2026-09-23 Special Meeting Item 01 Climate Action Plan Update and Cost Analysis — Encinitas City Council, September 23, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

2.1). All members of the project team must be familiar with the rudimentary aspects of tree growth and development in order to understand the relationship between tree survival and construction practices. Coordination with a certify

2.20.7 Tree Pruning and Removal Prior to construction, various trees may require pruning to avoid structures or proposed construction activity. Construction or contractor personnel shall not attempt pruning. Only personnel approved by the City arborist can perform pruning operations. All pruning, branch tieback, tree removal, root pruning, fertilizing, and irrigating shall be performed by or under the direct supervision of an ISA- certified arborist approved by the City arborist. The qualifications of the ISA-certified arborist shall be submitted prior to project initiation and shall be approved by the City arborist and/or Department Directors.

Removal of trees adjacent to trees that are to remain requires a great deal of care. Only personnel approved by the City arborist shall engage in tree removal. Removal of trees that extend into branches or roots of protected trees shall not be attempted by the demolition or construction crew, or by grading or other heavy equipment. Before removing tree stumps, the City arborist shall determine if roots are entangled with trees that are to remain. If so, these stumps shall have their roots severed before extracting them. 2 p9 14 1. Tree preservation is the responsibility of City staff and developers to ensure compliance with the requirements of this Manual. Each development participant must understand that their activities and decisions influence the success of tree preservation pg 16 Plan with a Vision Disruption of any tree by construction activities may negatively affect its physiological processes and cause depletion of energy reserves and decline in vigor, often resulting in tree death. Typically, this does not manifest until many years after the tree is disrupted. Preservation of mature trees during construction has significant benefits to the success of a project
pg 21 2.20.5 Tree Protection Zone During the design phase of the project, the project arborist, project manager, and City arborist shall work together on developing the TPZ for each tree impacted by the project. During the design and grading review phase, all tree-work-related applications and documentation shall be completed as part of the approval process. If an unresolved disagreement arises between the project arborist and the project manager on the 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 255 of 514
DRAFT
Comments Received
size of a TPZ for a particular tree, the dispute shall be brought to the City arborist or Department Directors, who shall render a final decision on the size of the TPZ. Each tree to be retained shall have a designated TZ identifying the area sufficiently large enough to protect it and its roots. The TPZ shall be shown on all site plans, including demolition, grading, irrigation, electrical, and landscaping. Improvements or activities such as paving, utilities, and irrigation trenching, including other ancillary activities, shall occur outside the TPZ, unless otherwise specified. The protection fence shall serve as the TPZ. The City arborist shall approve the final TPZ. T

2.20.3 Site Plan Review Process Prior to project approval and the issuance of associated permits, site plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City arborist, project manager, and appropriate City staff. The project manager and/or department manager shall work with the appropriate department (i.e., Department of Development Services; Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Arts; and/or Public Works) to ensure project requirements are met. All documents shall be circulated to appropriate City of Encinitas staff and provided to the City arborist. pg 50 B. Mature Trees. Mature and established trees do not need frequent supplemental irrigation unless there is evidence that the tree is declining in health and vigor. If so, it should be further determined by a qualified arborist that the tree will benefit from supplemental irrigation. It is also appropriate to water trees prior to and during extreme heat events and prolonged heat waves to maintain health. When watering mature trees, saturate the entire area of soil underneath the tree canopy, but do not directly apply water to the trunk or visible supporting roots.
p9 57 8.60.1 Disclosure of All Trees On and Near the Site The property owner or designee shall provide accurate information to the project arborist to develop the tree protection measures and to enable accurate recommendations to ensure their survival. This site plan shall accurately indicate the surveyed location, species, and size of trunk and leaf canopy; show the dripline of any neighboring trees that may be impacted by the project; and depict publicly owned trees that are within 30 feet on each side of the project. Failure to show a tree on the plans later determined to be affected by construction may require the work to stop until mitigation can be agreed upon by the property owner and the City. pg 119 Category 2 covers two situations. The first is low value habitat during the breeding season where nesting wildlife are more likely to be encountered. The second is high value habitat during the non-breeding season where sensitive habitats are more likely to be encountered. Sensitive habitats are habitats which are home to special status species or are themselves rare. A pre-work inspection by a Wildlife Trained Arborist is recommended. pg 120 . Ideally the Wildlife Biologist provides advice on how the project can proceed. The biologist will collect information about the job, timing, and location to provide recommendations For a Category 2 job, a Wildlife Trained Arborist should perform a pre-work inspection. The Melba property has both a biology report and a bird study that was done for the surrounding property based on those studies I think this area would classified as highvalue has context menu 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 256 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 1: Group Activity Comments
Group Reduction
Target Existing Measures New Measures Equity Climate Vulnerability Group #1 None Expansion of carbon
sequestration through
increased municipal tree
planting targets. Expand
carbon sequestration
beyond trees by use of
open space or new
technologies. Create
incentives for private
tree planting. Expand
the target number of
roundabouts.

Integration of
municipal
sustainability (i.e.
employee green
guide) into CAP.

Reduction of turf
at municipal sites.

Reduce VMT and
vehicle GHG by
passing a no idling
ordinance,
creating a parking
benefits district,
charging for curb
parking, and
integrating
housing
development into
CAP.

None None
Group #2 None Continue to increase
customer participation in
Power100. Increase the
municipal tree planting
targets. Explore carbon
sequestration with new
technologies such as
'blue carbon.'
Require homes
sold to have a
'Home Energy
Score.' Integrating
compliance and
enforcement as a
measure into
CAP.

None None
Group #3 None Implementing measures
through HOA's (i.e. leaf
blower enforcement.)
Expand carbon
sequestration with blue
carbon. Improve
mobility across I-5 and
railroad tracks. Further
explore equity
framework.

Integrate the use
of infill housing
development and
mixed-use
buildings to
reduce VMT.

Expansion of
public
transportation
options. SDCP
discounts for lowincome residents.

Increased
pedestrian and
bike crossings
at rail and I-5.

None
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 257 of 514
DRAFT
Group Reduction
Target Existing Measures New Measures Equity Climate Vulnerability Group #4 None Create incentives for
existing measures to
further their adoption
throughout the City.

Expansion of tree
canopy. Continue
outreach and education,
especially to younger
demographics and
people of color.

Rainfall capture as
a CAP measure.

Implement a
recycling program
for the lifecycle of
solar panels.

Senior equity
concern at
senior housing
development
near El
Camino Real
Increased tree
canopy cover in
commercial
centers along El
Camino Real.

Group #5 Clarify how
much of the
emissions
reductions
that been
done are
done by the
city vs.
state/fed
reductions
Improve the
enforcement for existing
CAP measures (i.e.
leafblowers.) Realign
our evaluation of
completeness for the
measures (i.e. city says
complete when there's
ongoing need to
transition and enforce.)
Integrating
enforcement as a
CAP measure.

Require bike
parking at new
developments.

Fund an electric
school bus and
school bus
program.

Quail Gardens
Dr, Leucadia,
and Olivenhain
housing
projects have
a lack of
surrounding
transportation
options.

Coastal erosion
and sea level
rise along the
coast. Wildfires,
especially in
Olivenhain, and
a lack of
equipment.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 258 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 2
July 16, 2024
Encinitas Community & Senior Center
5:30-7:30 PM
Public Workshop 2 presented and solicited feedback for the candidate greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures that were developed in part from the feedback from Public Workshop 1.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 259 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 2: Attendees
Last Name First Name Organization
Wang Jim
Feeny Ann San Diego 350/San Diego Building
Electrification Coalition
Lyndes Joy City of Encinitas City Council
Bruner JP City of Encinitas Environmental Commission
Parker Carol City of Encinitas Environmental Commission Schumann Mary Jo Climate Action Circle
Goldsmith Katrina Climate Action Circle
Sherop Susan City of Encinitas Planning Commission
Tucker Wehtahnah
Parker Vaun
Total attendance 10
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 260 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 2: Individual Comments Received
Comments Received
I’m super impressed by the CAP and Encinitas’ commitment to decarbonization!!! Thank you!! However! I strongly encourage the city to include climate resilience factors in the CAP rather than the sole focus on decarbonization/sequestration.

For example, tree canopy looks like a lackluster solution in the CAP, but what if there was an additional column for climate resilience factors? Increasing the tree canopy is apparently the only thing the CAP that will mitigate against the effects of extreme heat, flood, drought, erosion, biodiversity loss, etc.

Transportation: Many more bike racks are needed at busy areas if we want to encourage bikes. Required affordable housing mandates allow fewer parking spaces. However, developers always give more parking than is required, which simply adds to more VMT, more daily trips, more GHG. Hold them to the minimum. Coastal zone property is inherently not suited to affordable housing development as the ocean pulls away (subsidence) and tide runs in and out every day eroding the shoreline and “working” at foundations. It is more expensive to build near the coast, so limit it to areas further inland. Work with school districts, boys and girls clubs, NCTD, etc. to create school pick up and drop off using pedicabs (w/ electric assist.) Reduce GHG. Protect all trees, not just street trees. Especially native trees such as oaks and pines (Coast live oaks, Torrey pines and more) How can we get more residents and business owners to participate in updates, surveys, etc.? A challenging problem but one that needs attention because if you don’t have a representative and generalizable study, then results and subsequent planning are very suspent and precarious. I question the validity and reliability of a survey that is based on a very small sample. Need to communicate in advance to increase participation.

I’m also a big proponent of citizen education and communication of all these issues and measures such as recycling, water use, etc. How can people do the right thing if they don’t know what the right is or what the options even are?
Keep up the good work to decarbonize Encinitas, etc. and help save our Mother Earth.

Zero waste: The City can and I believe should be a leader in proper waste handling. Having organic waste collection at City events and beaches and farmers markets can be a huge opportunity for education. Start fining people/businesses that do not handle organic waste properly.

Involve school age residents in contributing to CAP draft process (partner with district to go into schools – meet them where they’re at.)
Involve existing HOA’s in CAP draft (attend their monthly meetings) Partner with nearby jurisdictions to adopt similar measures.

Barriers: Rethink the CAP as just decarbonization plan and look at it through a resiliency lens – i.e. tree canopy becomes high instead of low.

Leverage relationship with state, county organizations to create a protected rebate fund – especially for measures that need to be ‘cost effective’ or ‘cost neutral.’ 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 261 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 2: Building Decarbonization Posterboard Comments Comments Received
Create opportunities to partner w/ state organizations to build up protected ‘rebate fund (for reduction measures that need to be cost effective.)
Have cheaper and faster permitting process for energy efficiency and green building plans.

MBD-1: Is it City policy that when an appliance needs replacement that it is converted to electric?
Decarb nonresidential- Promote restaurants/businesses that go all electric as proof of concept. Partner w/ local chef or restaurant maybe?
There is low hanging fruit that is easier to implement and see. Converting to LED lighting should be “of course”
Provide where to find counsel for property owners on navigating/aggregating IRA and local incentives for energy efficiency, heat pumps, etc.

Require replacement appliances to be energy efficient. Residential and non residential.

Solar on municipal buildings (with battery storage also.) Can do with PPA if not money readily available.

Benchmarking for greater than 20,000 square feet. Building performance standards for existing.

MB-1: Replace all gas appliances at burnout (or before) BD-5: How do we promote all electric at point of sale for appliances (like Home Depot.) Perhaps signage that highlights green building incentive program rebates? Public Workshop 2: Renewable Energy Posterboard Comments Comments Received
RE-2: Storage should be included here too. Plenty of solar on the grid mid-day that could be captured.

Identify grants- make info available to residents.

RE-2: Important. MRE-1: Important.

Will SDCP incentivize solar PV on nonresidential?
REC’s can be very problematic- some not very effective.

Public Workshop 2: Water Efficiency Posterboard Comments Comments Received
Rain and stormwater: Slow it, spread it, sink it to provide climate cooling flood mitigation support native plants clean the air sequester carbon.

Water- could the native plant ordinance be used as lever here? Public Workshop 2: Clean and Efficiency Transportation Posterboard Comments Comments Received
We have a lot of seniors who won't ride bikes or walk. Sad truth. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 262 of 514
DRAFT
Comments Received
CET-6: Need to be strategic about where level 2 and level 3 chargers are installed. Level 2 must be somewhere people spend a lot if time (home, work, downtown, etc.) CET-6: Do not neglect Level 1 (slow) charging. This is effective for at home but not everyone can charge at homes (apartments.) How do we help renters charge at home? Many more bike racks are needed on busy streets with shops. Also at transit areas.

CET-2: Microtransit very important. Make it affordable (heavily subsidized) Transportation is #1 source of GHG so why not more emphasis of mode-shift away from cars? ATP may help but there should be more effort to encourage much more biking and walking. E.g. e-bikes help with hills but many people still do not feel safe with only a six-inch white line “protecting” them from 50mph cars.

Safety for bikes.

MCET-2: Could employees gain access to City hall chargers.

Support perspective of apartment dwellers with electric cars. At least one level 3 charging station in the City limits!
CET-2: Flexible fleet that meets needs of residents and visitors.

CET-3: Improving traffic flow sounds good but it may actually increase driving you make it easier to drive- it’s simple supply and demand- if you make it easier, you increase demand.

Mode shift won’t happen overnight but it has highest potential for measurable GHG reduction.

Mandates housing from HCD requires less cars- but developers give more than required so more cars=greater GHG. Hold down cars.

We have a lot of seniors who won't ride bikes or walk. Sad truth.

Public Workshop 2: Zero Emission Equipment Posterboard Comments Comments Received
Educate and communicate what citizens should do if they see violations.

OR 1- Target HOAs give BIG fines.

Use fines to enforce gas-powered landscape equipment.

Public Workshop 2: Zero Waste Posterboard Comments
Comments Received
Mandatory residential and nonresidential organic waste diversion.

Provide food waste collection at city events and beaches (weekends) with explanatory signage.

Food recovery program!!
Prioritize high and medium GHG reduction strategies.

Tell people how much GHG they can reduce by putting scraps in green bin.

Education and communication to residents and businesses is key for water zero waste, everything!
Provide free audit to everyone to reduce waste generation.

Need to educate and communicate how to recycle, what where, etc. Citizens don’t know and every waste company does it differently.

Highlight restaurants and commercial businesses that comply with SB 1383.

Partner with Solana Center for Environmental Innovation as I think you already are. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 263 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 2: Carbon Sequestration Posterboard Comments Comments Received
Suggest adding a column for climate resilience factor: will a measure help the city mitigate extreme weather? Heat, flood, etc. Example: Medellin City cooled itself by 2 degree Celsius in 3 years with green corridors and green infrastructure (nature-based) mitigate heat, flood, air pollution, drought.

Stormwater/rainwater capture-swales curb cuts, etc. to direct runoff to parkways, trees, etc.

Increases climate resilience and cooling and tree cover while mitigating storm damage, erosion, and runoff.

Incentives/educate private and commercial properties on stormwater capture, resilient landscapes for flood, heat, drought mitigation.

Think beyond solitary trees to native plant communities that are far more resilient, drought tolerant and carbon sinking when they are grouped. E.g. Miyawaki forests.

Incentivize tree and native planting on private property. Resources, example plant communities, mulch.

CS-2: Construction project resolution to maintain 75% existing of mature trees.

Require more trees where mature trees are lost- not simple 1:1 higher number to replace.

Protect all mature oaks and native trees- even at private property.

Definitely plant trees but not ones that make a big mess! (like on 2nd St.) What about community gardens for carbon sequestration and sustainable farming/food growing?
Blue carbon- partner with Wildcoast/Scripps on carbon sequestration potential.

Partner with neighboring jurisdictions to implement similar CAP elements. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 264 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 2: Group Dot Activity
Strategy Measure Support
Clean & Efficient
Transportation
CET-2: Implement a Flexible Fleet Program 8
Building Decarbonization BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings 7 Zero Waste ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program 7
Off-Road Transportation OR-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers 5 Carbon Sequestration CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City 5 Renewable Energy RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems
4 Renewable Energy MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-Site Renewable Energy and Storage at Municipal Facilities
4 Clean & Efficient
Transportation
CET-7: Require Transportation Demand Management
Programs for New Nonresidential and Major
Redevelopment Projects
4 Clean & Efficient
Transportation
MCET-1: Transition to Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal
Fleet
4 Off-Road Transportation OR-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment 4 Carbon Sequestration CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments
4 Carbon Sequestration MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees 4 Building Decarbonization BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization
3 Building Decarbonization BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency
3 Building Decarbonization BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization
3 Building Decarbonization MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Municipal Facilities
3 Building Decarbonization BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency
2 Renewable Energy RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power
2 Water Efficiency WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be PrePlumbed for Greywater Systems 2 Clean & Efficient
Transportation
CET-3: Improve Traffic Flow 2
Clean & Efficient
Transportation
CET-4: Require Existing Residential Buildings to be Electric Vehicle Ready
2 Clean & Efficient
Transportation
CET-6: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 2 Carbon Sequestration CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property 2 Building Decarbonization MBD-2: Convert all City-Owned Lighting to LED 1 Water Efficiency WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts
1 Clean & Efficient
Transportation
CET-5: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
1 Clean & Efficient
Transportation
MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation
Demand Management Program
1 Clean & Efficient
Transportation
CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan 0
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 265 of 514
DRAFT 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 266 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 3
April 8, 2025
Encinitas City Hall
5:30-7:30 PM
Public Workshop 3 presented and solicited feedback for the draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 267 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 3: Attendees
Last Name First Name Organization
Schiering Gabriel I love a clean San Diego
Standerfar Harold Sierra cLUB
Bruner JP Env Commision
Nava-Colin Ana N. Translator
Jacobsen Sara Resident
Simmons Kaitlyn I love a clean San Diego
Meyer Kourtney Education
Anderson Jennifer Del Mar Sustainability Advisory Comittee Wedd Thomas Natre Collective
Petkov Kai Resident
Keith Alex Friend of resident
Crespo Xiomalys SDCP
Horrison Nuil Resident
Delin Mark -
Burlo Sofia Resident
- Patty -
Total attendance 16
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 268 of 514
DRAFT
Public Workshop 3: Group Activity Comments
Comments Received
Fruit trees Organic! no pesticides
Native fruit trees for CO2 reduction
Require development to replace mature trees with mature trees xeriscaping
avoiding leaf islands in parking lots (specifically of El Camino Real) through shaded areas communal gardens/green roof
Native species for trees planted by the city, for drought reduction and native ecology I love the new goal to increase tree canopy!
Protect mature trees on public & private property
Maybe specify what green jobs are?
Identifying and prioritizing preservation of heritage trees (cultural + ecological significance)
Awareness of practical logistics involved with mature tree ordinance Is there a permit process we might consider where residents who want to cut down a tree in their yard (of a certain size/species) they must apply for permit & post signage outside house about pending tree removal (for public input). Where they cut one down it must be replaced by another (They do this in Portland, OR) Way to cut down on cost for businesses with purchasing fiber takeout materials Solution for organic recycling issues with restaurants. Mainly how they can't put their compost in a bag as EDCO can't process and sort through bags.

Use City's hauling contract to encourage EDCO (hauler) to purchase a depackager Develop outreach to encourage people to recycle
Accessibility to green bins?
Do you plan on having residents discard of gas-powered equipment before it's shelf life ends
Wouldn't it be better to use gas equipment until it breaks (end of useful life) then scrapping functional equipment to buy electric models?
Incentives for trading in gas equipment?
How do we reach out to non-homeowners that may use leaf blowers and landscape equipment
Public charging for equipment?
Reducing noise polltuion benefit
City use of electric landscapping equipment
How many acres does Encinitas landscape?
Adding greywater/rain water capture to Green Building Incentive Program How do you balance the infastructure of reducing water usage amongst the fear of fire? (eg my neighbours watering extraordinarly high during LA fires) Have you considered multi-family residential homes for the pre-plumbed greywater systems?
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 269 of 514
DRAFT
Comments Received
Does Encinitas require that rainwater stay on-site for new developments or existing properties
Adopt a native plant ordinance
Support promotion of native plants
Zero NOx Ordinance for BD-5
Love this!
Great progress so far! Keep up the good work!
Public comments on gradients (range) of multiple options built in to each measure proposal (vs. Y/N Presentation)
Definition of "renewable" electricity and public awareness of locally viable options? Restrict purchase of replacement gas appliances.

