1 / 20

Sustainability Working Group

Briefing on the M ontgomery County Climate Protection Plan Prepared by the Sustainability Working Group February 2, 2009. Sustainability Working Group. Established in County Bill 32-07 26 members – 15 from County government & regional organizations, 11 from the private sector

sheila-eaton
Download Presentation

Sustainability Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Briefing on the Montgomery County Climate Protection PlanPrepared by theSustainability Working GroupFebruary 2, 2009

  2. Sustainability Working Group • Established in County Bill 32-07 • 26 members – 15 from County government & regional organizations, 11 from the private sector • Representation from the business community, land development or building interests, energy distribution or supply firms, science and academia, communications and media, and civic organizations • SWG’s first task was to develop a Climate Protection Plan Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  3. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Goals • Stop increasing Countywide GHG emissions by 2010 • Achieve a 10% reduction in GHG emissions every 5 years through 2050 • By 2050, reduce Countywide GHG emissions to 80% below the base year identified in the inventory (2005) • Longterm reductions expected through: • Federal and state actions • Technological breakthroughs • Infrastructure development • Cultural changes Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  4. Timeline of SWG Activity • September 2008 – First meeting of SWG • December 2008 – 1st Draft of Climate Action Plan • January 2009 – 2009 Climate Protection Plan delivered • January 2009 to December 2049 – Lots of climate protection actions • January 2050 – 80% carbon reduction & last meeting of the SWG Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  5. GHG Emissions Forecast and Reduction Target MMTCO2e Reduction Target = 14 MMTCO2e “Business as Usual” Emissions Projected Emissions to Meet County Goals Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  6. 2005 Montgomery County GHG Emissions Solid Waste Management 1% 0.165 MMTCO2e Residential Building Energy 33% 4.101 MMTCO2e Transportation 34% 4.339 MMTCO2e Commercial Building Energy 32% 3.987 MMTCO2e Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  7. Getting Started – Identifying Actions Developed “catalog” of potential strategies and actions by reviewing climate action plans across the US and assessing current County programs. Established seven committees chaired by SWG member(s) and comprised of interested community members and department/agency staff. Renewable Energy Residential Building Energy Efficiency Commercial/Multi Family/Public Building Energy Efficiency Forestry and Agriculture Transportation Education and Outreach Long Term Planning (including land use) Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  8. Options for Evaluation Cost Can lead to bad choices if basic understanding or assumptions are wrong GHG Reduction Gov’t Control Viability “Gut Feel” Co-Benefits Leadership Innovative Analysis is no better than a “gut feel” if the data is not available to apply to the analysis Proven Practice Equitable Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  9. Proposed Evaluation Process Implementation Criteria Cost Can the action be implemented today? GHG Reduction • The action is a proven practice or complements, expands, or strengthens a program or policy already in place • The action is technically and logistically feasible in the short term • We can define the general steps required for implementation Gov’t Control Viability “Gut Feel” Co-Benefits Leadership Innovative Proven Practice Equitable Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  10. Evaluation of Potential Actions Catalog of Potential Actions Recommend Immediate Action Need Further Analysis Potential Future Promise Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  11. Key Things Regarding the Evaluation Process • We don’t have all the data necessary to do a rigorous evaluation of many of the proposed actions • The goal for January 15th was to recommend actions for immediate consideration and implementation • Actions not recommended for immediate action (second and third “bucket”) could be analyzed for future Climate Protection Plans • A consultant will help develop a rigorous methodology for evaluating potential actions. Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  12. Key Themes of the Process • Given the enormous talent and energy in this community, let’s engage those who are willing and able. • About 90 additional individuals participated in the committee process • The recommendations proposed in this Plan were formulated, debated, and initially drafted at the committee level before being brought to the SWG for review and incorporation into the final Plan Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  13. Key Themes of the Process • The process and the Plan should address a broad complement of solutions that are ready for implementation • There is no “silver bullet” • Deferring action will only increase future costs and consequences Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  14. Key Themes of the Process • Encourage dialogue among diverse stakeholders • With goals established by law, it was necessary for participants to take the long view and transcend traditional mission statements and vested interests • There was some “bending” to accommodate concerns so that a consensus document could be submitted to elected officials Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  15. Key Themes of the Recommendations • Fiscal constraints require innovative programs that address financial obstacles • Revolving low-interest loans for renewable energy installations and energy efficiency improvements (RE-4, EER-4, EEC-7) • Solar photovoltaic systems and power purchase agreements (RE-3) • Customer aggregation of renewable energy certificates and installations (RE-5, RE-6) • Connecting landowners interested in using their land for the production of fruits and vegetables with those interested in renting land (F&A-11) Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  16. Key Themes of the Recommendations • Focus on building energy efficiency since 1) buildings account for about 2/3 of the County’s measured emissions, 2) the existing stock is generally inefficient, and 3) government can significantly affect change • Establish energy performance requirements and timelines for benchmarking, commissioning, and improvement of new and existing commercial, multi-family, and public buildings (EEC-3) • Enhanced data acquisition and energy efficiency measures in public buildings (EEC-2) • Revolving Loan interest loans (RE-4, EER-4, EEC-7) Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  17. Key Themes of the Recommendations • The Government should lead by example • Require ENERGY STAR appliances and equipment, and EPEAT registered IT equipment, in public facilities. (EEC-1) • Enhanced energy management programs in public buildings (Appendix C, EEC-2) • Establish County “sustainable workplace” policy and training programs and use County facilities as sustainable “learning labs” (ED-8) • Develop comprehensive idling policy and standard operating procedures for all major fleets (T-9) Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  18. Key Themes of the Recommendations • Leverage partnerships among residents, businesses and government to achieve efficient, comprehensive and broad scale results • Develop comprehensive approach that protects and enhances forest and tree resources. (F&A-2) • Develop branded and coordinated communication tools and recruit volunteers to conduct educational programs. (ED-1, ED-2, ED-3, ED-4, ED-5, ED-7) • Replicate community-based organizations like Bethesda Green under central umbrella organization. (ED-9) • Reduce vehicle travel to schools by expanding walking, bicycling and use of buses (T-5, T-7) Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  19. Key Themes of the Recommendations • Initiatives and programs must be accessible to and benefit low income populations • Develop and implement programs to support energy efficiency improvements by residents, managers and owners of multi-family properties, particularly affordable and low-income properties. (EEC-7, EER-2, EER-4, ED-2) • Promotional giveaways and buy-downs of low-cost energy efficiency products (EER-1) • Identify pedestrian improvements to maximize walking and bicycling to recreation centers, libraries, shopping centers and schools (T-5) Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

  20. Key Themes of the Recommendations • Do our homework and plan for the future • Parking supply and pricing study (T-1) • Determine where LRT and BRT should be implemented (T-3) • Define and acquire more targeted transportation metrics. (T-4) • Modify the zoning code (LUP-2) • Identify barriers and opportunities that address GHG reduction goals (ED-1) Montgomery County Sustainability Working Group

More Related