increasingly low-carbon electricity. Mixed-Fuel All- Electric Difference Annual Electricity & Gas Costsiv $2,020 $1,840 -$180 (-9%) Electricity Usage (kWh)10,620 14,780 4,160 (+39%) Gas Usage (kWh equiv.) 18,250 (620 therms)n/a -18,250 (-100%) $22.1k $20.2k Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home 55 tons 27 tons Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home $17.4k i. Net present cost calculation incorporates up-front costs and bill impacts, discount rate of 7%, and 15-year assumed equipment lifetime .ii. CO2 emissions are equipment lifetime projections and are conservative because these numbers do not include methane leakage. See calculation methodology.iii. Results are rounded.iv. Annual utility cost includes electricity and gas costs, where present. Standard 2020 residential tariffs were used. Annual Energy Usage and Utility Bill Impactsiii $17.6k 14 RESIDENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION NEW YORK CITY: SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ROCK Y MOUN T AI N INSTIT U T E RMI analyzed the costs of a new all-electric home versus a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. In New York City, the all-electric home saves $6,800 in net present costs and 46 tons of CO2 emissions over a 15-year period. 15-Year Net Present Costi 15-Year Greenhouse Gas Emissionsii Up-front Cost Comparison Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home Key Findings The new all-electric home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home, presenting savings on both up-front costs and utility bills. • A mixed-fuel home (with gas furnace, water heater, air conditioning, and new gas connection costs) has a higher up-front cost than the all-electric home, which uses the heat pump system for both heating and cooling. • The all-electric home has 10% lower annual utility costs. There are significant energy savings with a heat pump space and water heater over corresponding gas appliances, which outweigh the high cost of electricity in New York City. • Carbon emissions from heating, water heating, and cooking are 82% lower over the appliance lifetime in the all-electric home, due to more efficient appliances and increasingly low-carbon electricity. Mixed-Fuel All- Electric Difference Annual Electricity & Gas Costsiv $4,310 $3,880 -$430 (-10%) Electricity Usage (kWh)12,210 16,800 4,590 (+38%) Gas Usage (kWh equiv.) 18,780 (640 therms)n/a 18,780 (-100%) $34.5k $27.7k Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home 56 tons 10 tons Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home $18.7k i. Net present cost calculation incorporates up-front costs and bill impacts, discount rate of 7%, and 15-year assumed equipment lifetime .ii. CO2 emissions are equipment lifetime projections and are conservative because these numbers do not include methane leakage. See calculation methodology.iii. Results are rounded.iv. Annual utility cost includes electricity and gas costs, where present. Standard 2020 residential tariffs were used. Annual Energy Usage and Utility Bill Impactsiii $21.6k 15 RESIDENTAL NEW CONSTRUCTION SEATTLE : SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ROCK Y MOUN T AI N INSTIT U T E RMI analyzed the costs of a new all-electric home versus a new mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. In Seattle, the all-electric home saves $4,300 in net present costs and 28 tons of CO2 emissions over a 15-year period. 15-Year Net Present Costi 15-Year Greenhouse Gas Emissionsii Up-front Cost Comparison Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home Key Findings The new all-electric home has a lower net present cost than the new mixed-fuel home, presenting savings on up-front costs and nearly equivalent annual energy bills. • A mixed-fuel home (with gas furnace, water heater, air conditioning, and new gas connection costs) has a higher up-front cost than the all-electric home, which uses the heat pump system for both heating and cooling. • The all-electric home has 2% higher annual utility costs. There are significant energy savings with a heat pump space and water heater over corresponding gas appliances, even though electricity is significantly more expensive than gas per unit energy in Seattle. • Carbon emissions from heating, water heating, and cooking are 93% lower over the appliance lifetime in the all-electric home, due to more efficient appliances and increasingly low-carbon electricity. Mixed-Fuel All- Electric Difference Annual Electricity & Gas Costsiv $1,630 $1,660 $30 (+2%) Electricity Usage (kWh) 9,360 12,850 3,490 (+37%) Gas Usage (kWh equiv.) 