Maybe look at some geothermal!
BD-5 incentive energy efficiency
Need for outreach and incentives BD-5
Embodied Carbon Analysis should be incorporated in these analyses. Scrapping a functional gas stove in favor of a new electric stove may be worse than using the gas stove until the end of its useful life. It takes energy and emissions to creat electric equipment that is not being considered.

Consider all types of facilities under municipal buildings Have you conksidered vehicle-to-grid strategies & bi-directional charging? Park and ride lots near public transit
"slow streets" to reduce VMT
We love microtransit options - discounts on EV rideshare Hearing car decline may divert new car inventory to other states to help meet CA EV mandate. How do we plan to address?
EV purchase incentives (similar to how the Green Building Incentive program works) Support the flexible fleet! An electric shuttle between North County main hubs would be awesome
Main bike rack at the City - bring back the ones that were infront of council chambers (will be a good visual for incentive :) )
"City should incentivize rainwater harvesting and keeping water on-site - Reduce flooding
- Recharge aquiters
Prevent saltwater intrusion"
More prescribed burns or livestock vegetation management (goats) More bluff protection! (Dedicated funding/bonds/finacing)? 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 270 of 514
DRAFT
Additional Public
Comments
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 271 of 514
DRAFT
From: Crystal Najera on behalf of Climate Action
To: Chase Beach; Climate Action
Subject: RE: Encinitas Climate Action Plan
Date: Friday, July 12, 2024 4:47:50 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Chase,
Thank you for your input regarding the City’s Climate Action Plan. Your work is very much aligned with the City’s efforts to implement our Climate Action Plan. I encourage you to attend the workshop next week and provide your input.

When it comes to working with private businesses, please know that City must follow certain municipal policies which restricts this capability. While we are not able to promote your work directly though the CAP update process, please know that it is a very valuable resource for the community.

Thank you,

CRYSTAL NAJERA
Sustainability Manager
Development Services Department
505 South Vulcan Ave, Encinitas, CA 92024
760.943.2285 | [email protected]
www.encinitasca.gov
Correspondents should be aware that all communications to and from this address are subject to public disclosure and may be reviewed by third parties.

Conduct business with the City of Encinitas online from the convenience of your office, home, or mobile device!
Please tell us how we are doing.

From: Chase Beach <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2024 8:46 AM
To: Climate Action <[email protected]>
Subject: Encinitas Climate Action Plan
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.

Hello,
My name is Chase Beach and I'm a resident of Encinitas and board member of the Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association. My business, Anadro, is a new independent power provider that installs over-sized residential rooftop solar systems at $0 installation cost 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 272 of 514
DRAFT
to the homeowner. We sell renewable energy to the homeowner at a rate that is discounted 25% from the lowest SDG&E schedule DR rate.

We have three installations in Rancho Bernardo and Poway and I would love to work with the city of Encinitas to introduce this to our community. I saw the email about the CAP Update workshop and wanted to see if it's too late to get involved. Our customers are saving hundreds on their electricity bills and are reducing their carbon footprints.

With the introduction of NEM 3.0 April 2023 the rooftop solar market has plunged by over 80%. Our company has found an innovative way to bring back solar in California and we would love to work with the city.

If this is something of interest to the CAP I would love to find a time to meet.

Thanks!
Chase
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 273 of 514
DRAFT
From: Crystal Najera on behalf of Climate Action
To: Stacy Wolter; Climate Action
Subject: RE: CAP Suggestions
Date: Friday, July 12, 2024 4:38:35 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Stacy,
Thank you for your input regarding the City’s Climate Action Plan. Your email will be retained in the project record and considered as we work to develop a final list of measures for the CAP update.

Conduct business with the City of Encinitas online from the convenience of your office, home, or mobile device!
Please tell us how we are doing.

From: Stacy Wolter <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 8:44 AM
To: Climate Action <[email protected]>
Subject: CAP Suggestions
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.

Hello,
I appreciate the city's action to reduce its carbon footprint. I read through the CAP candidate list and I have a couple to add for consideration. 1) Requiring Low C02 Concrete for new construction (private and public) I understand that cement production is the second highest generator of C02 emissions. (Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/201 8-06-13-making-concrete-change-cement-lehne-preston.pdf) There are new and cost-effective low-carbon concrete sources. The City could mandate that any new construction whether public or private use a low-carbon concrete source. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 274 of 514
DRAFT
2) Expediting Bike Traffic Safety & Security
I understand there is a plan to add bike lanes and sharrows to Encinitas roads, but it seems like progress is slow. Could the City assign a staff person to expedite this? Also, there's a lack of awareness of how to safely pass a cyclist. I observe drivers crossing into on-coming traffic, around blind corners, and over double solid lines to pass cyclists. Could the city post signs about the requirement to wait until it's safe and legal to pass? (BTW, I appreciate the City's effort to reduce speed limits. Changing drivers' expectations about entitlement to drive as fast as possible is difficult.) Finally, could the City mandate that commercial areas provide secure ways for cyclists to lock up their bikes in highly visible spots? Perhaps even sponsor a contest for the most functional and decorative racks?
3) Buying from Manufacturers with a Viable Recycling Plan It seems to me that the onus for reducing landfill waste should be on the businesses that manufacture the goods. For example, KitchenAid should have a viable plan for how its refrigerators are recycled so that they don't end up in landfills. Could the City in its RFPs start asking its suppliers for recycling plans for the goods they will be providing? If there are manufacturers in Encinitas, could the City require them to produce a recycling plan for their goods when they apply for permits?
4) Lobbying the State for a "Waste-to-Energy Plant"
I wrote to Edco to ask them about implementing something like Sweden's waste to energy plant, and they replied that their hands are tied because it's against state law to burn garbage. Could the City collaborate with other like-minded cities to lobby the state to start a similar waste-to-energy plant initiative?
Thanks so much for your attention to this important matter.

Best regards,
Stacy Wolter
858-761-2803
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 275 of 514
DRAFT
From: Crystal Najera on behalf of Climate Action
To: Mark Wisniewski; Climate Action
Subject: RE: Climate Action Plan - Trees
Date: Friday, July 12, 2024 4:35:13 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your email. Our Parks and Public Works departments track City trees using a geographic information system app. All trees that are planted and removed are tracked. If one plant dies and is removed it is subtracted from the inventory. It does not count as two trees planted. If the removed tree is replaced that would be counted as a “net zero” addition to the City tree inventory.

To date, I have not assessed our tree inventory to determine the age of the trees that have been removed, but our City tree data has a fair amount of detail, and I believe this could be done.

Conduct business with the City of Encinitas online from the convenience of your office, home, or mobile device!
Please tell us how we are doing.

From: Mark Wisniewski <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 1:43 PM
To: Climate Action <[email protected]>
Subject: Climate Action Plan - Trees
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.

Hi Crystal,
I would appreciate it if you could answer the following questions.

Of the trees that have been planted has there been any verification of how many are still alive?
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 276 of 514
DRAFT
If one of the planted trees dies, is removed and another tree planted in the same spot, does that count as two trees planted?
Has there been any consideration for the number of mature trees that have been removed during the time the Climate Action Plan has been in place? Thank you for your time in considering my questions.

Mark Wisniewski
-----------------------------------------

WISNIEWSKI & ASSOCIATES
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT – INDEPENDENT CONSULTING ARBORIST
2036 Countrywood Way – Encinitas, CA 92024-5401
760-840-7501 cell
Licensed Landscape Architect No. 3281 - Retired
International Society of Arboriculture - Certified Arborist No. WE-0742A - Retired International Society of Arboriculture - Tree Risk Assessment Qualified - Retired 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 277 of 514
DRAFT
CAP Update
Survey Responses
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 278 of 514
DRAFT
CAP Update Survey
Responses accepted between August 5, and November 15, 2024

1. The City of Encinitas is proposing a 40% reduction in 2016 greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels by 2030 and an 85% reduction in 2016 GHG emission levels by 2045. Please provide any feedback on the proposed reduction targets.

Answered: 7
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 12
I recommend Better Buses, Better Cities: How to Plan, Run, and Win the Fight for Effective Transit Book by Steven Higashide A good network of electric buses will reduce emissions and pollution 10/03/2024 10:19 AM
The City must come up with a system for valuing GHG emission solutions based not only on their GHG reductions, but also their contribution to climate resilience. For instance, improving natural carbon sinks at our parks, yard, and medians will yield resilience to heat, drought, flood, and fire, but if resilience isn’t valued, such projects will only be evaluated based on GHG reduction, undervaluing it. Resilience brings immediate benefits and must be valued accordingly.
09/01/2024 6:38 PM
Why don’t we work on 40% reduction in crime or city wasteful spending? This is a nice to have, meanwhile petty theft and threats from homeless people are ignored. 08/08/2024 2:19 PM
The only GHG that matters is water vapor (water vapor is > 100X more powerful GHG than CO2 and CH4, which are trace gases with little to no impact on climate). What does the CAP plan to do to reduce water vapor?
08/06/2024 11:55 AM
Waste of tax dollars
07/26/2024 5:18 AM
Depends on how they are estimated -- this is open to question. 07/25/2024 8:24 PM
My feedback is to forget this nonsense and FIX THE POTHOLES. In addition, please immediately work on a no camping city ordinance based on the recent Supreme Court decision. 07/25/2024 8:08 PM

2. BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 279 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 0
Somewhat Oppose 3
Fully Oppose 11

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 17.65% 3
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 0.00% 0
Somewhat Oppose 17.65% 3
Fully Oppose 64.71% 11
TOTAL 17

3. BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 2
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 9

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 17.65% 3
Somewhat Support 5.88% 1
Neither support nor oppose 11.76% 2
Somewhat oppose 11.76% 2
Fully oppose 52.94% 9
TOTAL 17

4. BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 280 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 1
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 10

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 17.65% 3
Somewhat Support 5.88% 1
Neither support nor oppose 5.88% 1
Somewhat oppose 11.76% 2
Fully oppose 58.82% 10
TOTAL 17

5. BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
Answer Responses
Fully Support 4
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 3
Somewhat oppose 1
Fully oppose 9

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 23.53% 4
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 17.65% 3
Somewhat oppose 5.88% 1
Fully oppose 52.94% 9
TOTAL 17

6. BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings
Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 281 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 1
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 11

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 17.65% 3
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 5.88% 1
Somewhat oppose 11.76% 2
Fully oppose 64.71% 11
TOTAL 17

7. MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Municipal Facilities Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
Answer Responses
Fully Support 5
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 1
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 9

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 29.41% 5
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 5.88% 1
Somewhat oppose 11.76% 2
Fully oppose 52.94% 9
TOTAL 17

8. MBD-2: Convert all City-Owned Lighting to LED
Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 282 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Fully Support 9
Somewhat Support 3
Neither support nor oppose 2
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 1

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 52.94% 9
Somewhat Support 17.65% 3
Neither support nor oppose 11.76% 2
Somewhat oppose 11.76% 2
Fully oppose 5.88% 1
TOTAL 17

9. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for Building Decarbonization measures.

Answered: 8Skipped: 0Left Blank: 11
I am not in support if these measures create extra costs for homeowners and business owners. They should be incentivised and not mandatory for hardship purposes. 11/01/2024 7:11 AM
Additional measures that should be considered include developing and adopting a Building Performance Standard to cover existing building decarbonization. In addition, a specific action to be included in BD-5 can include adopted the 2025 State Building Code voluntary measure that requires heat pumps to be installed when air-conditioning units are replaced.
10/25/2024 4:24 PM
Don’t make things a burden to lower income people. Regulations increase costs and even the city does not need the increase in costs.
08/08/2024 2:19 PM
I think these measures will worsen problem of lack of affordable housing in our community. 08/08/2024 8:55 AM
This is all focused on a trace gas in our atmosphere (CO2 that has a concentration between 0.04% and

0.045%). What a waste of time, energy and money!
08/06/2024 11:55 AM
All opinions influenced by cost.
07/26/2024 1:08 PM
Don't impose arbitrary energy efficiency standards on existing residences. The true metric is a given home's energy consumption record. Price natural gas and electricity by usage only, to incentivize conservation. Incentives are always going to be more effective than edicts. 07/25/2024 8:24 PM
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 283 of 514
DRAFT
FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES.

FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES. FIX THE POTHOLES.

Do you catch the theme here? City government should serve it's citizens. Not some pie in the sky ridiculous notion.
07/25/2024 8:08 PM

10. RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 8
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 4

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 17.65% 3
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 47.06% 8
Somewhat oppose 11.76% 2
Fully oppose 23.53% 4
TOTAL 17

11. RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
Answer Responses
Fully Support 2
Somewhat Support 2
Neither support nor oppose 0
Somewhat oppose 1
Fully oppose 12

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 11.76% 2
Somewhat Support 11.76% 2
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 284 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Neither support nor oppose 0.00% 0
Somewhat oppose 5.88% 1
Fully oppose 70.59% 12
TOTAL 17

12. MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-Site Renewable Energy and Storage at Municipal Facilities
Answered: 17
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 2
Answer Responses
Fully Support 5
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 3
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 7

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 29.41% 5
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 17.65% 3
Somewhat oppose 11.76% 2
Fully oppose 41.18% 7
TOTAL 17

13. Please indicate your support or opposition of the following Water Efficiency measures.

Answered: 3
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 16
These are not water efficiency so not sure
08/08/2024 2:19 PM
Conserving energy is good. Fossil fuels will run out eventually and the sooner we start to develop practical alternatives, the better. Solar is fine. Wind is not. Nuclear is the real long-term solution. 08/06/2024 11:55 AM
How about this........................................... FIX THE POTHOLES. How about you not require anything of citizens until you do your job of FIXING THE POTHOLES!!! 07/25/2024 8:08 PM
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 285 of 514
DRAFT

14. WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 4
Somewhat Support 4
Neither support nor oppose 4
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 2

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 25.00% 4
Somewhat Support 25.00% 4
Neither support nor oppose 25.00% 4
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
Fully oppose 12.50% 2
TOTAL 16

15. WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be Pre-Plumbed for Greywater Systems Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 4
Somewhat Support 2
Neither support nor oppose 0
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 8

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 25.00% 4
Somewhat Support 12.50% 2
Neither support nor oppose 0.00% 0
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
Fully oppose 50.00% 8
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 286 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
TOTAL 16

16. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for Water Efficiency measures.

Answered: 7Skipped: 0Left Blank: 12
These changes should not be mandatory. They should be incentivized and voluntary. 11/01/2024 7:11 AM
Rain and stormwater management has far more potential to mitigate climate than is reflected by the above measures. All water that is captured and percolated into the landscape, rather than run off to the ocean, supports carbon sinks, biodiversity, cooling effects, flood management, drought and fire protection, etc. Curb cuts in medians could support tree cover while greatly reducing runoff and pollution.

Urban runoff is a wasted opportunity for calming the climate. 09/01/2024 6:38 PM
This again creates huge costs to increase housing which helps only the rich 08/08/2024 2:19 PM
Please do not increase the cost of housing
08/08/2024 8:55 AM
Outlaw front yards- easy to enforce, will save so much water. 08/07/2024 1:58 PM
I support water conservation but not mandatory. Government is too focused on things we can't do and things we must do. GET THE HELL OUT OF OUR DAILY LIVES!!!! 08/06/2024 11:55 AM
Need I say it again............................. Get out of our homes and into the streets where you belong and..... FIX THE POTHOLES!
07/25/2024 8:08 PM

17. CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan
Answered: 15
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 4
Answer Responses
Fully Support 2
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 3
Somewhat oppose 3
Fully oppose 6

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 13.33% 2
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 287 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Somewhat Support 6.67% 1
Neither support nor oppose 20.00% 3
Somewhat oppose 20.00% 3
Fully oppose 40.00% 6
TOTAL 15

18. CET-2: Implement a Flexible Fleet Program
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 6
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 5

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 18.75% 3
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 37.50% 6
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
Fully oppose 31.25% 5
TOTAL 16

19. CET-3: Improve Traffic Flow
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 12
Somewhat Support 2
Neither support nor oppose 0
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 0

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 288 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Fully Support 75.00% 12
Somewhat Support 12.50% 2
Neither support nor oppose 0.00% 0
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
Fully oppose 0.00% 0
TOTAL 16

20. CET-4: Require Existing Residential Buildings to be Electric Vehicle Ready Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 1
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 0
Somewhat oppose 3
Fully oppose 11

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 6.25% 1
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 0.00% 0
Somewhat oppose 18.75% 3
Fully oppose 68.75% 11
TOTAL 16

21. CET-5: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 4
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 1
Somewhat oppose 3
Fully oppose 7
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 289 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 25.00% 4
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 6.25% 1
Somewhat oppose 18.75% 3
Fully oppose 43.75% 7
TOTAL 16

22. CET-6: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 6
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 0
Somewhat oppose 4
Fully oppose 5

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 37.50% 6
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 0.00% 0
Somewhat oppose 25.00% 4
Fully oppose 31.25% 5
TOTAL 16

23. CET-7: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Nonresidential and Major Redevelopment Projects
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 3
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 290 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Somewhat oppose 5
Fully oppose 4

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 18.75% 3
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 18.75% 3
Somewhat oppose 31.25% 5
Fully oppose 25.00% 4
TOTAL 16

24. MCET-1: Transition to Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 4
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 4
Somewhat oppose 3
Fully oppose 4

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 25.00% 4
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 25.00% 4
Somewhat oppose 18.75% 3
Fully oppose 25.00% 4
TOTAL 16

25. MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation Demand Management Program
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 291 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Somewhat Support 0
Neither support nor oppose 1
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 10

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 18.75% 3
Somewhat Support 0.00% 0
Neither support nor oppose 6.25% 1
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
Fully oppose 62.50% 10
TOTAL 16

26. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for Clean & Efficient Transportation measures.

Answered: 8
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 11
All items should not be mandatory. Items should be incentivised and voluntary. 11/01/2024 7:11 AM
Zero emission vehicles don’t poison our air and should be valued beyond just GHG emissions and energy costs. Pedestrians and bikers are breathing tailpipe emissions, but it doesn’t have to be that way. 09/01/2024 6:38 PM
This all cost too much. No rich people driving electric vehicles should get free electricity from anyone. 08/08/2024 2:19 PM
Would love to see energy efficient buses with racks for bikes etc following routes throughout encinitas to get families to downtown and beaches
08/07/2024 1:58 PM
Again, I'm not in favor of any mandatory or required actions as directed by a Government that is way too bloated.
08/06/2024 11:55 AM
Opinions influenced by cost.
07/26/2024 1:08 PM
Encourage and facilitate virtual format for city meetings and public hearings. 07/25/2024 8:24 PM
The federal government has spent how many billions to create 8 charging stations. Please, just FIX THE POTHOLES. If you can get that basic job of city government accomplished then maybe you could move on to moving the homeless encampment out of our parks per the recent Supreme Court decision. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 292 of 514
DRAFT
07/25/2024 8:08 PM

27. OR-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 2
Somewhat Support 2
Neither support nor oppose 2
Somewhat oppose 1
Fully oppose 9

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 12.50% 2
Somewhat Support 12.50% 2
Neither support nor oppose 12.50% 2
Somewhat oppose 6.25% 1
Fully oppose 56.25% 9
TOTAL 16

28. OR-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 1
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 9

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 18.75% 3
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 6.25% 1
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 293 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Fully oppose 56.25% 9
TOTAL 16

29. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for Off-Road Equipment measures.

Answered: 10
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 9
These items should not be mandatory for hardship reasons of gardeners. 11/01/2024 7:11 AM
Gas-powered leaf blower ban should be continued - and enforced. Phase out other gas-powered equipment. This requires training and assistance for landscapers. 09/01/2024 6:38 PM
This is minor compared to other pollutants such as electric car batteries that are forever polluters. 08/08/2024 2:19 PM
Come on . This is not an effective idea. More bang for buck in providing buses for school children and asking everyone not to drive their kids to and from school. 08/08/2024 8:55 AM
Is this really going to make any significant difference in CO2 emissions? . Lay off this one and leave the immigrant owned landscapers and others who do necessary work alone. 08/08/2024 8:36 AM
Don't like the word "limit". Sounds like a Government euphemism for "required" or "mandatory". 08/06/2024 11:55 AM
These are not really useful
08/05/2024 3:52 PM
This does nothing except inconvenience mostly immigrant landscapers . 08/05/2024 3:49 PM
I thought gas-powered leaf blowers were already banned, although I see lots of them in use. 07/25/2024 8:24 PM
Leave us alone and FIX THE POTHOLES. Your Santa Fe drive mess is a clear illustration that fixing the potholes will be challenge enough for this city.
07/25/2024 8:08 PM

30. ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 294 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Fully Support 3
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 6
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 4

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 18.75% 3
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 37.50% 6
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
Fully oppose 25.00% 4
TOTAL 16

31. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for Zero Waste measures.

Answered: 5Skipped: 0Left Blank: 14
Should not be mandatory.
11/01/2024 7:11 AM
Not really sure this is practical for sanitary reasons
08/08/2024 2:19 PM
Fine with this as long as its not mandatory.
08/06/2024 11:55 AM
Make recycling far easier and more convenient. Case in point: Smart & Final and Lazy Acres do not accept plastic bags for recycling, which I thought was a city requirement. Trash receptacles at Orpheus Park are a joke -- recyclables inserted in the holes in the top level fall right through to the trash bin in the bottom.
07/25/2024 8:24 PM
I think you already know..............
07/25/2024 8:08 PM

32. CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 5
Somewhat Support 5
Neither support nor oppose 5
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 295 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Somewhat oppose 0
Fully oppose 1

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 31.25% 5
Somewhat Support 31.25% 5
Neither support nor oppose 31.25% 5
Somewhat oppose 0.00% 0
Fully oppose 6.25% 1
TOTAL 16

33. CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 4
Somewhat Support 3
Neither support nor oppose 2
Somewhat oppose 2
Fully oppose 5

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 25.00% 4
Somewhat Support 18.75% 3
Neither support nor oppose 12.50% 2
Somewhat oppose 12.50% 2
Fully oppose 31.25% 5
TOTAL 16

34. CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 7
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 296 of 514
DRAFT
Answer Responses
Somewhat Support 1
Neither support nor oppose 5
Somewhat oppose 1
Fully oppose 2

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 43.75% 7
Somewhat Support 6.25% 1
Neither support nor oppose 31.25% 5
Somewhat oppose 6.25% 1
Fully oppose 12.50% 2
TOTAL 16

35. MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees
Answered: 16
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 3
Answer Responses
Fully Support 8
Somewhat Support 2
Neither support nor oppose 5
Somewhat oppose 1
Fully oppose 0

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fully Support 50.00% 8
Somewhat Support 12.50% 2
Neither support nor oppose 31.25% 5
Somewhat oppose 6.25% 1
Fully oppose 0.00% 0
TOTAL 16

36. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions for Carbon Sequestration measures.

Answered: 6Skipped: 0Left Blank: 13
Nothing should be mandatory.
11/01/2024 7:11 AM
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 297 of 514
DRAFT
Beyond just “planting trees”, we need native plant communities. Refer to Miyawaki-style afforestation for a blueprint for resilient mini-forests (1000 sf +) that are completely self-sustaining within three years.

The climate and environmental benefits of native plant communities are supercharged compared to isolated street trees. Curb cuts and other ways of capturing urban runoff can ensure these areas thrive. 09/01/2024 6:38 PM
Trees are fine, but let’s not pretend we are going to be like Amazon rainforest 08/08/2024 8:55 AM
Trees are life
08/07/2024 1:58 PM
I'm fine with this as long as its not mandatory.
08/06/2024 11:55 AM
Stop promoting defoliating high-density residential construction. 07/25/2024 8:24 PM

37. Please select your top climate adaptation concerns
Answered: 15
Skipped: 0
Left Blank: 4
Answer Responses
Extreme Heat Events 5
Drought Events 5
Increased Wildfire Risk 5
Increase Likelihood of Flooding 2
Sea Level Rise 3
Loss of Biodiversity 2
Other 4

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Extreme Heat Events 19.23% 5
Drought Events 19.23% 5
Increased Wildfire Risk 19.23% 5
Increase Likelihood of Flooding 7.69% 2
Sea Level Rise 11.54% 3
Loss of Biodiversity 7.69% 2
Other 15.38% 4
TOTAL 26 (15 answered)

38. Are there any existing or potential climate equity concerns that you are aware of within the community?
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 298 of 514
DRAFT
Answered: 9Skipped: 0Left Blank: 10
No stop wasting taxpayer money please
11/07/2024 7:36 PM
Incentive programs and funding should prioritize Communities of Concern. 10/25/2024 4:24 PM
A lot of these ideas are those of upper class people. Please consider the cost impact of working class people
08/08/2024 8:55 AM
Yes. In terms of equity, I think you must be careful in imposing costly mandates on working people .

Those with resources can do what they wish with EVs, etc. 08/08/2024 8:36 AM
All your proposed concerns are bogus. The vast majority of the small climate change that we're experiencing is natural and not anthropogenic. Therefore, it is not controllable by humans. This is a fools erand.
08/06/2024 11:55 AM
???
08/05/2024 3:54 PM
Not sure what that means.
08/05/2024 3:52 PM
Fire insurance premiums in much of the city.
07/25/2024 8:24 PM
Utter and complete pablum. Equity=Inanity
07/25/2024 8:08 PM

39. Please provide any additional comments.

Answered: 10Skipped: 0Left Blank: 9
Stop with these bogus initiatives- you see how the overzealous plastic bag ban cause more plastic in the landfills by weight. And there’s no accountability just leave people alone and enforce laws where people are shitting and pissing along the rail trail and other parts where they parked overnight and causing litter and human feces and urine enforce that before you tell people what kind of trees they can plant on their property
11/07/2024 7:36 PM
Sinking storm water has a tremendous potential to nurture carbon sinks and stabilize climate factors, as well as reduce pollution. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas just like CO2! Keeping it in the ground instead of evaporating is a climate solution. Urban and suburban landscapes have disturbed water cycles and led to desertification and vulnerability to flooding and heat. This is fixable! Slow it, spread it, sink it, and help the climate.
09/01/2024 6:38 PM
Support nuclear plant construction
08/08/2024 8:55 AM
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 299 of 514
DRAFT
Please do not raises taxes for these programs. High enough already and a burden to working people.

Please don’t pretend that everybody has the same economic means in the community. 08/08/2024 8:36 AM
Thanks for doing this. We all need to do what we can to save our planet 08/07/2024 1:58 PM
Most of this CAP is a waste of my tax dollars. How many city staffers are involved in the development, planning and execution of this? All but a few should be fired and the tax dollars redirected to something that is meaningful or rebated to the taxpayers.
08/06/2024 11:55 AM
The financial requirements for living in Encinitas are great. While many of the foregoing ideas are laudatory, my concern is their implementation would further exclude current and future residency. 07/26/2024 1:08 PM
Don't force expensive retrofits. Consider the carbon and other environmental impacts of scrapping existing equipment and manufacturing new. Make e-waste, battery, and plastics recycling of all types much more convenient.
07/25/2024 8:24 PM
Please please please stop the nonsense and just take care of the business of a city. Keep the streets maintained, keep the citizens safe from crime and leave us the heck alone. Respectfully submitted by an overly taxed citizen with a different and sane perspective. Happy to talk about it any time. 07/25/2024 8:08 PM
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 300 of 514
DRAFT
Appendix F
Methods for Estimating
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 301 of 514
DRAFT
Methods for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Emissions Reductions
March 2026
Prepared for the City of Encinitas
Prepared by the Energy Policy Initiatives Center
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 302 of 514
DRAFT
© 2026 University of San Diego. All rights reserved.

About EPIC
The Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC) is a non-profit research center of the University of San Diego School of Law that studies energy policy issues affecting California and the San Diego region. EPIC’s mission is to increase awareness and understanding of energy- and climate-related policy issues by conducting research and analysis to inform decision makers and educate law students.

For more information, please visit the EPIC website at www.sandiego.edu/epic.

The Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC) prepared this Appendix for the City of Encinitas. This Appendix represents EPIC’s professional judgment based on the data and information available at the time EPIC prepared this Appendix. EPIC relies on data and information from third parties who provide it with no guarantees such as of completeness, accuracy or timeliness. EPIC makes no representations or warranties, whether expressed or implied, and assumes no legal liability for the use of the information in this Appendix; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. Readers of the Appendix are advised that EPIC may periodically update this report or data, information, findings, and opinions and that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, data, information, findings and opinions contained in the Appendix.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 303 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table of Contents
1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................1 2 Background ............................................................................................................................................1

2.1 Greenhouse Gases..........................................................................................................................1

2.2 Demographics.................................................................................................................................2 3 Baseline 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ............................................................................3 4 Business-as-usual Emissions Projection.................................................................................................5 5 2030 and 2045 Reduction Targets.........................................................................................................9 6 Summary of Emissions Reduction Estimates.........................................................................................9 7 Methods To Estimate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions............................................................13

7.1 Common Assumptions and Methods for Calculating Electricity Emissions Reductions..............13

7.2 Common Assumptions and Methods for Calculating Natural Gas Emissions Reductions...........18

7.3 Common Assumptions and Methods for Calculating On-Road Transportation Emissions Reductions ...............................................................................................................................................18

7.4 Federal and State Actions that Reduce GHG Emissions in Encinitas ...........................................22

7.5 Climate Action Plan Update Measures.........................................................................................32 Attachment 1: Avoided Vehicle Miles Traveled from Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Projects..............60 A.1 Comparison with Previous Analysis..............................................................................................60 A.2 Methods and Inputs .....................................................................................................................60 A.3 Avoided Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ........................................................................................62 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 304 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Tables
Table 1 Global Warming Potentials...............................................................................................................2 Table 2 Population, Housing, and Jobs Estimates .........................................................................................2 Table 3 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory Calculation Methods and Data Sources......................3 Table 4 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Encinitas...................................................................................5 Table 5 Method to Project Business-as-usual Emissions...............................................................................6 Table 6 Business-As-Usual Emissions Projections .........................................................................................8 Table 7 Emissions Projections, Reduction Targets, and Emissions Reductions Needed...............................9 Table 8 2030 and 2045 GHG Emissions Reductions by Strategy ...................................................................9 Table 9 2030 and 2045 GHG Emissions Reductions by Measure ...............................................................10 Table 10 Encinitas Citywide Electricity Emissions Factors...........................................................................15 Table 11 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions Increasing Renewable and Zero-Carbon Supply .........17 Table 12 GHG Emissions Reductions by Supply..........................................................................................18 Table 13 Average Vehicle Emission Rate in the San Diego Region..............................................................20 Table 14 Emissions Reduction from Increasing Zero Emission Vehicles.....................................................21 Table 15 Allocation of GHG Emissions Reduction from Increasing Zero Emission Vehicle Miles...............22 Table 16 Emissions Reductions from California Renewables Portfolio Standard .......................................24 Table 17 Behind-the-meter PV Capacity and Estimated Electricity Generation .........................................26 Table 18 Key Assumptions and Results from California Solar Policies, Programs, and Mandates .............28 Table 19 Estimated Energy Savings from California Energy Efficiency Programs.......................................29 Table 20 Key Assumptions and Results from California Energy Efficiency Programs .................................30 Table 21 Federal and California Vehicle Efficiency Standards.....................................................................31 Table 22 Remaining Federal and California Vehicle Efficiency Standards ..................................................31 Table 23 Natural Gas Savings from Measure BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency......................................................................................................................................................33 Table 23 Assumptions of All-Electric Homes...............................................................................................34 Table 24 Electricity Added from Measure BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization .....................................................................................................................................................................35 Table 25 Natural Gas Savings from Measure BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization...........................................................................................................................................35 Table 26 Assumptions of All-Electric Nonresidential Development............................................................36 Table 27 Natural Gas Savings from Measure BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization...........................................................................................................................................37 Table 28 Electricity Added from Measure BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization...........................................................................................................................................37 Table 29 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings ...................38 Table 30 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Existing Municipal Facilities ...........................................................................39 Table 31 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power.......................................................................................................................................40 Table 32 Additional PV Capacity from Measure RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems..........................................................................................................................41 Table 33 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems...............................................................................................................41 Table 34 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Renewable and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities....................................................................................42 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 305 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 35 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts....................................................................................................................................43 Table 36 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be Pre-Plumbed for Greywater Systems ..........................................................................................................43 Table 37 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species ............................................................................................................44 Table 38 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan .....................................................................................................................................................................45 Table 39 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program...........46 Table 40 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential, Nonresidential, and Major Redevelopment Projects.........47 Table 41 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled..................47 Table 42 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow (Signal Synchronization) ..........................................................................................................................................49 Table 43 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow..................................49 Table 45 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.........................................................................................................................................50 Table 46 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.........................................................................................................................................50 Table 44 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-1: Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet ............................................................................................................................................51 Table 45 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-1: Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet ............................................................................................................................................51 Table 49 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program..............................................................................52 Table 50 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations........................................................................................................................................................53 Table 47 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers......54 Table 48 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment....................................................................................................................................................54 Table 49 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program.............56 Table 50 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City ...56 Table 51 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments .....................................................................................................................................58 Table 52 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property .....................................................................................................................................................................58 Table 53 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees..................59 Table 54 Trip Distance and Frequency per Household Estimates...............................................................62 Table 55 HEU Buildout Housing Units within Pedestrian and Bicycle Zones ..............................................62 Table 56 Avoided VMT for ATP Projects – Full Buildout of HEU .................................................................63 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 306 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Figures
Figure 1 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Encinitas .................................................................................5 Figure 2 Example of Business-As-Usual and Legislatively-Adjusted Business-As-Usual Emissions Projections.....................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Business-As-Usual Emissions Projections.....................................9 Figure 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trend (2021–2045)............................................................................13 Figure 5 ACCII ZEV and PHEV Sales (Adapted from CARB October 2022 Public Workshop for the EMFAC202Y Model, Presentation Slide 28).................................................................................................19 Figure 6 Illustration of Different Transportation Emissions Projections.....................................................21 Figure 7 SB 100 and SB 1020 Targets...........................................................................................................23 Figure 8 Behind-the-meter Photovoltaic Historical Capacity and Projections............................................27 Figure 9 Concept Map Illustrating Pedestrian and Bicycle Zones and Affected Areas ...............................61 Figure 10 City of Encinitas ATP- Pedestrian and Bicycle Zones for the Food & Dining Activity Center Category (Map for Illustrative Purposes) ....................................................................................................64 Equations
Equation 1 Citywide Electricity Emission Factors Calculation .....................................................................15 Equation 2 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions Increasing Renewable and Zero-Carbon Supply .....16 Equation 3 Attributing Emissions Reduction to Each Supply ......................................................................17 Equation 4 Emission Reduction Calculation for Local Renewable Program in Compliance with RPS.........23 Equation 5 Estimate Electricity Generation from California Solar Policies and Programs..........................25 Equation 6 Emissions Impact from Increasing Renewable Supply Through Behind-the-meter PV Systems .....................................................................................................................................................................27 Equation 7 Electricity Emissions Impact from California Energy Efficiency Programs................................29 Equation 8 Natural Gas Emissions Impact from California Energy Efficiency Programs.............................30 Equation 9 Emissions Impact Calculation – Reducing Tailpipe Emissions...................................................31 Equation 10 Emissions Impact from Natural Savings – Local Energy Efficiency Program...........................33 Equation 12 Emissions Impact Calculation for Local Renewable Program .................................................39 Equation 13 Emissions Impact from Retiming Traffic Signals or Installing Roundabouts...........................48 Equation 14 Solid Waste Reduction Calculation .........................................................................................55 Equation 15 Emissions Impact from Increased Solid Waste Diversion .......................................................55 Equation 16 CO2 Sequestered Calculation from Increased Urban Tree Planting........................................57 Equation 17 Annual VMT Avoided Calculation............................................................................................60 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 307 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
1 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego 1 OVERVIEW
This Appendix provides a summary of the 2016 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory for the City of Encinitas (referred to as “Encinitas” or “the City”), the business-as-usual (BAU) emissions projections through 2045, and the methods used to calculate the GHG emissions reductions from the measures included in the city’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update.

This Appendix includes the following sections:
• Section 2 describes the background data sources used for this Appendix; • Section 3 provides the 2016 GHG emissions inventory results summary; • Section 4 provides a summary of the emissions projections for 2030 and 2045, and the methods used to prepare projections for each emissions category; • Section 5 describes this CAP Update’s 2030 and 2045 targets; • Section 6 provides a summary of emissions impacts from federal, State (California), and local CAP strategies; and
• Section 7 details the common data sources and methods used to estimate emissions reductions, and the methods used to estimate emissions reductions from federal, State, and CAP Update strategies.

Unless stated otherwise, all activity data, GHG emissions, and GHG emissions reductions reported in this Appendix are annual values for the calendar year, and all emission factors reported in this document are annual average values for the calendar year.

Rounding is used for the final GHG values within the tables and figures throughout the document.

Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in any calculation. Because of rounding, some totals may not equal the values summed in any table or figure. 2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Greenhouse Gases
The primary GHGs included in the City’s emissions estimates are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Each GHG has a different capacity to trap heat in the atmosphere, known as its global warming potential (GWP), which is normalized relative to CO2 and expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). In general, the 100-year GWPs reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are used to estimate GHG emissions. The GWPs used in this appendix are from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),1 provided in Table 1. The 100-year GWPs from AR4 are used in this appendix to be consistent with the GWPs used in the California statewide GHG inventory.2 The latest IPCC climate assessment is the Six Assessment Report (AR6) with an updated set of GWPs.3 1 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007: Direct Global Warming Potentials (2013). 2 CARB: Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. 2000-2022 GHG Inventory (2024 Edition). 3 IPCC: Six Assessment Report.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 308 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
2 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 1 Global Warming Potentials
Greenhouse Gas Global Warming Potential
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1
Methane (CH4) 25
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 298
IPCC 2013.

2.2 Demographics
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) estimates and forecasts population, housing, and jobs for all jurisdictions in the San Diego region. However, a city-specific transportation modeling was performed in 2023 that supported both the City’s CAP Update and the General Plan Mobility Element Update. The demographic estimates and forecasts used in the 2023 modeling are used for the CAP Update to be consistent with the transportation data.

The 2023 modeling was based on the SANDAG Activity Based Model 2+ (ABM2+) and 2021 San Diego Regional Plan scenarios that factored in regional transportation network investments and policies but adjusted to align with the City’s land use assumptions. The 2016 baseline year estimates include (1) the City’s adopted Housing Elements housing sites and (2) recently approved development projects in the past few years. The 2050 estimates include (1) additional housing expected to be built by 2050, (2) the Housing Element land use data, (3) potential development projects outside the Housing Element projects set to be completed by 2050, and (4) additional roadway network adjustments aligning with the Mobility Element.4 2050 was the only projection year included in the 2023 modeling effort, estimates between 2016 and 2050 were linearly interpolated.

The population, housing units, and jobs estimates for 2016, 2030, and 2045 are provided in Table 2. 5 Table 2 Population, Housing, and Jobs Estimates
Year Population Jobs Housing Units*
2016 76,408 29,260 30,545
2030 78,987 27,154 31,625
2045 81,751 24,897 32,782
Based on Encinitas specific land use assumptions including recently approved development projects and the adopted Housing Elements.
*Housing unit types include single detached units, single attached units, two to four units, five plus or apartment units, and mobile homes.

Fehr & Peers 2023, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 4 Fehr & Peers (January 9, 2024), City of Encinitas Transportation Modeling Considerations and Results [Memorandum]. 5 2016 and 2050 population, housing units, and jobs estimates were provided by Fehr & Peers to EPIC (September 13, 2023). No interim year models were analyzed, therefore, 2030 and 2045 estimates were interpolated linearly between 2016 and 2050 estimates.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 309 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
3 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego 3 BASELINE 2016 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
SANDAG created the Regional Climate Action Planning Framework (ReCAP) to guide CAP development and support consistent CAP implementation across the San Diego region. 6 SANDAG has supported CAP
implementation monitoring through ReCAP Snapshots, the biannual reports of GHG inventory, and climate monitoring data. Encinitas received a 2016 GHG inventory (released in 2019), a 2018 GHG inventory (released in 2021), and a partial 2020 GHG inventory (released in 2023, transportation emissions were omitted due to data availability during the COVID pandemic).7 Data year 2016 was chosen as the CAP Update baseline year, even though more recent GHG inventories are available (e.g., the 2018 GHG inventory) because 2016 has the best available vehicle miles traveled (VMT) data.