9,860 (340 therms)n/a -9,860 (-100%) $22.0k $17.7k Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home 30 tons 2 tons Mixed-Fuel Home All-Electric Home $13.4k i. Net present cost calculation incorporates up-front costs and bill impacts, discount rate of 7%, and 15-year assumed equipment lifetime .ii. CO2 emissions are equipment lifetime projections and are conservative because these numbers do not include methane leakage. See calculation methodology.iii. Results are rounded.iv. Annual utility cost includes electricity and gas costs, where present. Standard 2020 residential tariffs were used. Annual Energy Usage and Utility Bill Impactsiii $17.9k 16 GET INVOLVED Together, we can fulfill the promise of clean air, improved health and resilience, and economic opportunity that is rooted in our global shift to a clean energy future. Learn more: www.rmi.org ABOUT ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)—an independent nonprofit founded in 1982— transforms global energy use to create a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future. It engages businesses, communities, institutions, and entrepreneurs to accelerate the adoption of market- based solutions that cost-effectively shift from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables. RMI has offices in Basalt and Boulder, Colorado; New York City; Oakland, California; Washington, D.C.; and Beijing.ROCK Y MOUNT A I N INSTITUT E METHODOLOGY DETAILS RMI analyzed the economics of a new all-electric single-family home versus a mixed-fuel home that relies on gas for cooking, space heating, and water heating. The following summarizes key home equipment and appliance characteristics for the study. Equipment Mixed-Fuel All-Electric Heating Ducted central gas furnace (AFUE 95) Ducted multi-zone air source heat pump (11 HSPF, SEER 19) Cooling Central air conditioner (SEER 14) Water Heating Gas water heater 80 gallon storage (EF 0.68) Hybrid electric heat pump water heater 80 gal storage (EF 1.6) Cooking Gas cooktop Gas oven Induction cooktop Electric oven New Customer Gas Connection We assume an out-of-pocket cost of $2,100 for the gas connection of a new home, with scaling by a local construction cost factor. This estimate is conservative, as our research shows that the out-of-pocket cost range for a new customer gas connection per lot is $0 to $15k+. This cost varies widely depending on the extent of infrastructure upgrade required and the ratepayer-funded customer allowance from the utility in each location. Annual Operating Cost Energy Modeling Methodology Annual hourly energy modeling in EnergyPlus was conducted for each city using the following references: •Department of Energy Residential Prototype Building Model for a single-family detached house (2,400 sq ft) used for building massing.i •ASHRAE Standard 90.2-2019 used as reference HVAC system performance.ii Local building codes used as reference for thermal envelope performance. •Energy modeling results for each scenario calibrated to end-use breakdown, EUI, and gas/electricity fuel split with the latest available Residential Energy Consumption Survey data by climate region.iii i.DOE Residential Prototypeii. Gas furnace and water heater equipment was specified at higherperformance ratings than outlined in ASHRAE; efficiencies for thatequipment were based on Energy Star specification to reflectconsumer choice.iii.EIA RECs Residential Energy Consumption Surveyiv. AFUE—Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency; SEER—SeasonalEnergy Efficiency Ratio; EF—Energy Factor; HSPF—HeatingSeasonal Performance Factor Electrification Scenario Equipment Comparison iv Appliance Costs RMI compiled appliance cost data from cost studies reflecting invoice analyses, contractor surveys, and professional estimates. Costs were then scaled by city using RSMeans Construction Cost Indices. HVAC equipment costs were scaled on a per-ton basis depending on the capacity requirements of each climate. Induction Cooking Heat Pump Water Heater HeatPump HVAC System 17 Memorandum REPORT TO:Sustainability Board FROM:Jon Henderson, Strategic Services Director SUBJECT:Bozeman Climate Plan Dashboard Work Session. MEETING DATE:April 13, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:Bozeman Climate Plan Dashboard Work Session. 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. BACKGROUND:Ongoing monitoring of progress and reporting of achievements is essential in keeping the Climate Plan current and on track to achieve the City's climate goals. The City has recently invested in a technology platform that provides a transparent view into recent accomplishments, current work, and future initiatives related to specific action items listed in the Climate Plan. Performance measures (i.e., charts and graphs) will be developed over time to support a number of action items and solutions to help communicate measurable progress. The Bozeman Climate Plan Dashboard will be formally released to the public through the City's website and presented to the City Commission on April 26, 2022 as part of the City's Climate Plan Triannual Report. During our presentation, we will provide an overview of the dashboard. We would like the Board to consider the following questions: What do you like about dashboard, and how do you think the dashboard can be used to keep the community informed over time? What should the City consider as it relates to future enhancements to make the dashboard more effective? UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Sustainability Advisory Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. 18 Report compiled on: April 7, 2022 19