The ReCAP Technical Appendix I: GHG Inventories, Projections, and Target Selection document provides the GHG inventory calculation method used for all GHG inventories in the Snapshots, based on U.S.

Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (U.S. Community Protocol), developed by ICLEI USA.8 The U.S. Community Protocol requires a minimum of five basic emissions-generating activities to be included in a Protocol-compliant community-scale GHG inventory.

These categories are electricity, natural gas, on-road transportation, water and wastewater, and solid waste. GHG emissions are calculated by multiplying activity data (e.g., kilowatt-hours of electricity) by an emission factor (e.g., pounds of CO2e per unit of electricity). The activity data and emissions factors are regional- or city-specific data when available. The overall method and data sources for estimating activity and emissions factors are provided in Table 3.

Table 3 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory Calculation Methods and Data Sources Emission
Category Category Detail Data Source for Estimating Activity and Emissions Factor Electricity
Power plant emissions
associated with generating
electricity used within the
City
Activity: Electricity sales data from San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) based on customer class, rate schedule, and electric service provider (MWh)
Emissions factor: Weighted average emission factor based on the electric service provider (lbs CO2e/MWh)
Natural Gas
Combustion emissions
associated with fuel enduse for heating and
cooling (mostly residential
and non-residential,
excusing fuels used for
grid use electricity
production)
Activity: Sales data from SDG&E based on customer class (therms)
Emissions factor: Natural gas emission factor in California from CARB statewide inventory (00545 MT CO2e/ therm)
6 SANDAG: Climate Action Planning Framework for Local Governments. 7 The GHG inventories and CAP monitoring data are in SANDAG Climate Action Data Portal. 8 SANDAG: Climate Action Planning Framework for Local Governments. ReCAP Technical Appendix I: GHG Inventories, Projections, and Target Selection (Version 1.1: October 2020). ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability USA: U.S.

Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 1.2 (2019). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 310 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
4 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Emission
Category Category Detail Data Source for Estimating Activity and Emissions Factor On-Road
Transportation
Tailpipe emissions from
on-road vehicles
(passenger cars, light-duty
trucks, heavy-duty trucks,
buses, motorcycles, etc)
Activity: City-specific VMT using the origin-destination method (miles)
Emissions factor: San Diego region emission factor by vehicle class from latest approved CARB EMFAC model (currently
EMFAC2021) converted to average vehicle emission factor using VMT distribution by vehicle class (g CO2e/mile)
Water
Emissions from energy use
to deliver water to enduse customers
Activity: City-specific water use by water source (imported, local surface, and recycled water) from water districts (gallons)
Emissions factor: energy intensity (kWh/gallon) and
electricity emissions factor (lbs CO2e/MWh) from water
districts for each of the water cycle (supply, treatment, and distribution)
Wastewater
Fugitive and process
emissions from
wastewater treatment
Activity: City-specific wastewater generation from
wastewater collection agency (gallons)
Emissions factor: emission factor based on treatment process (MT CO2e/gallon)
Solid Waste
End-of-life emissions
associated with
community waste disposal
Activity: City-specific waste disposal from CalRecycle (tons) Emissions factor: Based on regional composition study and methane recovery factor at landfills obtained from the
landfill (MT CO2e/ton)
Detailed methods and GHG emissions calculation equations are provided in SANDAG Climate Action Planning Framework for Local Governments. ReCAP Technical Appendix I: GHG Inventories, Projections, and Target Selection (Version 1.1:

October 2020).

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 A few revisions were made to the original ReCAP 2016 GHG inventory due to newly available data and data sources since 2019: (1) updated VMT estimates based on the 2023 modeling,9(2) updated vehicle miles emission rates and off-road transportation emissions from the statewide transportation latest models, and (3) updated water emissions based on latest local water energy intensity data.

The revised GHG emissions from Encinitas in 2016 were approximately 381,000 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e), distributed into categories as shown in Table 4 and Figure 1. 9 2016 and 2050 VMT estimates were provided by Fehr & Peers to EPIC (December 15, 2023). The VMT estimates were based on SANDAG ABM2+ model DS41 (ABM2+ Version 14.2.2, Series 14 Forecast, Scenario ID 469, September 2021) and city-specific land use assumptions, including Mobility Element.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 311 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
5 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 4 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Encinitas
Emissions Category
2016 Inventory
GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2016 Inventory
Distribution
(%)
On-Road Transportation 222,000 58%
Electricity 79,000 21%
Natural Gas 56,000 15%
Solid Waste 15,000 4%
Off-Road Transportation 4,000 1%
Water 4,000 1%
Wastewater 2,000 0.5%
Total 381,000 100%
Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. GHG emissions for each category are rounded to the nearest thousand. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 Figure 1 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Encinitas
4 BUSINESS-AS-USUAL EMISSIONS PROJECTION
To inform the development of GHG reduction strategies within the CAP Update, GHG emissions are projected using the 2016 baseline year GHG inventory, as well as estimates for population, housing, and 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 312 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
6 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego job growth discussed in Section 2. This is used to develop a “business-as-usual” (BAU) projection, which demonstrates emissions growth in the absence of any new policies and programs. Next, future emissions reductions expected from applicable federal and State policies and programs are applied, creating a legislatively-adjusted BAU. Figure 2 provides an illustrative example of the difference between a BAU and a legislatively-adjusted BAU.

Figure 2 Example of Business-As-Usual and Legislatively-Adjusted Business-As-Usual Emissions Projections The methods used to project activity level and emission factors for each emissions category are described in Table 5.

Table 5 Method to Project Business-as-usual Emissions
Emissions
Category Activity Method to Project Activity Level Emission Factor Method to Project Emission Factor On-Road
Transportation VMT Direct results from 2023 transportation modeling Average vehicle
emission factor
All new vehicles have
the same emission
rate as new vehicles
in baseline year
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 313 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
7 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Emissions
Category Activity Method to Project Activity Level Emission Factor Method to Project Emission Factor Electricity Net energy for
load
Residential: Population
increase
Non-Residential: Jobs
increase
City-specific
emission factor
Fixed at the latest
year with data
available (2020)
Natural Gas Natural gas enduse
Residential: Population
increase
Non-Residential: Jobs
increase
Natural gas
emission factor

0.00545 MT CO2e/
therms
Solid Waste Waste disposal Population Increase Mixed waste emission factor

0.98 MT CO2e/short
ton
Off-Road
Transportation All adopted rules included in the CARB OFFROAD2021 Model Water
Potable and
recycled water
supply
Potable water:

Population increase
Recycled water: Fixed at
the latest year with data
available (2020)
Energy intensity
and electricity
emission factor
Fixed at the latest
year with data
available (2020)
Wastewater Wastewater
generation Population increase Wastewater emission factor

1.37 MT CO2e/
million gallon
Method to project business-as-usual emissions only
Population, jobs, and service population are provided in Table 2 Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 The total BAU projected emissions are presented in Table 6 and Figure 3. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 314 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
8 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 6 Business-As-Usual Emissions Projections
Emissions Category
2030 Projected
GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
2045 Projected
GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e)
On-Road Transportation 197,000 213,000
Electricity 82,000 80,000
Natural Gas 67,000 67,000
Solid Waste 14,000 15,000
Off-Road Transportation 4,000 5,000
Water 4,000 4,000
Wastewater 2,000 2,000
Total 370,000 385,000
Sum may not add up to totals due to rounding.

Projected GHG emissions for each category are rounded. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 315 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
9 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Figure 3 Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Business-As-Usual Emissions Projections 5 2030 AND 2045 REDUCTION TARGETS
Table 7 shows the BAU emissions projections and the 2030 and 2045 reduction targets.

As directed by Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Assembly Bill (AB) 1279, California aims to reduce annual statewide GHG emissions to (1) 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030; and (2) 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045, with net-zero emissions achieved through carbon dioxide removal. While the statewide targets are based on 1990 statewide GHG emissions levels, Encinitas, like most jurisdictions in California, does not have an emissions inventory from the year 1990 and must correlate a more recent inventory to 1990 levels using statewide GHG emissions data. In 2016, the California GHG emissions inventory showed that total statewide GHG emissions levels were nearly equivalent to 1990 levels. As such, it is assumed local GHG emissions have evolved on a similar trend, and 1990 total GHG emissions levels in Encinitas may be similar to those estimated in the 2016 community GHG inventory.

In alignment with the State targets, and estimating equivalent reductions needed from the 2016 baseline, the City aims to reduce emissions to: (1) 40 percent below 2016 levels by 2030 (aligned with the 2030 target in SB 32); and 85 percent below 2016 levels by 2045 (aligned with the 2045 target in AB 1279).

Table 7 Emissions Projections, Reduction Targets, and Emissions Reductions Needed Year
Business-as-usual
Projection*
(MT CO2e)
Target Emissions
Level
(% below baseline)
Target
Emissions Level
(MT CO2e)
2016 381,000 - -
2030 370,000 40% 229,000
2045 385,000 85% 57,000
Emissions projections and targets are rounded.
*BAU projection without impact of federal, State, regional, and local CAP Update strategies.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 6 SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATES
This section summarizes the GHG emissions reductions identified for each strategy and measure included in the CAP Update. The methods used to estimate GHG emissions reductions are described in Section 7. Table 8 below presents a summary of emissions reductions from each strategy including the reductions from federal and State regulations.

Table 8 2030 and 2045 GHG Emissions Reductions by Strategy CAP Strategies
2030 Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2045 Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
Building Decarbonization 8,000 41,700
Renewable Energy 18,500 1,000
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 316 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
10 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego CAP Strategies
2030 Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2045 Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
Water Efficiency 1,000 900
Clean and Efficient Transportation 7,500 15,100
Zero Emission Equipment 300 1,300
Zero Waste 10,400 12,700
Carbon Sequestration 4,300 5,300
Federal and State Regulations 92,100 250,300
Total Reduction* 142,000 328,000
Emissions reduction values in 2030 and 2045 are rounded. Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.
*The total includes values from federal, State, regional, and local CAP Update strategies.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026 Each strategy has several measures. Table 9 presents a detailed summary of the emissions reductions from each CAP Update measure, including each federal and State action.

Table 9 2030 and 2045 GHG Emissions Reductions by Measure CAP Strategies Federal and State Regulations and CAP Measures 2030
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2045
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
Building
Decarbonization
BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy
Efficiency 46 183
Building
Decarbonization BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization 276 733 Building
Decarbonization
BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency
Not
Quantified
Not
Quantified
Building
Decarbonization
BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development
Decarbonization 591 2,540
Building
Decarbonization BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings 7,001 38,085 Building
Decarbonization
MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization
Projects at Existing Municipal Facilities 81 135
Building
Decarbonization MBD-2: Require New Municipal Facilities be All-Electric Not Quantified Not
Quantified
Renewable
Energy RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power 18,267 0 Renewable
Energy
RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems 239 665
Renewable
Energy
MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Renewable Generation and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities 0 341 Renewable
Energy
MRE-2: Require New Municipal Facilities to Install Microgrids with On-Site Solar and Battery Storage
Not
Quantified
Not
Quantified
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 317 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
11 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego CAP Strategies Federal and State Regulations and CAP Measures 2030
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2045
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
Water Efficiency WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts 955 879
Water Efficiency WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be Pre-Plumbed for Greywater Systems 8 20
Water Efficiency MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species 2 7
Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan 382 536 Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program 150 62
Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential, Nonresidential, and Major Redevelopment Projects
1,556 3,430
Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled 0 3,451
Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
CET-5: Improve traffic flow 1,902 1,136
Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 650 1,798 Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 529 1,983 Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
MCET-1: Transition to Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet 265 288 Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation
Demand Management Program 62 26
Clean and
Efficient
Transportation
MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 2,035 2,427 Zero Emission
Equipment ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers 250 247 Zero Emission
Equipment ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment 0 1,043 Zero Waste ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program 10,357 12,694 Carbon
Sequestration CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City 4,096 4,841 Carbon
Sequestration
CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New
Developments 117 242
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 318 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
12 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego CAP Strategies Federal and State Regulations and CAP Measures 2030
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2045
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
Carbon
Sequestration CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property 18 71 Carbon
Sequestration CS-4: Adopt and Implement a Mature Tree Ordinance Not Quantified Not
Quantified
Carbon
Sequestration MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees 66 119 Federal and
State
Regulations
Federal and California Vehicle Efficiency Standards 29,035 135,660 Federal and
State
Regulations
California Energy Efficiency Programs 2,833 2,203
Federal and
State
Regulations
Renewables Portfolio Standard 34,137 76,716
Federal and
State
Regulations
California Solar Policies and Programs 26,106 35,745
Total from Federal and State Regulations 92,112 250,325 Total from CAP Update Measures 49,901 77,979
Total Reduction* 142,000 328,000
*Total emissions reductions values in 2030 and 2045 are rounded. The total includes reductions from federal, State, and CAP Update measures.

Certain measures are not quantified because information on how the policies or the programs would be implemented is unknown as of the CAP development stage.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026 Figure 4 provides a visualization of the emissions trends through 2045. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 319 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
13 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Figure 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trend (2021–2045)
In Figure 4, the colored wedges represent the reduction from each CAP Update strategy and from federal and State actions. Each wedge represents the cumulative GHG reduction from through 2045. The grey area beneath the colored wedges represents the remaining emissions after all the actions have taken place.
7 METHODS TO ESTIMATE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS The following sub-sections describe the methods to estimate GHG emissions reductions:
• Section 7.1 through Section 7.3 discuss a set of common assumptions and sources used to calculate emissions reductions in energy and on-road transportation categories; • Section 7.4 describes the emissions reductions from federal and State actions; and • Section 7.5 describes the emissions reductions from the CAP Update measures.

7.1 Common Assumptions and Methods for Calculating Electricity Emissions Reductions The following overall assumptions and methods are used in the calculation of emissions reductions related to electricity, including those from federal and State actions as well as CAP Update measures. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 320 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
14 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego

7.1.1 GHG Emission Factor for Electricity
The electricity emission factors in Encinitas (i.e., citywide electricity emission factors) are the weighted average emission factors of gross generation from four sources of supply: (1) San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) bundled customers, the customers whom receive both electric generation and electric delivery service from SDG&E (bundled service);
10 (2) the Electric Service Providers (ESPs) for SDG&E’s Direct Access (DA) customers;
11 (3) San Diego Community Power (SDCP), a Community Choice Energy program launched in 2021; and (4) behind-the-meter photovoltaic (PV) systems, the PV systems that are located on the customer’s side of the utility meter.

The citywide electricity emission factors are different from the emission factors used in the GHG inventory because the electricity generated from behind-the-meter PV systems are assumed to be zero emissions and not accounted for in the GHG inventory. However, all sources are considered to estimate the effects of State actions and CAP Update measures that increase the grid-supply of renewable and zero-carbon electricity. Considering behind-the-meter PV as a source that contributes to the citywide electricity emission factor reflects the effects of energy efficiency programs that may reduce behind-themeter electricity use, or the effects from additional electric vehicle (EV) charging load, which may come from behind-the-meter electricity sources and not just from grid supply.

The citywide electricity emission factor is calculated based on the percentage of renewable content in and the percentage of gross generation from each supply source as described below. This method is applied to 2020 onward when the projection from electricity category starts. As the percentage of renewable and zero-carbon supply in the mix increases, the citywide electricity emission factor decreases.

7.1.1.1 Supply from San Diego Gas & Electric
As of 2020, SDG&E’s bundled power mix is 31% renewable. 12 It is assumed SDG&E will meet the 60%
renewable by 2030, 90% renewable and zero-carbon by 2035, and 100% renewable and zero-carbon by 2045 as required by the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) under SB 100 (de León) and SB 1020 (Laird).
13 Estimates in this Appendix assume that 100% renewable and zero-carbon means supplying every hour of the year with renewable and carbon-free electricity resources. The legislative mandates are discussed in detail in Section 7.4.1.

7.1.1.2 Supply from Electric Service Providers of San Diego Gas & Electric Direct Access Customers Like SDG&E, ESP of SDG&E DA customers are required to meet RPS targets.

7.1.1.3 Supply from San Diego Community Power
SDCP, the Community Choice Energy program launched in 2021, would increase its renewable and zerocarbon electricity supply beyond the current RPS mandates. This is discussed in detail in Section 7.5.2.1. 10 SDG&E’s bundled customers are those who receive both electric generation and electric delivery service from SDG&E (bundled service). SDG&E: Customer Choice Service Types. 11 Direct Access customers receive electric generation from Electric Service Providers (not SDG&E), but electricity is delivered by SDG&E. SDG&E: Customer Choice Service Types.
12 SDG&E: 2020 Power Content Label.
13 SB 100 (de León) California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases (2017–2018). The interim RPS targets are 44% by 2024 and 52% by 2027 from eligible renewable energy resources. SB 1020 (Laird) Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022 (2021-2022).
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 321 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
15 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Because all of California’s electricity retail sellers need to meet the RPS requirement, a portion of the emissions reduction from RPS compliance is credited to State actions. The remaining portion of reductions is attributed to CAP Update Measure RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power.

7.1.1.4 Supply from Behind-the-Meter Photovoltaic Systems Electricity generation from behind-the-meter PV systems, including residential and non-residential PV, is considered part of the overall electricity supply. Electricity generation from PV is considered 100% zerocarbon (i.e., GHG-free). The State’s solar policies, programs, and mandates are discussed in Section

7.4.1.1. 7.1.1.5 Citywide Electricity Emissions Factors The citywide electricity emission factor is based on the percentage of gross generation from each supply, as well as the percentage of renewable and zero-carbon content in each supply, as shown in Equation 1.

Equation 1 Citywide Electricity Emission Factors Calculation 𝐸𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 = ∑ (𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛
𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦
∗
(1 − 𝑅𝐸𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛)
(1 − 𝑅𝐸𝑆𝐷𝐺&𝐸,𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)
∗ 𝐸𝐹𝑆𝐷𝐺&𝐸,𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟)
Where
𝐸𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 = Emissions factor of the electricity (gross generation) in a city in a given year, in lbs CO2e per megawatt hour (MWh)
𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛 = Gross generation supplied by an electricity supply in a given year, % 𝑅𝐸𝑆𝐷𝐺&𝐸,𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 = renewable content of SDG&E supply in CAP projection starting year (2020 here), in percent.

𝐸𝐹𝑆𝐷𝐺&𝐸,𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 = Electricity emission factor of SDG&E supply in CAP projection starting year (2020 here), in lbs CO2e per MWh
With,
supply = all electricity supplies, including but not limited to SDG&E, behind-themeter PV, San Diego Community Power n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Table 10 shows the contribution from each supply to gross generation, its renewable and zero-carbon content, and the overall citywide electricity emission factors for 2020, 2030, and 2045 calculated based on Equation 1.

Table 10 Encinitas Citywide Electricity Emissions Factors Year 2020 2030 2045
San Diego
Community
Power
% of Gross Generation Supplied -* 55% 54%
San Diego
Community
Power
Renewable and Zero-Carbon Content in Supply -* 100% 100% Other Electric
Service Providers % of Gross Generation Supplied 12% 9% 9% 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 322 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
16 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Year 2020 2030 2045
Other Electric
Service Providers Renewable and Zero-Carbon Content in Supply 33% 60% 100% SDG&E % of Gross Generation Supplied 72% 4% 4%
SDG&E Renewable and Zero-Carbon Content in Supply 31% 60% 100% Behind-the-meter
PV % of Gross Generation Supplied 15% 32% 33%
Behind-the-meter
PV Renewable and Zero-Carbon Content in Supply 100% 100% 100% Citywide Renewable and Zero-Carbon Content in Supply 42% 95% 100% Citywide Electricity Emissions Factor (lbs CO2e/MWh) 538 50 0 *San Diego Community Power was launched in 2021.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

The overall citywide emission factors here are different from the emission factors used in the GHG inventories. The emission factors used in GHG inventories do not include behind-the-meter supplies. 2020 is the latest year with utility data available. 2030 and 2045 data are projections based on CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 In 2020, SDG&E and other electric retail suppliers supplied 85% of the projected gross generation, and behind-the-meter PV systems supplied the remainder. In 2030, the projected electricity supply from behind-the-meter PV systems is estimated to be 32% of gross generation. To comply with the mandated renewable and zero-carbon targets for 2030, the renewable content in electricity from both SDG&E and other ESPs will increase to 60%. This Appendix assumes the renewable and zero-carbon supplies from SDG&E and ESPs are fixed at the RPS mandate level to avoid overestimating the emissions reductions.

Based on the target for CAP Measure RE-1, it is assumed SDCP will have 100% renewable and zerocarbon sources by 2030. Based on these supply contributions, the citywide annual weighted electricity emission factor in 2030 is projected to be 50 lbs CO2e/MWh (95% renewable and zero-carbon) and zero lbs CO2e/MWh in 2045 (100% renewable and zero-carbon).

The citywide electricity emission factors are used to calculate the emissions reductions from electricity savings, as well as State actions and CAP Update measures that increase renewable supply.

7.1.2 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions that Increase Renewables in Electricity The projected citywide electricity emission factor is used to estimate the GHG emissions reductions from any actions that increase the overall renewable and zero-carbon supply. The total reduction from State and local CAP Update measures that increase renewable supply is given in Table 11, calculated using the projected gross generation in target years and the difference in the 2030 and 2045 citywide emissions and BAU emission factors, as shown in Equation 2.

Equation 2 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions Increasing Renewable and Zero-Carbon Supply ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝐸,𝑛 = 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑛 ∗ ∆ 𝐸𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 ∗ 0.000453 Where
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝐸,𝑛 = total emissions impact from increasing renewable and zero-carbon electricity supply in a given year, in MT CO2e
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑛 = electricity gross generation, including all suppliers in a given year, MWh 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 323 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
17 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego ∆ 𝐸𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 = difference in the projected emission factor of the electricity (gross generation) in a city in a given year compared with BAU emission factor, in pounds CO2e per MWh

0.000453 = conversion factor, MT CO2e in a pound
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Table 11 GHG Emissions Reductions from Actions Increasing Renewable and Zero-Carbon Supply Year
Gross
Generation
(GWh)
BAU Projection -
Electricity
Emission Factor
(lbs CO2e/MWh)
BAU Projection
Emissions from
Electricity
(MT CO2e)
Projections with
State and Local CAP
Update Actions in
Increasing
Renewable and
Zero-Carbon Supply
- Electricity
Emission Factor
(lbs CO2e/MWh)
Projections with
State and Local CAP
Update Actions in
Increasing
Renewable and
Zero-Carbon Supply
- Emissions from
Electricity
(MT CO2e)
GHG Emissions
Reductions from
Increased
Renewable and
Zero-Carbon
Supply
(MT CO2e)
2030 355 538 86,766 50 8,017 78,749
2045 455 538 110,991 0 0 110,991
The projections with increasing renewable and zero-carbon supply are based on CAP Update assumptions and State policies and programs, including the additional electric load from electric vehicles due to California’s Advanced Clean Cars II regulations.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 The BAU emission factor for 2020 (Table 10) is kept constant through the year 2045. The total emissions reductions from increasing renewable supply, as calculated above (Table 11), is attributed to each supply based on its renewable and zero-carbon content compared to the total renewable and zerocarbon content. This is shown in Equation 3 and Table 12.

Equation 3 Attributing Emissions Reduction to Each Supply ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛 = ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝐸,𝑛 ∗ (
𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛 ∗ 𝑅𝐸𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛
𝑅𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛
)
Where
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛 = emissions impact of an electricity supply from increasing renewable and zero-carbon content in a given year, in MT CO2e
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝐸,𝑛 = total emissions impact from increasing renewable and zero-carbon electricity supply in a given year, in MT CO2e;
𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛 = gross generation supplied by an electricity supply in a given year, % 𝑅𝐸𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑦,𝑛 = renewable and zero-carbon content of an electricity supply in a given year, %
𝑅𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 = overall renewable and zero-carbon content of the electricity supply (gross generation) in a given year (%);
With,
supply = all electricity supplies, including but not limited to: SDG&E, Behind-themeter PV, CCA 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 324 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
18 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Table 12 GHG Emissions Reductions by Supply
Year Electricity Supply Total
San Diego
Community
Power
Other Electric
Retail
Suppliers
SDG&E Behind-themeter PV
2030
% of Gross Generation Supplied by
Renewables Sources 95% 55% 6% 2% 32%
2030 Emissions Reduction from Increased
Renewables Supply (MT CO2e) 78,749 45,667 4,675 2,062 26,345 2045 % of Gross Generation Supplied by
Renewables Sources 100% 54% 9% 4% 33%
2045 Emissions Reduction from Increased
Renewables Supply (MT CO2e) 110,991 60,188 9,522 4,530 36,751 2030 and 2045 data are the projections based on CAP Update assumptions and the future impact of State policies and programs.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.2 Common Assumptions and Methods for Calculating Natural Gas Emissions Reductions As described in Section 4, the natural gas emission factor of 0.00545 MT CO2e per therm is used for all years to estimate the emissions reductions for the CAP Update measures that reduce natural gas use.

7.3 Common Assumptions and Methods for Calculating On-Road Transportation Emissions Reductions
The following assumptions and methods are used to calculate emissions reductions for strategies related to on-road transportation, including federal and State actions and local CAP Update measures.

7.3.1 GHG Emission Factor for On-Road Transportation
The GHG emission factor for on-road transportation is used in several ways throughout the Appendix: to estimate the effect of (1) federal and State actions that increase the vehicle fuel efficiency standard and increase zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs); (2) local actions to increase electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS); and (3) local actions to reduce VMT.

7.3.1.1 Impact of Federal and State Actions on Average Vehicle Emission Rates The latest CARB EMFAC2021 model includes the effects of federal and State regulations related to tailpipe GHG emissions reductions that were adopted by the end of 2020.14 In August 2022, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACCII) regulations that established standards for new post-2026 model year light-duty vehicles. ACCII amended: (1) the low-emission vehicle (LEV) regulations to strengthen standards for light-duty vehicles and trucks to reduce smog-forming emissions; and (2) the ZEV regulations to require an increasing number of ZEVs to meet air quality and climate change emissions standards.15 The ZEV amendments support Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-79-20 that requires all new passenger vehicles sold in California to be ZEVs by 2035.16 14 CARB: EMFAC2021 Volume III Technical Document, Version 1.0.1 (April 2021). Section 1.3.5 Regulations and Policies includes a list of polices and regulations covered in EMFAC2021. 15 CARB: Advanced Clean Cars II.
16 CARB: Advanced Clean Cars II.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 325 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
19 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Starting in 2026, ACCII will have a significant impact on the percentage of new ZEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). However, EMFAC2021 default outputs do not include the effect of ACCII. The newly released EMFAC version, EMFAC2025, which is not yet approved by EPA, includes the impact of ACCII and other light-duty and heavy-duty vehicle regulations passed after the adoption of EMFAC2021.17 Even though EPA granted waivers for California’s ACCII regulations in 2024, Congress adopted resolutions late 2025 revoking EPA’s actions to grant California waivers for several regulations including ACCII, and other heavy-duty vehicle regulations (e.g., Advanced Clean Trucks). CARB is currently contesting the federal actions in court.

Figure 5 shows the differences in projected ZEV and PHEV sales as required by ACCII and in EMFAC2021.

Figure 5 ACCII ZEV and PHEV Sales (Adapted from CARB October 2022 Public Workshop for the EMFAC202Y Model, Presentation Slide 28)
To estimate the impact of ACC off-model, the ACCII ZEV and PHEV sales in Figure 5 are applied to new light-duty cars trucks starting in model year 2026. For example, 45% of new light-duty cars in model and calendar year 2026 will be ZEVs and PHEVs, with the remaining light-duty cars split between gasoline and diesel.
18 Starting with model year 2035, new light-duty vehicles (both cars and trucks) will be 100% ZEVs or PHEVs.

Taking into account EMFAC2021 and ACCII regulations, the average vehicle emission rates (g CO2e/mile) are calculated based on the distribution of VMT in each vehicle class with ACCII adjustment for lightduty vehicles, as well as the emission rate of each vehicle class. The average vehicle emission rates (Table 13) are used to estimate the GHG emissions reduction impact of federal and State policies that increase vehicle efficiency and ZEVs.
17 CARB Presentation EMFAC202Y: An Update to California on-road Mobile Source Emissions Inventory (October 12, 2022).

EMFAC2025, released on May 13, 2025.
18 Based on the EMFAC2021 default gasoline-diesel cars fraction. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 326 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
20 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 13 Average Vehicle Emission Rate in the San Diego Region Year
EMFAC2021 Default
Results (with the
Impact of all
Adopted State and
Federal Policies
through 2020) -
Ratio of e-VMT to
Total VMT
(%)
EMFAC2021 Default Results
(with the Impact of all
Adopted State and Federal
Policies through 2020) -
Ratio of e-VMT to Total VMT
(%)
- Average Vehicle Emission
Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
Adjusted
EMFAC2021 Default
Results with ACCII
ZEV Regulations -
Ratio of e-VMT to
Total VMT
(%)
Adjusted
EMFAC2021
Default Results
with ACCII ZEV
Regulations -
Average Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
2019 1.4% 428 1.4% 428
2030 7.7% 343 20% 303
2045 13% 296 74% 122
ACCII: Advanced Clean Cars II Regulations
e-VMT: electric vehicle miles traveled
EMFAC2021 includes all key federal and State regulations related to tailpipe GHG emissions reductions that were adopted by the end of 2020. EMFAC2021 results are adjusted to include the ACCII ZEV regulations.

CARB 2021, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 This Appendix assumes that the impact of ACCII in the San Diego region will be the same as its impact statewide due to the lack of regional specific data available. The additional electric load from the ZEVs and PHEVs is included in the projected gross generation in the electricity category.

7.3.1.2 Impact of State and Local Actions on Increasing Zero Emission Vehicles CAP Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations all assist in the implementation of State’s ZEV mandates and ACCII that require manufacturers to produce increasing numbers of ZEVs and PHEVs, by providing local EV charging infrastructures.

The total effect of increasing ZEVs in future years is estimated by comparing EMFAC2021 default emissions rates (without the impacts of ACCII) and the adjusted EMFAC2021 emission rates with the impacts of ACCII, as shown in Table 14. An illustration of BAU emission rates used in BAU emissions projections, default EMFAC2021 emission rates, and adjusted EMFAC2021 emission rate is show in Figure 6.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 327 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
21 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Figure 6 Illustration of Different Transportation Emissions Projections Table 14 Emissions Reduction from Increasing Zero Emission Vehicles Year
Projected
VMT
(annual
million
miles)
Emissions
Projection with
Only HeavyDuty ZEV
Regulations
(EMFAC2021
Default
Results)
- Average
Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
Emissions
Projection with
Only HeavyDuty ZEV
Regulations
(EMFAC2021
Default
Results)
- On-Road
Transportation
(MT CO2e)
Emissions
Projection
with Both
Heavy- and
Light-Duty ZEV
Regulations
(Adjusted
EMFAC2021
Results) -
Average
Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
Emissions
Projection with
Both Heavy- and
Light-Duty ZEV
Regulations
(Adjusted
EMFAC2021
Results) –
On-Road
Transportation
(MT CO2e)
Emissions
Reduction from
Light-duty ZEV
Regulations
(MT CO2e)
2030 542 343 185,753 303 164,443 21,310
2045 587 296 173,709 122 71,339 102,370
ZEV: zero-emission vehicles
EMFAC2021 includes all key federal and State regulations related to tailpipe GHG emissions reductions that were adopted by the end of 2020. EMFAC2021 results are adjusted to include the ACCII ZEV regulations.

CARB 2021, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026 Portions of the total emissions reduction from increasing ZEVs (21,310 MT CO2e in 2030 and 102,370 MT CO2e in 2035) are attributed to Measures CET-6, CET-7, and MCET-3 in proportion to each measure’s contribution of electric vehicle miles (e-VMT). Table 15 provides the key assumptions and results of the attribution.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 328 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
22 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 15 Allocation of GHG Emissions Reduction from Increasing Zero Emission Vehicle Miles Year
Projected
Miles
Driven by
EVs of
Total VMT
Projected eVMT from
Light-Duty
ZEV
Regulations
Project
ed eVMT
from
CET-6
Projecte
d e-VMT
from
CET-7
Project
ed eVMT
from
MCET-3
Emissions
Reduction
from LightDuty
ZEV
Regulations
Emissi
ons
Reduct
ion
from
CET-6
Emission
s
Reductio
n from
CET-7
Emission
s
Reductio
n from
MCET-3
2030 20% 108 3.3 2.7 10.3 21,310 650 529 2,035
2045 74% 434 7.6 8.4 10.3 102,370 1,798 1,983 2,427
e-VMT: electric vehicle miles
CAP Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Projected e-VMT percent of total VMT data are from Table 13.

The emissions reduction from each is the projection under the CAP assumptions, including future impact of State policies and programs used in the EMFAC2021 with additional light-duty ZEV regulations (Advanced Clean Cars II).

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026 Based on the adjusted EMFAC2021 results including ACCII, in 2030, 20 percent of all VMT in the San Diego region will be driven by EVs, corresponding to 108 million e-VMT in Encinitas. The requirement through Measure CET-6 would result in about 3.3 million e-VMT in 2030. Therefore, 3 percent (the ratio of 2.7 million miles to 108 million miles) of emissions reductions from the light-duty ZEV program in 2030 (20,103 MT CO2e from Table 14) are attributed to Measure CET-6. The emissions reductions from Measures CET-7 and MCET-3 and in target year 2045 are attributed using the same method.

7.4 Federal and State Actions that Reduce GHG Emissions in Encinitas In addition to how federal and State regulations affect the emissions factors of electricity and on-road transportation, these same policies lead to significant emissions reductions in Encinitas through 2045.

This section provides a summary of the methods used to estimate and attribute the emissions reductions associated with the following federal and State actions that increase renewable electricity, building energy efficiency, and clean and efficient transportation:
• California RPS – SB 100 and SB 1020
• California Solar Programs, Policies and Mandates
• California Energy Efficiency Programs
• Federal and California Vehicle Efficiency Standards

7.4.1 California Renewables Portfolio Standard
SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018, adopts a 60 percent RPS for all of California’s electricity retail sellers by 2030. SB 100 also provides goals for the intervening years before 2030 and establishes a State policy requiring that zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of all retail electricity sales to end-user customers and all State agencies by December 31, 2045.19 SB 1020, the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022, adopts two interim targets for all retail electricity sales to end-use customers: 90 percent renewable and zero-carbon electricity by 2035 and 95 percent renewable and 19 SB 100 (de León): California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases (2017–2018). The interim RPS targets are 44 percent by 2024 and 52 percent by 2027 from eligible renewable energy resources. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 329 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
23 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego zero-carbon electricity by 2040.20 The statewide renewable and zero-carbon targets are shown in Figure 7 below.

Figure 7 SB 100 and SB 1020 Targets
All electricity retail sellers are required to meet the State’s RPS requirements, including SDG&E, ESPs for SDG&E’s DA customers, and SDCP. In this Appendix, a conservative approach is taken that assumes all sellers, including ESPs, will meet, but not surpass, the RPS requirements. Under this assumption, all emissions reductions from SDG&E and ESPs reaching 60 percent renewables in 2030 are credited to the State under the RPS requirements. In 2045, because all electricity retail sellers are required to meet the 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon requirement, all emissions reductions are credited to the State.

For SDCP, a portion of the emissions reductions in 2030 from the program will be credited to the State under RPS compliance, and the remaining reduction will be attributed to Measure RE-1, as described in Section 7.5.2.1, calculated using Equation 4. In addition, the electricity related to bring water down from the State Water Project and the Colorado River also must be renewable or zero-carbon under the mandates. Table 16 shows results from RPS mandates in target years.

Equation 4 Emission Reduction Calculation for Local Renewable Program in Compliance with RPS ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝑃𝑆,𝑛 = ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝐸 ,𝑛 ∗ (
𝑅𝐸𝑅𝑃𝑆,𝑛
𝑅𝐸𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝐸,𝑛
)
Where
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝑃𝑆,𝑛 = emissions impact of a local renewable program in a given year, in compliance with RPS, in MT CO2e
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝐸,𝑛 = emissions impact of local renewable program in a given year, in MT CO2e 20 SB 1020 (Laird): the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Affordability Act of 2022 (2021–2022). 2030: 60% RPS
Eligible Renewables
2045: 100%
Zero-Carbon
2024: 44% RPS Eligible
Renewables, Interim
2027: 57% RPS Eligible
Renewables, Interim
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Percentage Renewable/Zero-Carbon Electricity
SB100 and SB1020 targets apply to all retail electricity providers include Direct Access, Community Choice Aggregators and Investor-Owned Utilities
Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2023 2020: 33% RPS
Eligible Renewables
2035: 90%
Zero-Carbon
2040: 95%
Zero-Carbon
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 330 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
24 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego 𝑅𝐸𝑅𝑃𝑆,𝑛 = RPS requirement in a given year, fixed for RPS target years and interpolated for other years
𝑅𝐸𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝐸,𝑛 = targeted renewable content of a local renewable program in a given year (%)
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Table 16 Emissions Reductions from California Renewables Portfolio Standard Year
RPS-Related
Emissions
Reductions from
SDG&E*
(MT CO2e)
RPS-Related
Emissions
Reductions from
SDCP
(MT CO2e)
RPS-Related Emissions
Reductions from
Upstream WaterEnergy Use
(MT CO2e)
Total RPS-Related
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 6,737 27,400 0 34,137
2045 14,053 60,188 2,476 76,716
SDCP: San Diego Community Power
*Includes SDG&E and electric service providers of SDG&E DA customers. 2030 and 2045 data are projections under the CAP based on current status, future impact of State policies and programs, and CAP Update measures assumptions.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.4.1.1 California Solar Programs, Policies, and Mandates California has several policies and programs to encourage customer-owned, behind-the-meter PV systems, such as the California Solar Initiative, New Solar Home Partnership, Net Energy Metering, and electricity rate structures for solar customers. The California 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, required all newly constructed single-family homes, low-rise multi-family homes, and detached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to have PV systems installed, unless the building receives an exception.21 The latest California 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2022 Code), which went into effect on January 1, 2023, expanded the PV requirement to include nonresidential buildings. In addition, the 2022 Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps and establishes electric-ready requirements for new residential construction.22 The California Energy Demand 2023–2040 Forecast, developed by the California Energy Commission (CEC), has projections for PV capacity from behind-the-meter PV adoption in the SDG&E planning area through 2040, including the impact of the residential and non-residential PV mandates. 23 The Net Billing
Tariff (NEM 3.0) that went into effect in April 2023 and the federal ITC extension announced in August 2022 will have a long term an impact the behind-the-meter PV installation. This 2023–2040 forecast incorporates these policies and incentives, The Energy Demand Forecasts are updated annually, and the 21 CEC: 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards – 2019 Residential Compliance Manual (December 2018). For the requirements on newly constructed single-family and low-rise multi-family homes, see Section 7.2 Prescriptive Requirements for Photovoltaic System. For the requirements on newly constructed and detached ADU, see Section 9.3.5 Accessory Dwelling Units.
22 CEC: 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
23 Sekar, Ashok, Paritosh Das, Ashreeta Prasanna, Michaela Sizemore, and Kevin McCabe. 2024. Modeling Distributed Generation in California. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-200-2024-011. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 331 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
25 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego impacts will continue be assessed in future versions. The baseline PV projection from 2023–2040 in the SDG&E planning area is used to forecast PV generation in this Appendix. 24 The California Distributed Generation (DG) Statistics database includes capacities of behind-the-meter PV systems interconnected in a jurisdiction in a year for each of the three Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) planning areas, including SDG&E. This provides a historical record used to determine the capacity in GHG inventory years and the trends in PV installation.

A comparison of the estimated capacity and electricity generation from PV systems in Encinitas and in the SDG&E planning area is given in Table 17 and calculated based on Equation 5. 25 Equation 5 Estimate Electricity Generation from California Solar Policies and Programs 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑃𝑉,𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙,𝑛 = 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑃𝑉,𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙,𝑛 ∗ (
𝐶𝑃𝑉,𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 ∗ 18% ∗ 8,760
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑃𝑉,𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙
)𝑎𝑣𝑒
Where
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑃𝑉,𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙,,𝑛 = annual electricity generation from behind-the-meter PV systems in a city in a given year, in MWh
𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑃𝑉,𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙,,𝑛 = annual electricity generation from behind-the-meter PV systems in the SDG&E planning area in a given year, in MWh
𝐶𝑃𝑉,𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 = historical capacity of the behind-the-meter PV systems in a jurisdiction in a given year, in MW (dc)
18% = average solar system capacity factor, ratio of average energy generated compared with nameplate capacity, in MWh/MW
8,760 = hours per year
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
24 CEC: California Energy Demand 2023-2040, accessed May 22, 2024. 25 The capacity of all interconnected PV systems in Encinitas was from the California Distributed Generation Statistics NEM Currently Interconnected Data Set (current as of March 30, 2023), download date: June 3, 2023. National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Residential PV Resources Classes, Mean DC Capacity Factor. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 332 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
26 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 17 Behind-the-meter PV Capacity and Estimated Electricity Generation Year
Encinitas*
PV Capacity
(MW)
Encinitas* Estimated
Electricity
Generation
(GWh)
SDG&E Planning Area**
Estimated Electricity
Generation
(GWh)
Historical Encinitas
to SDG&E Ratio of
Electricity
Generation from PV
2019 27 43 2,049 2.1%
2020 32 51 2,438 2.1%
2021 37 59 2,776 2.1%
2022 43 68 3,141 2.2%
MW: megawatt; GWh: gigawatt hour
*Estimated electricity generation based on PV capacity and 18% capacity factor. **California Energy Demand Baseline 2023–2040 Forecast
California DG Statistics 2023, CEC 2024, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 For future years, the electricity generation and capacity of behind-the-meter PV systems in Encinitas are estimated based on the PV generation in CEC’s baseline forecast for SDG&E’s planning area and the average ratio of PV generation in Encinitas to that of SDG&E’s planning area from 2016–2022 (2.1%).

Because of California’s solar programs, policies, and mandates, the estimated 2030 PV capacity in Encinitas is projected to be 71 megawatts (MW). The trend of behind-the-meter PV in Encinitas is shown in Figure 8.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 333 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
27 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Figure 8 Behind-the-meter Photovoltaic Historical Capacity and Projections Because there are no statewide PV projections beyond 2040, this Appendix assumes that the PV capacity from State programs beyond 2035 will have an annual growth rate of 1.1 percent (the 2039– 2040 growth rate, or the last year with data available) beyond 2040. The projected 2045 PV capacity from State action is approximately 92 MW.

Through CAP Measure RE-2 and Measure MRE-1, the City plans to achieve additional PV capacity citywide beyond the State requirement by 2045. This brings the projected total PV capacity in the City to 95MW in 2045.

The emissions reductions from all State and CAP measures that increase behind-the-meter renewable supply would be 26,345 MT CO2e in 2035 and 36,751 MT CO2e in 2045, as shown in Table 12. Total reduction is allocated based on estimated capacity (MW) that would result from each action based on Equation 6
Equation 6 Emissions Impact from Increasing Renewable Supply Through Behind-the-meter PV Systems ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑃𝑉,𝑛 = ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝐸,𝑛 ∗ (
𝑃𝑃𝑉,𝑛 ∗ 𝑅𝐸𝑃𝑉
𝑅𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛
)
Where
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑃𝑉,𝑛 = emissions impact from increasing renewable supply through behind-themeter PV systems in a given year, in MT CO2e 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 334 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
28 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝐸,𝑛 = total emissions impact from increasing renewable electricity supply in a given year, in MT CO2e; refer to Equation 3
𝑃𝑃𝑉,𝑛 = percent of gross generation supplied by behind-the-meter PV systems in a given year (%); refer to Equation 3
𝑅𝐸𝑃𝑉 = 100%, renewable content of PV supply
𝑅𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 = overall renewable content of the electricity supply (gross generation) in a given year; refer to Equation 1
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
The emissions reductions from the State action are shown in Table 18 below.

Table 18 Key Assumptions and Results from California Solar Policies, Programs, and Mandates Year State or City Action Total CAP Measure
RE-2
CAP
Measure
MRE-1
California Solar
Policies,
Programs, and
Mandates*
2030
Projected Behind-the-meter PV
Capacity (MW) 71 0.6 Not started 71
2030 Projected Emissions Reduction (MT
CO2e) 26,345 239 0 26,106
2045 Projected Behind-the-meter PV
Capacity (MW) 95 1.7 0.8 92
2045 Projected Emissions Reduction (MT
CO2e) 36,751 671 330 35,750
*Solar policies, programs, and mandates include the impact of the PV mandates from the 2019 and 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standard.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

CAP Measure RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems CAP Measure MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Solar and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities The projected capacity and emissions reductions are based on CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.4.2 California Energy Efficiency Program
In September 2021, the CPUC adopted energy efficiency goals for ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs (Decision 21-09-037). The adopted energy saving goals for SDG&E’s service territory are given in the Decision on an annual basis from 2022 to 2032.
26 The sources of the energy savings include, but
are not limited to, rebated technologies, building retrofits, behavior-based initiatives, and codes and standards.27
To evaluate the impact of the energy efficiency programs in Encinitas, the total energy savings in 26 CPUC: Decision 21-09-037, Adopting Energy Efficiency Goals for 2022-2032, accessed September 16, 2022. SDG&E’s electricity service territory is larger than San Diego region. 27 Guidehouse: 2021 Energy Efficiency Potential and Goals Study (April 23, 2021), accessed September 16, 2022. Rebated technologies are the energy efficiency technologies from the utility’s historic incentive programs, including equipment and retrofits. Existing and future Codes and Standards included in the Study is discussed in Section 3.9 Codes and Standards. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 335 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
29 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego SDG&E’s service territory by 2032 are allocated to Encinitas using a ratio of Encinitas’s natural gas and electricity demand to those of SDG&E’s entire service territory. The average 2016–2020 ratios are 1.5 percent for electricity and 2.3 percent for natural gas.28 SDG&E’s energy efficiency goal is not estimated by the CPUC beyond 2032; therefore, it is assumed the annual electricity and natural gas savings from energy efficiency programs post-2032 will be the same as in 2032. SDG&E’s service territory electricity savings were allocated accordingly to Encinitas, as shown in Table 19. 29 Table 19 Estimated Energy Savings from California Energy Efficiency Programs Year
SDG&E Service
Territory
Electricity
Savings*
(GWh)
Allocation of
Electricity Savings
to Encinitas by
Demand (GWh)
SDG&E Service
Territory
Natural Gas
Savings
(million
therms)
Allocation of
Natural Gas Savings
to Encinitas by
Demand (million
therms)
2032 1,914 28 18 0.4
*Includes transmission and distribution losses.

SDG&E service territory savings are the cumulative based on the 2022-2032 annual saving goals in CPUC Decision 21-09-037.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 Emissions reductions from electricity savings are calculated using Equation 7 by multiplying the electricity savings by the citywide GHG emission factor for electricity, discussed in Section 7.1.1 and shown in Table 10. As the renewable and zero-carbon content in electricity increases, the emissions reductions from the electricity portion of energy efficiency programs decrease. Emissions reductions from natural gas savings were calculated using Equation 8 by the natural gas savings amount and the natural gas emission factor discussed in Section 7.2.

Equation 7 Electricity Emissions Impact from California Energy Efficiency Programs ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐵𝐸−𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒,𝑛 =
∆ 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝐵𝐸−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙,𝑛 ∗ 𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝐸𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 ∗ 0.000453 − ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐵𝐸−𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙,𝑛 Where
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐵𝐸−𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒,𝑛 = total emissions impact from California energy efficiency program for a city in a given year, in MT CO2e
∆ 𝐸𝑙𝑒𝑐𝐵𝐸−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙,𝑛 = electricity impact from State energy efficiency program in the SDG&E service area in a given year compared with latest historical year in MWh 𝑃𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = ratio of the gross generation (or net energy for load) of a city to that of SDG&E service area, in CAP baseline year or average of most recent years 𝐸𝐹𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑛 = emission factor for the electricity (gross generation) in a city in a given year, in lbs. CO2e per MWh
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐵𝐸−𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙,𝑛 = total emissions impact from CAP local building efficiency measures in a given year, if applicable, in MT CO2e

0.000453 = conversion factor, MT CO2e in a lb.
28 SDG&E’s service territory demand is from California Energy Demand 2023-2040, accessed May 22, 2024. 2020 is the latest year with historical data available for both Encinitas and SDG&E service territory. 29 CPUC: Decision 21-09-037, Adopting Energy Efficiency Goals for 2022-2032, accessed September 16, 2022. The 2022 and beyond goals are given on an annual basis for each year from 2022 to 2032. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 336 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
30 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Equation 8 Natural Gas Emissions Impact from California Energy Efficiency Programs ∆ 𝐸𝑁𝐺,𝐵𝐸−𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒,𝑛 = ∆ 𝑁𝐺𝐵𝐸−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙,𝑛 ∗ 𝑃𝑁𝐺,𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 ∗ 𝐸𝐹𝑁𝐺,𝑛 − ∆ 𝐸𝑁𝐺,𝐵𝐸−𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙,𝑛 Where
∆ 𝐸𝑁𝐺,𝐵𝐸−𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒,𝑛 = total emissions impact from State energy efficiency programs for a city in a given year, in MT CO2e
∆ 𝑁𝐺𝐵𝐸−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙,𝑛 = natural gas savings from State energy efficiency programs in the SDG&E service area in a given year comparing with latest historical year), in therms 𝑃𝑁𝐺,𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙−𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = ratio of the natural gas use of a city to that of SDG&E ervice area, in CAP baseline year or average of most recent years
𝐸𝐹𝑁𝐺,𝑛 = emission factor of natural gas in a jurisdiction in a given year, in MT per therm
∆ 𝐸𝑁𝐺,𝐵𝐸−𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙,𝑛 = total emissions impact from CAP local building efficiency measures in a given year, in MT CO2e
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Table 20 summarizes the energy savings and GHG emissions reductions in the years 2030 and 2045.

Table 20 Key Assumptions and Results from California Energy Efficiency Programs Year Electricity
Savings
(GWh)
Electricity
Emission Factor
(lbs CO2e/MWh)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
from
Electricity
Savings
(MT CO2e)
Natural
Gas
Savings
(million
therms)
Natural Gas
Emission Factor
(MT CO2e/therm)
GHG Emissions
Reductions
from Natural
Gas Savings
(MT CO2e)
Total GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 102 50 630 0.9 0.0054 2,203 2,833
2045 102 0 0 0.9 0.0054 2,203 2,203
Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

The emission rates and emissions reductions are based on CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.4.3 Federal and California Vehicle Efficiency Standards As discussed in Section 7.3, CARB’s EMFAC2021 model includes all key federal and State regulations related to tailpipe GHG emissions reductions for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles that were in place by the end of 2020. EMFAC2021 results were adjusted to include ACCII ZEV regulations which require an increasing number of ZEVs for post-2026 model year light-duty vehicles. Table 21 summarizes the key assumptions and results in the years 2030 and 2045, calculated based on Equation 9. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 337 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
31 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Equation 9 Emissions Impact Calculation – Reducing Tailpipe Emissions ∆ 𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝐹𝐸,𝑛 = 𝑉𝑀𝑇𝑛 ∗ ∆ 𝐸𝐹𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝑛 ∗ 10−6
Where,
∆ 𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝐹𝐸,𝑛 = total emissions impact in transportation category from increasing vehicle fuel efficiency and ZEVs in a given year, in MT CO2e
𝑉𝑀𝑇𝑛 = VMT in a given year, miles per year
∆ 𝐸𝐹𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝑛 = difference in average vehicle emission factor in a given year and BAU average GHG emission factor, in grams CO2e per mile
10−6 = conversion factor, MT per gram CO2e
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Table 21 Federal and California Vehicle Efficiency Standards Year
Projected
Encinitas
VMT
(million miles
per year)
Average
Vehicle
Emission Rate
- BAU
Projection
with No
Regulatory
Impacts
(g CO2e/mile)
GHG Emissions
from On-Road
Transportation
- BAU
Projection
with No
Regulatory
Impacts
(MT CO2e)
Average
Vehicle
Emission Rate
- With Impact
of HeavyDuty and
Light-Duty
Regulations
(g CO2e/mile)
GHG Emissions
from On-Road
Transportation
- With Impact
of Heavy-Duty
and Light-Duty
Regulations
(MT CO2e)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 542 363 196,692 303 164,443 32,249
2045 587 363 213,207 122 71,339 141,869
Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

ACCII: Advanced Clean Cars II Regulation
ZEV: zero-emission vehicles
The emission rates and emissions reductions are projected based on CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 As discussed in Section 7.3.1.2 (Impact of State and Local Actions on Increasing Zero Emission Vehicles) to avoid double-counting, the maximum emission reductions related to all measures in the CAP facilitating e-VMT are set at the amount from ACCII.

In order to attribute these reductions to the City, the effects of CAP Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations are subtracted from the maximum emissions reductions from ACCII. Table 22 provides the remaining impacts of federal and state vehicle efficiency standards.

Table 22 Remaining Federal and California Vehicle Efficiency Standards 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 338 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
32 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Year
GHG Emissions
Reductions from
Federal and State
Vehicle Standards
(MT CO2e)
GHG Emissions
Reductions from CAP
Measure CET-6, CET-7,
and MCET-3*
(MT CO2e)
Remaining GHG
Emissions Reductions
from Federal and State
Vehicle Standards
(MT CO2e)
2030 32,249 3,214 29,035
2045 141,869 6,208 135,660
*Calculated in Table 15
CAP Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Federal and state vehicle standards include future impact of State policies and programs used in the EMFAC2021 with additional light-duty ZEV regulations (Advanced Clean Cars II).

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026

7.5 Climate Action Plan Update Measures
The following section describes the methods used to estimate the GHG reductions from the CAP Update measures, which are organized into the following seven strategies:
• Building Decarbonization
• Renewable Energy
• Water Efficiency
• Clean and Efficient Transportation
• Zero Emission Equipment
• Zero Waste
• Carbon Sequestration

7.5.1 Building Decarbonization

7.5.1.1 Measure BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency The City adopted Ordinance No. 2022-13, on October 26, 2022, requiring all additions and alterations for single- and multi-family with a building permit valuation of or higher than $50,000 to include at least one energy efficiency measure, such as attic insulation and air sealing, duct sealing, wall insulation, heat pump water heater, induction cooktop.30 The requirements apply to the entire residential unit, not just the addition or altered portion. Since Ordinance adoption, the City saw an exponential increase in project completion with 13 final projects in 2023, 57 final projects in 2024, and 104 final projects in 2045.31 For this Measure, it is assumed the trend, approximately 100 projects each year, will continue once the City readopts the Ordinance for each three-year State Building Code cycle.

The energy (both electricity and natural gas) savings for a typical cost-effective energy retrofit activity vary by project. Based on the Ordinance implementation data, a homeowner/permit applicant typically selects two energy efficiency measures out of all the listed options, but the most common one is the water heater package includes (1) R-6 water heater blanket, (2) R-3 hot water pipe insulation, and (3) low flow fixtures. The estimated energy savings from the water heater package is 16.75 therms per 30 Encinitas: Single-family Green Building Checklist and Multifamily Green Building Checklist (September, 2024). For the energy efficiency measures, the single-family requirements are listed in Table 150.2-E and the multifamily requirements are listed in Table 180.5-A.
31 Based on ordinance implementation data from Encinitas Development Service Department (February, 2026). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 339 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
33 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego home.32 The GHG emissions reductions from the natural gas savings due to the Ordinance are calculated using Error! Reference source not found.Equation 10, and summarized in Error! Reference source not found.Table 23.

Equation 10 Emissions Impact from Natural Savings – Local Energy Efficiency Program ∆ 𝐸𝑁𝐺,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = ∑(𝑁𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡,𝑛 ∗ 𝑃𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑡𝑠−𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑠 ∗
𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡
∆ 𝑁𝐺𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡,𝑛) ∗ 𝐸𝐹𝑁𝐺,𝑛
Where
∆ 𝐸𝑁𝐺,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = total emissions impact in natural gas category from residential energy retrofits natural gas savings, in a given year, in MT CO2e 𝑁𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡,𝑛 = number of housing units (projects) over the threshold that are required to implement energy retrofit activities, after ordinance effective year n ∆ 𝑁𝐺𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡,𝑛 = average annual natural gas saving from energy retrofits, therms 𝐸𝐹𝑁𝐺,𝑛 = emission factor of the natural gas in a city in a given year, in MT per therm With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from ordinance effective year to CAP horizon end year unit = including, but not limited to: retrofitted single-family unit, retrofitted multi-family unit
Table 23 Natural Gas Savings from Measure BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency Year
Number of Home
Energy Retrofits Due
the Ordinance
Natural Gas Savings
per Retrofit*
(therms/home/year)
Total Natural Gas
Savings from All
Retrofits
(therms/year)
Natural Gas
Emission Factor
(MT CO2e/therm)
GHG Emissions
Reductions from
Natural Gas Savings
(MT CO2e)
2030 500 16.75 8,375 0.0054 46
2045 2,000 16.75 33,500 0.0054 183
*Energy savings are based a water heater package at a single-family home, the most commonly picked energy retrofit activity under the Ordinance
The projected retrofits and emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026

7.5.1.2 Measure BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization The City adopted Ordinance No. 2024-04, on June 12, 2024, requiring that certain new residential projects meet higher energy performance standards than otherwise allowed under the State Energy Code, and that all residential buildings that are plumbed for natural gas be made ready for future conversion to electric equipment. To prevent climate pollution and reduce costs, it is recommended that project applicants consider an all-electric design for their project.33 New single-family homes, duplexes, and townhomes and low-rise multifamily projects must meet the higher energy performance standards. 32 Only single-family data energy savings data are used because no multi-family applications went submitted since the Ordinance adoption. California Energy Codes & Standards. pplication of the 2019 Studies to the 2022 Energy Code: Existing Low-Rise Residential Building Upgrades (September, 14, 2022). Table 11 Water Heating Package. Climate Zone 7. 33 Encinitas: New Construction Energy Regulations (September 2024). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 340 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
34 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Based on the 2022 new construction cost-effectiveness studies, the cost-effectiveness of a codecompliant home meeting higher energy performance standards varies by Climate Zone. Table 24 shows the natural gas savings and the additional electricity demand in Climate Zone 7 where Encinitas is located.34
Table 24 Assumptions of All-Electric Homes
All Electric Home Type Single-Family Mult--Family
Natural Gas Savings Compared with Mixed-Fuel
Home (therms per unit) 69 102
Additional Electricity Added Compared with
Mixed-Fuel Home (kWh per unit) 1,293 704
Based on prototypes in the cost-effectiveness study. For new single-family homes, the base case is modeled based on electric heat pump water heater with natural gas cooking and clothes drying. For new multi-family homes, the base case is modeled based on a natural gas centralized boiler with solar thermal, and electric cooking and clothes drying.

California Statewide Reach Codes Program, 2023 and 2024 The number of new single-family and multi-family units projected through 2045 are based on the housing projections described in Section 2.2. It is assumed that on average 75% of new homes will opt for all-electric option with the higher energy performance standard requirements. The emissions reduced from natural gas savings and emissions added from electricity use are shown in Table 25 and Table 26, calculated using equations similar to Error! Reference source not found. and Equation 10. 34 California Energy Codes & Standard Reach Codes Program: 2022 Single Family New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study (April 26, 2024), accessed May 2024; and 2022 Multifamily New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study (June 20, 2023), accessed September 2023.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 341 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
35 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 25 Electricity Added from Measure BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization Year
Number of
New Allelectric SingleFamily Home
Due to the
Reach Code*
Electricity Added
due to All-Electric
on Single-Family
Homes
(kWh/home/year)
Number of New
All-electric
Multi-Family
Homes Due to
Reach Code*
Electricity Added
due to All-Electric
on Multi-Family
Homes
(kWh/home/year)
Total
Electricity
Added
(MWh/year)
Electricity
Emission
Factor
(lbs
CO2e/MWh)
Emissions
Added from
Additional
Electricity
Use
(MT CO2e)
2030 133 1,293 426 704 172 50 11
2045 340 1,293 1,087 704 439 0 0
*It is assumed that on average 75% of new residential construction will opt for all-electric option with the reach code Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

The projected emissions are the projections under the CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 Table 26 Natural Gas Savings from Measure BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization Year
Number of New
All-electric
Single-Family
Home Due to
the Reach Code*
Natural Gas Savings
due to All-Electric on
Single-Family Homes
(therms/home/year)
Number of
New Allelectric MultiFamily Homes
Due to Reach
Code*
Natural Gas
Savings due to
All-Electric on
Multi-Family
Homes
(therms/home
/year)
Total Natural
Gas Savings
(million
therms/year)
Natural Gas
Emission
Factor (MT
CO2e/therm)
Emissions
Reductions
from
Natural Gas
Savings
(MT CO2e)
2030 133 69 426 102 0.1 0.00545 287
2045 340 69 1,087 102 0.1 0.00545 733
*It is assumed that on average 75% of new residential construction will opt for all-electric option with the reach code Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

The projected emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 Combining the totals from Table 25 and Table 26, the net GHG emissions reductions from Measure BD-2 are 276 MT CO2e in 2030 and 733 MT CO2e in 2045.

7.5.1.3 Measure BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency The City adopted Ordinance No. 2022-14, on October 26, 2022, requiring certain existing nonresidential buildings with steel framing to maximize energy efficiency to avoid thermal bridging, based on the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen).35 Because this requirement is not feasible under the most recent (2022) building code, the City will consider and readopt new nonresidential development energy efficiency requirements for the next building code cycle. This measure is currently not quantified for GHG reduction because, given the timing of the final 2025 CalGreen code being available for analysis, it is too soon to determine if there is a cost-effective alternative reach code option.
35 Encinitas: Nonresidential Building Energy Efficiency Regulations (September 2024). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 342 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
36 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego

7.5.1.4 Measure BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization The City will consider and adopt new nonresidential building code requirements to meet a higher energy performance standard as approved by the State after the next 2025 Energy Code is enforced. Similar to Measure BD-2, it would be recommended that project applicants consider an all-electric design for their project.

The cost-effectiveness of the next rounds of reach codes (2025 reach codes) are not available. Based on the latest 2022 new construction nonresidential cost-effectiveness studies, the cost-effectiveness of a code-compliant non-residential development meeting higher energy performance standards varies by Climate Zone. Natural gas savings and additional electricity use are calculated on a per-gross floor area basis. Table 27 shows the results for different nonresidential building types and the average.36 Table 27 Assumptions of All-Electric Nonresidential Development Nonresidential Building
Type
Building
Size
(sq. ft.)
Electricity Added
Compared with
Mixed-Fuel
Development
(kWh/year)
Natural Gas Savings
Compared with
Mixed-Fuel
Development
(therms/year)
Electricity Added
Compared with
Mixed-Fuel
Development
(kWh/year/sq. ft.)
Natural Gas Savings
Compared with
Mixed-Fuel
Development
(therms/year/sq. ft.)
New Construction
Medium Office 53,628 15,005 747 0.28 0.01
New Construction Small
Hotel 42,554 166,238 9,977 3.91 0.23
Average of New Nonresidential Construction 2.09 0.12
The 2022 nonresidential new construction cost effectiveness study includes medium retail as a building type; however, the base case already assumes heat pumps for heating and cooling and an electric resistance water heater, so it is not included.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 The average of nonresidential building types is used here, though other types of buildings (e.g., restaurants) have a different energy use on a per-sq. ft. basis and are not captured here. Based on building permit data in the recent years, an annual average of approximately 250,000 sq. ft. of new nonresidential developments would be subject to this reach code.37 The emissions reductions from natural gas savings and from additional electricity use due to Measure BD-4 are summarized in Table 28 and Table 29, calculated using equations similar to Error! Reference source not found. and Equation 10. 36 California Energy Codes & Standard Reach Codes Program: 2022 Non-Residential New Construction Cost-Effectiveness Study (March 24, 2023), accessed September 2023.
37 2017-2022 building permit data were provided by the city to EPIC (May 2024). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 343 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
37 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 28 Natural Gas Savings from Measure BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization Year
Annual
Nonresidential
Developments
Subject to Reach
Code
(sq. ft./year)
Total All-Electric
Nonresidential
Developments Due
to the Reach Code*
(sq. ft.)
Natural Gas Savings
(therms/sq. ft./year)
Total Natural
Gas Savings
(therms/year)
Natural Gas
Emission
Factor
(MT
CO2e/therm)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
from Natural
Gas Savings
(MT CO2e)
2030 250,000 937,500 0.12 116,430 0.0054 635
2045 250,000 3,750,000 0.12 465,721 0.0054 2,540
*It is assumed that on average 75% of new non-residential construction will opt for all-electric option with the reach code The projected emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 Table 29 Electricity Added from Measure BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization Year
Annual
Nonresidential
Developments
Subject to Reach
Code
(sq. ft./year)
Total All-Electric
Nonresidential
Developments Due to
the Reach Code*
(sq. ft.)
Electricity Added
(kWh/sq. ft./year)
Total
Electricity
Use
(kWh/year)
Electricity
Emission
Factor
(lbs
CO2e/MWh)
GHG Emissions
Increase from
Additional
Electricity Use
(MT CO2e)
2030 250,000 937,500 2.09 1,962,336 50 44
2045 250,000 3,750,000 2.09 7,849,344 0 0
*It is assumed that on average 75% of new non-residential construction will opt for all-electric option with the reach code The projected emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 The net GHG emissions reductions from Measure BD-4 are 591 MT CO2e in 2030 and 2,540 MT CO2e in 2045.

7.5.1.5 Measure BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings
The goal of Measure BD-5 is to decarbonize existing buildings that are not subject to the reach code requirements described under the measures above. The goal is to reduce 68 percent of the 2016 baseline natural gas use by 2045 through retrofitting existing buildings. Emissions reductions were calculated using the natural gas savings and the natural gas emission factor discussed in Section 7.2.

Table 30 summarizes the key assumptions and results.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 344 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
38 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 30 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings Year
Baseline 2016 Natural
Gas Use
(million therms/year)
Natural Gas
Savings
(%)
Natural Gas
Savings
(million
therms/year)
Natural Gas
Emission Factor
(MT CO2e/therm)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 10.3 13% 1.3 0.00545 7,001
2045 10.3 68% 7.0 0.00545 38,085
The projected energy and emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on current status, future impact of State policies and programs, and CAP Update assumptions.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026 The decarbonization potential of each existing home and existing non-residential development varies depending on building size, age, type of appliances used. To meet the goal, existing homes and nonresidential development would need to be retrofitted and decarbonized with 100 percent renewable electricity by 2045 (no additional GHG emissions added due to the additional electricity use).

Currently, a preliminary building stock analysis for the entire SDCP territory, which includes Encinitas, is available. The analysis looks at parcel-level building inventory in the City, including 15 building types grouped based on common use types and sizes (e.g., residential: single-family homes, commercial:
offices), number of buildings, and square footages. However, a more in-depth analysis that matches building energy use, types, and square footages is needed in order to estimate the GHG emissions reduction potential of a building decarbonization policy.

7.5.1.6 Measure MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Existing Municipal Facilities
The City will work to reduce energy consumption (electricity and natural gas) from municipal facilities and double the goals set in the 2020 CAP to achieve 30 percent energy reduction below 2012 baseline by 2030 (or equivalent to 579,000 kWh electricity savings and 12,000 therms natural gas savings).38 This goal will be achieved through the implementation of energy efficiency and conservation measures. For 2030 and onward, the City will identify opportunities to reduce or substitute all natural gas use municipal facilities through energy efficiency and conservation, and all-electric appliance installation by 2045. The additional electricity use will be provided by SDCP’s 100 percent renewable, Power 100, product or from on-site renewable electricity generation.

Table 31 summarizes the key assumptions and results, calculated using equations similar to Error! Reference source not found. and Equation 10.
38 The current CAP’s goals are to reduce municipal energy consumption below 2012 baseline energy use by 7.5% by 2020 and 15% by 2030. Encinitas: Climate Dashboard.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 345 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
39 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 31 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Existing Municipal Facilities
Year
Projected
Electricity
Savings with
Energy
Retrofit*
(kWh/year)
Projected
Additional
Electricity Use
with Fuel
Substitution
(kWh/year)
Electricity
Emission Factor
(lbs
CO2e/MWh)
Projected Natural
Gas Savings with
Energy Retrofits
and Fuel
Substitution*
(therms/year)
Natural Gas
Emission Factor
(MT
CO2e/therm)
Total
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 579,363 not started 50 12,471 0.00545 81
2045 579,363 59,468 0 24,695 0.00045 135
*Fuel substitution would start after 2030
The projected energy and emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on current status, future impact of State policies and programs, and CAP Update assumptions.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.1.7 Measure MBD-2: Require New Municipal Facilities Be All-Electric The City will adopt an administrative policy requiring the development of new municipal facilities to be all-electric. The GHG reduction of this measure will be quantified once there are new municipal facilities planned and designed. Future new City facilities currently anticipated include Fire Station No. 1 and Fire Station No. 6.

7.5.2 Renewable Energy

7.5.2.1 Measure RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power As discussed in Section 7.4.1, SB 100 and SB 1020 adopted the 60 percent RPS by 2030 for California’s retail electricity suppliers, 90 percent renewable and zero-carbon electricity by 2035, and 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon electricity by 2045. Measure RE-1 assumes SDCP will continue to offer Power100, the 100 percent renewable and carbon-zero electricity product, as the primary electricity rate for Encinitas customers and maintain current 93 percent participation rate through outreach and education.

Because SDCP is required to comply with the State’s RPS mandates, a portion of the total emissions reductions from SDCP’s renewable and zero-carbon electricity is credited to the State’s RPS compliance.

The remaining emissions reductions beyond RPS compliance are allocated to Measure RE-1. Table 32 summarizes the key assumptions and results, calculated based on Equation 11. 39 Equation 11 Emissions Impact Calculation for Local Renewable Program ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝐸,𝑛 − ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝑃𝑆 ,𝑛 Where
∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = emissions impact in electricity category through local renewable program in a given year, attributed to a local CAP measure, in MT CO2e ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝐿𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝐸,𝑛 = emissions impact of local renewable program in a given year, in MT CO2e
39 All eligible customers in Encinitas currently have SDCP Power100 product as the default option with a 93% participation rate.

SDCP: December 12, 2024 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Packet. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 346 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
40 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego ∆ 𝐸𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦,𝑅𝑃𝑆,𝑛 = emissions impact of local renewable program in a given year, in compliance with RPS, in MT CO2e
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
Table 32 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power
Year State or CAP Measure Total for
SDCP*
SDCP -
Complying
with RPS
SDCP -
Above RPS
2030 Projected Renewables and Zero Carbon (%) 100% 60% 40% 2030 GHG Emissions Reductions (MT CO2e) 45,667 27,400 18,267 2045** Projected Renewables and Zero Carbon (%) 100% 100% 0% 2045** GHG Emissions Reductions (MT CO2e) 60,188 60,188 0 SDCP: San Diego Community Power
*Calculated in Table 12.
**All electric service providers must supply 100 percent renewable or carbon-free electricity on and after 2045.

The projected emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on current status, future impact of State policies and programs, and CAP Update assumptions.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.2.2 Measure RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems The City adopted Ordinance No. 2022-13, on October 26, 2022, requiring solar PV equipment on all existing nonresidential, high-rise multifamily residential, and hotel/motel buildings additions that increase total roof area by at least 1,000 sq. ft. or alterations with a permit value of at least $1,000,000 that affect at least 75 percent of gross floor area. Buildings with greater than or equal to 10,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area are required install a minimum PV system sized at 15 kW per 10,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Buildings under 10,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area must install a minimum 5 kW PV system.40 Based ordinance implementation data in the recent years, an annual average of approximately 48,000 sq. ft. of new nonresidential developments would be subject to this reach code.41 The additional PV capacity added due to this ordinance is provided in Table 33, calculated using Equation 5 and Equation

6. 40 Encinitas: Nonresidential/High-Reise Residential Solar Photovoltaic Regulations and Nonresidential, Hotel & Motel Green Building Checklist (September 2024).
41 2017-2022 building permit data were provided by the city to EPIC (May 2024). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 347 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
41 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 33 Additional PV Capacity from Measure RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Year
Annual Developments
Subject to the
Ordinance
(sq. ft.)*
Total Developments
Due to the Ordinance
(sq. ft.)
PV Size
Requirement
(W per sq. ft.)
Total PV
Capacity Due to
the Ordinance
(MW)
2030 48,000 432,000 1.5 0.6
2045 48,000 1,152,000 1.5 1.7
The projected emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on current status, future impact of State policies and programs, and CAP Update assumptions.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 The emissions reductions from all State and CAP measures that increase behind-the-meter renewable supply are allocated based on estimated capacity (MW) as shown in Table 17. The emissions reductions from Measure RE-2 are shown in Table 34.

Table 34 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Year State or City Action Total CAP Measure
RE-2
CAP
Measure
MRE-1
California Solar
Polices,
Programs, and
Mandates*
2030
Projected Behind-the-meter PV
Capacity (MW) 71 0.6 Not started 71
2030 Projected Emissions Reduction (MT
CO2e) 26,345 239 0 26,106
2045 Projected Behind-the-meter PV
Capacity (MW) 95 1.7 0.8 92
2045 Projected Emissions Reduction (MT
CO2e) 36,751 671 330 35,750
*Solar policies, programs, and mandates include the impact of the PV mandates from the 2019 and 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standard.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.2.3 Measure MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Renewable and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities
The City will complete a feasibility study and install on-site renewable microgrids at suitable municipal facilities to cover municipal energy use. Under Measure MBD-1, the City will identify opportunities to reduce or substitute all natural gas use municipal facilities through energy efficiency, conservation, and 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 348 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
42 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego all-electric appliance installation by 2045. The projected electricity use in 2045, including additional allelectric appliance installation, is 1,400,000 kWh, equivalent to 848 kW on-site PV capacity needed.42 The emissions reductions from all State and CAP measures that increase behind-the-meter renewable supply are allocated based on estimated capacity (MW) as shown in Table 17. The emissions reductions from Measure MRE-1 are shown in Table 35.

Table 35 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Renewable and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities
Year State or City Action Total CAP Measure
RE-2
CAP
Measure
MRE-1
California Solar
Polices,
Programs, and
Mandates*
2030
Projected Behind-the-meter PV
Capacity (MW) 71 0.6 not started 71
2030 Projected Emissions Reduction (MT
CO2e) 26,345 239 0 26,106
2045 Projected Behind-the-meter PV
Capacity (MW) 95 1.7 0.8 92
2045 Projected Emissions Reduction (MT
CO2e) 36,751 671 330 35,750
*Solar policies, programs, and mandates include the impact of the PV mandates from the 2019 and 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standard.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.2.4 Measure MRE-2: Require New Municipal Facilities to Install Microgrids with On-site Solar and Battery Storage
The City will adopt an administrative policy requiring the development of new municipal facilities to install microgrids. The GHG reduction of this measure will be quantified once there are new municipal facilities planned and designed. Future new City facilities currently anticipated include Fire Station No. 1 and Fire Station No. 6.

7.5.3 Water Efficiency

7.5.3.1 Measure WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts The City will support San Dieguito Water District (SDWD) and Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD)’s water conservation effort.43 The emissions reductions are calculated based on the water savings, the difference between the BAU water system electricity use, and the renewable content of 42 The capacity factor, 19%, is based on a 2020 City of Encinitas PV and Battery Storage PPA study. 43 San Dieguito Water District: 2022 Water System Master Plan (October 2021). Table 3-6. For Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD), only of a portion of OMWD’s service territory is in Encinitas, projected water conservation in Encinitas is based on the current Encinitas to OMWD entire service territory demand, and OMWD entire service territory conservation. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2021) Table 4-3. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 349 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
43 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego electricity under RPS compliance and under SDCP’s renewable content. Table 36 summarizes the key assumptions and results.44
Table 36 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts
Year
BAU Water
Demand
(acre-feet)
Reduction in
Water Use from
Water Districts’
Conservation
Efforts*
(acre-feet)
Water Supply
after
Reduction
(acre-feet)
Upstream GHG
Emissions
Reduction from
Water Savings**
(MT CO2e)
Local GHG Emissions
Reduction from Water
Savings and
Additional Renewable
Supply***
(MT CO2e)
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 10,773 2,022 8,751 790 165 955
2045 11,150 2,250 8,900 879 0 879
*Both San Dieguito Water District (SDWD) and Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD) **Upstream emissions reductions from water savings are calculated based on the BAU GHG intensity of SDCWA untreated water supply (0.39 MT CO2e/acre-foot) and the reduction in water use. The impact of increased renewable or zero-carbon electricity in the upstream supply due to RPS is captured under Section 7.4.1
*** Local emissions reductions include (1) the reduction in water distribution electricity use associated with water savings and (2) the reduction in both potable and recycled water distribution emissions due to higher renewable and zero-carbon electricity content The emissions reductions are based on CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.3.2 Measure WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be Pre-Plumbed for Greywater Systems The City requires all new constructed single-family homes to be pre-plumbed for a graywater system.45 A graywater system reduces potable irrigation water use by using water from showers, bathtubs, lavatory sinks, and laundry for outdoor water use. For a typical household, the water savings per year with a greywater system is approximately 36,500 gallons.46 The water savings are converted to GHG reductions based on the imported water GHG intensities in 2030 and 2045. Table 37 summarizes the key assumptions and results.

Table 37 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be PrePlumbed for Greywater Systems Year
Number of
Greywater
Systems
Water Saving per
Home with
Greywater System
(Gallon per year)
Total Water
Use
Reduction
(Gallons)
Total Water
Use
Reduction
(Acre-feet)
Water-GHG
Intensity
(MT CO2e /Acrefoot)*
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 184 36,465 6,692,439 21 0.4 8
2045 459 36,409 16,705,202 51 0.4 20
44 Wastewater system energy intensity 156 kWh/acre-foot (478 kWh/million gallon) is based on CMWD: 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2021). Appendix H.
45 Encinitas: Single-family Green Building Checklist (September, 2024). 46 The calculation method and factors are based on CAPCOA GHG Handbook W-2 Use Grey Water. For a typical home, on average 25 gallons per occupant from showers, bathtubs, and lavatories; and 15 gallons per day per occupant for laundry. The persons per household in Encinitas is 2.5 persons per household. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 350 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
44 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego * Water-GHG intensity of imported water.

The water and emissions reductions are based on CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.3.3 Measure MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species The City plans to identify locations within parks and the public right-of-way to convert landscaping to drought tolerant or native species. City’s total landscape area is 3,851,855 sq. ft. 47 Switching to low
water use plants identified in the City’s existing Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will reduce landscape irrigation water use.48 The goal is to convert 5% of the public landscaping to drought tolerant or native species by 2030 and 15% by 2045.

Similar to Measure WE-2, the water savings are converted to GHG reductions based on the imported water GHG intensities in 2030 and 2045. Key assumptions and results are in Table 38.

Table 38 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species
Year
Landscape Area
Converted to Low
Water Use Plants
(%)
Outdoor Water Use
Reduction due to WELO
(Acre-feet)
Water-GHG Intensity
(MT CO2e/Acre-foot)*
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 5% 6 0.4 2
2045 15% 17 0.4 7
WELO: Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
*Water-GHG intensity of imported water.

The water and emissions reductions are based on CAP Update assumptions, current status, and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026

7.5.4 Clean and Efficient Transportation

7.5.4.1 Measure CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan The City adopted its Active Transportation Plan (ATP) in 2018 and Model Alternatives Project (MAP Encinitas), an implementation plan for the ATP, in 2023. MAP Encinitas identifies a list of prioritized bicycle and pedestrian projects that supports the strategic implementation of mobility projects based on availability of City funds or grant funding opportunities. The City will continue to implement the ATP based on the prioritization in the MAP. Based on the funding level analysis included in the benefit cost analysis, the goal is to implement 13% of the projects in the ATP (55% of the projects in the MAP) by 2030, and 45% of the projects in the ATP (100% of the projects in the MAP plus additional projects). 47 Data provided by city to EPIC during benefit cost analysis in 2026. 48 The calculation method and factors are based on CAPCOA GHG Handbook W-5 Design Water-Efficient Landscape. The evapotranspiration adjustment factor (0.45 for non-residential area), plant factor (0.1 for very low water use plants), irrigation efficiency (0.81 for drip system) are based on the city’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 351 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
45 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego The method to estimate avoided miles if the full ATP is implemented is discussed in Attachment 1:

Avoided Vehicle Miles Traveled from Active Transportation Plan (ATP) Projects. VMT avoided per year was converted to GHG emissions reductions using the average vehicle emission rates. Table 39 summarizes the key assumptions and results.

Table 39 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan Year
Miles Avoided due
to ATP
(Miles per year)
Average Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 1,259,255 303 382
2045 4,407,393 122 536
The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026

7.5.4.2 Measure CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program The City will conduct a study to determine the ideal microtransit options that work for the City. The potential microtransit options include, rideshare, neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) shuttles, circulator routes, and ride-hailing.
49 The City has an existing Encinitas Transit Feasibility Study, completed in 2014, which identifies potential intra-city routes: express services to Mira Costa College (MCC) and to La Costa Canyon High School (LCC HS), one Encinitas Circulator, and one with COASTER connection. 50 Only the Encinitas Circulator and the
COASTER connection routes are included here as potential flexible fleet routes because the other two routes require full-size buses, not flexible fleets.

The Encinitas Circulator would serve key destinations in the City, including Encinitas Library, apartments, shopping centers, and office complexes, with 12 loop trips during the day. The miles avoided is based on the estimated passenger ridership of the Encinitas Circulator (27,630 passengers a year) and the average round trip distance per passenger if they were to drive to the destinations (4 miles/round trip). The Transit Feasibility Study recommends a small bus for the service. Based on the proposed operation schedule, the estimated miles driven by the bus is 31,682 miles per year.

The COASTER connection would provide transit commuters traveling to and from San Diego via southbound COASTER service, with three morning trips and three afternoon trips on weekdays. The miles avoided is estimated based on passenger ridership of the COASTER Connection (9,292 passengers a year) and the average round trip distance per passenger if they were to drive to their jobs in San Diego or Sorrento Valley (40 miles/round trip). The Transit Feasibility Study recommends a small bus for the service. Based on the proposed operation schedule, the estimated miles driven by the bus is 12,240 miles per year.
49 SANDAG: Flexible Fleets.
50 The Transit Feasibility Study (June 2014) was provided by the City planning and building department to EPIC in the previous CAP development.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 352 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
46 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses are recommended in the Transit Feasibility Study, however, it is assumed the small buses/circulators would be electric, based on current market trends and available technology.
51 VMT avoided per year from avoided passenger vehicle trips was converted to GHG emissions reductions using the average vehicle emission rates. Running the electric circulators also adds GHG emissions to the City, only the net emissions reductions are accounted under Measure CET-2. Table 40 summarizes the key assumptions and results.
52 Table 40 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program Year
VMT Avoided
due to
Microtransit
(Miles per year)
Average
Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
Emissions
Reductions due
to VMT Avoided
(MT CO2e)
GHG Emissions
Added due to New
Local Electric
Circulators
(MT CO2e)
Net GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 510,489 303 155 5 150
2045 510,489 122 62 0 62
The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.4.3 Measure CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential, Nonresidential, and Major Redevelopment Projects
The City will require new developments to create and implement transportation demand management strategies to mitigate traffic impacts of the projects in accordance with the City’s Mobility Element and VMT guidelines. The goal of this measure is to have an additional 7,000 commuters traveling in or out of the City using an alternative mode for their commutes by 2045. This would be equivalent to approximately 30 percent of the employees in Encinitas commuting alternatively.

The GHG emissions reductions are based on the number of commuters using alternative modes, estimated average driving distance avoided, and the average vehicle emission rate. Table 41 summarizes the key assumptions and results.
53 51 All NEV shuttles and circulators currently operating in the San Diego region are electric. SANDAG: Flexible Fleets. 52 The vehicle efficiency for an electric circulator is 2.84 kWh per mile. National Renewable Energy Lab: Zero-Emission Bus Evaluation Results: County Connection Battery Electric Buses (2018). Table ES-1. 53 The round-trip employee commute (driving) distance for Encinitas employees is 31.1 miles based on the SANDAG Mode Choice Report.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 353 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
47 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 41 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential, Nonresidential, and Major Redevelopment Projects Year
Encinitas Commuter
Miles Avoided*
(miles/person/year)
New Encinitas
Commuters Using
Alternative Modes
to Work
Total VMT
Avoided
(miles/year)
Average Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 3,777 1,358 5,127,735 303 1,556
2045 3,777 7,469 28,209,570 122 3,430
*31.1 miles round-trip per workday and 255 workdays per year.

The emissions reductions are the projection under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.4.4 Measure CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
The City will develop and implement a comprehensive set of studies, programs, and regulations to work towards a citywide VMT reduction. For example, a policy requiring projects with a significant and unavoidable VMT impact to mitigate VMT by constructing a priority mobility project or implementing a VMT Exchange Program for all applicable development projects. The goal of this measure is to reduce citywide VMT per capita to 5 percent below 2016 level by 2045, or 1 miles per capita per day.

The GHG emissions reductions are based on the number of commuters using alternative modes, estimated average driving distance avoided, and the average vehicle emission rate. Table 42 summarizes the key assumptions and results.
54 Table 42 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled Year
Per Capita VMT
Reduction Below
2016 Level
(%)
Per Capita VMT
Reduction Below
2016 Level**
(miles per Capita
per Day)
Total VMT
Avoided
(Million
miles/year)
Average Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 Not started Not started Not started 303 0*
2045 5% 1 28 122 3,451
*Measure to start after 2030
**VMT per capita in 2016 was estimated at 18.9 mile per capita per weekday (including all population and all trips, not just workforce and workday trips)
The emissions reductions are the projection under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026 54 2016 VMT per capita was estimated based on 2016 total citywide VMT (1,441,692 miles per weekday) and 2016 population (76,408).
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 354 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
48 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego

7.5.4.5 Measure CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow
The City will improve traffic flow by (1) synchronizing traffic signals at 60 intersections by 2030 to obtain more efficient fuel use through smoother traffic flow; and (2) installing nine new roundabouts or traffic circles by 2030 and additional eight (17 total) by 2045. 55 The effect of traffic signal synchronization and roundabouts on fuel reduction depends on the traffic volume and size of the intersections on the arterials. Based on the study of a traffic signal synchronization project of a similar size, the annual fuel savings per intersection is around 2,400 gallons.56 The City’s Intersection Control Evaluation engineering standards requires intersections to be analyzed for roundabouts or traffic signals and installed wherever feasible. Based on a study of roundabouts with similar sizes, the annual fuel savings per roundabout is around 19,000 gallons.57 As vehicles get more efficient and the number of ZEVs increases, the fuel savings per roundabout and per intersection will decrease. Table 43 and Table 44 summarize the key assumptions and results, calculated based on Equation 12.

Equation 12 Emissions Impact from Retiming Traffic Signals or Installing Roundabouts ∆ 𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = 𝑁𝑛 ∗ ∆ 𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙 ∗ 𝐸𝐹𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝑛 ∗ 𝑀𝑃𝐺𝑛 ∗ 10−6 Where
∆ 𝐸𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = emissions impact in the transportation category from a CAP measure that improves traffic flow (e.g., retime traffic signals or install roundabouts) in a given year, in MT CO2e
𝑁𝑛 = additional traffic signals retimed or roundabouts installed since baseline year up to year n
∆ 𝑉𝑓𝑢𝑒𝑙,𝑛 = equivalent fuel reduction per intersection with signals retimed or roundabouts installed in a given year, gallons per intersection per year 𝐸𝐹𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑝,𝑛 = average vehicle emission factor in the San Diego region in a given year, grams CO2e per mile
𝑀𝑃𝐺𝑛 = fuel economy of an average vehicle in the San Diego region, in a given year, miles per gallon
10−6 = conversion factor, MT CO2e in a gram
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from CAP projection starting year to CAP horizon end year
55 The list of planned, designed, or funded roundabouts, either standard alone or as part of the Leucadia Streetscape project, were provided by city to EPIC (October 2024). Encinitas: Streetscape Segment C West Side. 56 Sunkari: The Benefits of Retiming Traffic Signals (2004). The Jacksonville traffic signal retiming project at a 25-intersection section resulted in estimated annual fuel savings of 65,000 gallons. 57 Varhelyi: The Effects of Small Roundabouts on Emission and Fuel Consumption: A Case Study (2002). The study estimated the traffic volume of the intersection and the fuel consumption before and after the roundabout. The traffic volume is 23,500 vehicles per day and the fuel savings are approximately 144 kg per day after the roundabout installation. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 355 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
49 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 43 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow (Signal Synchronization) Year
Number of
Intersections
with Traffic
Signal
Synchronization
Increase in
Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency
Compared to
Baseline Year*
Equivalent Fuel
Saving per
Intersection*
(Gallons/ year)
Fuel Saving
from All
Intersections
(gallons/year)
GHG Emissions
for Fuel**
(lbs CO2e/gallon)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 60 32% 1,642 98,498 19.1 853
2045 60 73% 658 39,471 19.1 342
*Increase in vehicle fuel efficiency is based on the decrease of the average vehicle emission rate. **Emissions per gallon of fuel use for an average vehicle in the San Diego region, regardless of fuel type, vehicle type, or fuel economy.

The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 Table 44 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow Year Number of New
Roundabouts
Increase in
Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency
Compared to
Baseline Year*
Equivalent Fuel
Savings per
Intersection*
(gallons/year)
Fuel Savings
for All
Intersections
(gallons/year)
GHG Emissions
for Fuel**
(lbs CO2e/gallon)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 9 32% 13,452 121,065 19.1 1,049
2045 17 73% 5,390 91,638 19.1 794
*Increase in vehicle fuel efficiency is based on the decrease of the average vehicle emission rate. **Emissions per gallon of fuel use for an average vehicle in the San Diego region, regardless of fuel type, vehicle type, or fuel economy.

The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 By adding the totals from Table 43 and Table 44,the total GHG emissions reductions from Measure CET5 are 1,902 MT CO2e in 2030 and 1,136 MT CO2e in 2045.

7.5.4.6 Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations The City adopted Ordinance No. 2022-14, on October 26, 2022, and Ordinance No. 2024-04, on June 12, 2024, requiring electric vehicle equipment at all new residential, hotel or motel, and nonresidential projects as well as hotel or motel and nonresidential additions and alterations greater than 10,000 sq. ft.
58 The City will continue to implement these ordinances and readopt the similar local building codes (“reach codes”) via ordinance for each three-year State Building Code.

The City anticipates 375 residential permits approved with electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) equipment required by 2030, and 40 permits with EVCS equipment per year post 2030 through 2045 (total of 975 permits with EVCS equipment). These do not include the equipment installed by residents voluntarily. The EVCS equipment at homes will be used to charge residents’ personal EVs. The GHG 58 Encinitas: Electric Vehicle Charging Regulations (September, 2024). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 356 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
50 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego reduction from CET-6 is calculated in Section 7.3.1.2 (Impact of State and Local Actions on Increasing Zero Emission Vehicles) and Table 15. Table 48 summarize the key assumptions and results.

Table 45 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Year
Projected
Miles
Driven by
EVs of
Total VMT
Projected eVMT from
Light-Duty
ZEV
Regulations
Project
ed eVMT
from
CET-6
Projecte
d e-VMT
from
CET-7
Project
ed eVMT
from
MCET-3
Emissions
Reduction
from LightDuty
ZEV
Regulations
Emissi
ons
Reduct
ion
from
CET-6
Emissions
Reduction
from CET7
Emissions
Reduction
from
MCET-3
2030 20% 108 3.3 2.7 10.3 21,310 650 529 2,035
2045 74% 434 7.6 8.4 10.3 102,370 1,798 1,983 2,427
e-VMT: electric vehicle miles
CAP Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Projected e-VMT percent of total VMT data are from Table 13.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026

7.5.4.7 Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations As stated in section 7.5.4.4 above, Ordinance Nos. 2022-14 and 2024-04 were adopted by the City in 2022 and 2024, respectively, and require electrical vehicle equipment to be installed on all new residential, hotel or motel, and nonresidential projects as well as hotel or motel and nonresidential additions and alterations greater than 10,000 sq. ft.

The City anticipates 70 nonresidential permits approved with electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) equipment required by 2030, and 10 permits with EVCS equipment per year post 2030 through 2045 (total of 220 permits with EVCS equipment). A public available Level 2 charger has a capacity approximately 9.6 to 19.2 kW and utilized on average 5.2 hours per day, therefore, the average e-VMT per year per charger is 70,791 miles. Assuming the EVs using these chargers may drive in and out of Encinitas (either Encinitas internal-internal trips, or internal-external/external-internal trips, driving from Encinitas to other jurisdictions or vice versa), the projected e-VMT from all chargers are given in Table

46. The GHG reduction from CET-7 is calculated in Section 7.3.1.2 (Impact of State and Local Actions on Increasing Zero Emission Vehicles) and Table 15. Table 46 summarize the key assumptions and results.

Table 46 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Year
Projected
Miles
Driven by
EVs of
Total VMT
Projected eVMT from
Light-Duty
ZEV
Regulations
Project
ed eVMT
from
CET-6
Projecte
d e-VMT
from
CET-7
Project
ed eVMT
from
MCET-3
Emissions
Reduction
from LightDuty
ZEV
Regulations
Emissi
ons
Reduct
ion
from
CET-6
Emissions
Reduction
from CET7
Emissions
Reduction
from
MCET-3
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 357 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
51 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego 2030 20% 108 3.3 2.7 10.3 21,310 650 529 2,035
2045 74% 434 7.6 8.4 10.3 102,370 1,798 1,983 2,427
e-VMT: electric vehicle miles
CAP Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Projected e-VMT percent of total VMT data are from Table 13.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026

7.5.4.8 Measure MCET-1: Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet The City plans to convert gasoline vehicles (light-duty cars and trucks) within its fleet to ZEVs and purchase renewable diesel for all diesel-fueled heavy-duty trucks. Assuming the municipal fleet size does not increase from the most recent years (2021-2023), Table 47 and Table 48 show the key assumptions and results.
59 Table 47 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-1: Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet
Year
%
Reduction
in
Gasoline
Gasoline
Fuel Use*
(Gallons)
Gasoline
Reduction
(Gallons)
Emissions
Reduction
from
Gasoline
Reduction**
(MT CO2e)
Gasoline
Fleet Miles
(miles/year)
Additional
Electric
Load
(kWh)
Emissions
Added due
to Electric
Load***
(MT CO2e)
Net GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 50% 17,041 8,521 68 242,889 36,433 0 68
2045 100% 14,721 14,721 117 262,946 78,884 0 117
*Assuming the fleet size is the same, as vehicles get more efficient and more ZEVs are on the market due to California’s ZEV mandates, the gasoline demand decreases
**Calculated based the gasoline reduction and the gasoline carbon intensity of 7,978 CO2e/gallon ***Emissions added due to additional electric load were zero because the electricity will be 100 percent renewable or zero-carbon from San Diego Community Power or on-site renewable
The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 Table 48 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-1: Transition to Zero-Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet
Year % Reduction in
Diesel
Diesel Fuel
Use*
(gallons)
Diesel
Reduction
(gallons)
GHG Emissions
Reductions**
(MT CO2e)
2030 100% 24,081 24,081 197
2045 100% 20,802 20,802 170
*Assuming the fleet size is the same, as vehicles get more efficient and more zero emission vehicles are on the market due to California’s mandates, the diesel demand decreases 59 Fuel carbon contents are based on CARB statewide GHG inventor 2022 Edition, last updated on October 26, 2022. 2021–2023 fleet fuel use and vehicle mileage are provided by city to EPIC (May 2024). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 358 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
52 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego **Calculated based on diesel reduction and the difference between diesel blend carbon intensity (8,661 CO2e/gallon) and renewable diesel carbon intensity (478 CO2e/gallon) The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2023 The total GHG emissions reductions from Measure MCET-1 are 265 MT CO2e in 2030 and 288 MT CO2e in 2045.

7.5.4.9 Measure MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Eligible City employees have the option to telework a maximum of two days a week to avoid commuting to and from the office, with manager approval. In addition, currently 22 City employees commute to work alternatively at 50% of the time. The goal is to increase the number of employees who commute alternatively by 20% to 26 employees by 2045. The City will continue implementing these programs and consider other TDM options for City employees.

The avoided VMT is estimated based on the driving distance avoided per workday of all eligible City staff and the average telecommute/alternative commute days per week. Miles avoided were converted to GHG emissions reductions using the average vehicle emission rates. Table 49 shows the key assumptions and results.
60 Table 49 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program
Year
Miles Avoided from City Staff
Telecommute or Commute
Alternatively*
(miles/year)
Average Vehicle
Emission Rate
(g CO2e/mile)
GHG Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 204,867 303 62
2045 210,893 122 26
*Assumes 1,684 miles commute distance avoided per workday from all 114 telecommute eligible employees, 2 telecommute days a week, and 51 work weeks per year The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.4.10 Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations The City will implement the adopted Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan (March 2023) and install publicly available electric vehicle charging stations in municipally owned parking lots and 60 One-way commute distance avoided per workday, 5,000 miles, was provided by city staff to EPIC based on city internal data analysis, August 17, 2023.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 359 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
53 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego encourage nonresidential property owners to install EV charging stations.61 Based on the Master Plan, the goal is to install 113 publicly available Level 2 EVCS and 15 DC fast chargers by 2030.

The assumption for a public available Level 2 charger is the same as the assumption under CET-7 Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. For DC fast chargers, it is assumed the capacity is at to 150 kW and utilized on average 5.2 hours per day, therefore, the average e-VMT per year per DC fast charger is 737,407 miles. Assuming the EVs using these chargers may drive in and out of Encinitas (either Encinitas internal-internal trips, or internal-external/external-internal trips, driving from Encinitas to other jurisdictions or vice versa), the projected e-VMT from all chargers are given in Table 50.

The GHG reduction from CET-7 is calculated in Section 7.3.1.2 (Impact of State and Local Actions on Increasing Zero Emission Vehicles) and Table 15. Table 50 summarize the key assumptions and results.

Table 50 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Year
Projected
Miles
Driven by
EVs of
Total VMT
Projected eVMT from
Light-Duty
ZEV
Regulations
Project
ed eVMT
from
CET-6
Projecte
d e-VMT
from
CET-7
Project
ed eVMT
from
MCET-3
Emissions
Reduction
from LightDuty
ZEV
Regulations
Emissi
ons
Reduct
ion
from
CET-6
Emissions
Reduction
from CET7
Emissions
Reduction
from
MCET-3
2030 20% 108 3.3 2.7 10.3 21,310 650 529 2,035
2045 74% 434 7.6 8.4 10.3 102,370 1,798 1,983 2,427
e-VMT: electric vehicle miles
CAP Measure CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, Measure CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations, and Measure MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Projected e-VMT percent of total VMT data are from Table 13.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2026

7.5.5 Zero Emission Equipment

7.5.5.1 Measure ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers In 2019, the City adopted Ordinance No. 2019-06 prohibiting the use of gas-powered leaf blowers within the City, as of January 2020.62 While the ordinance has been effective for five years, some residents and landscape companies remain non-compliant. The City will continue to provide education and enforce the ordinance and aim to eliminate all emissions from gas-powered leaf blowers by 2030. The method to project emissions from gas-powered leaf blowers is discussed in Section 3 and is based on CARB’s OFFROAD2021 model. Table 51 summarizes the key assumptions and results. 61 Encinitas: Electric Vehicle Charging Master Plan (March 2023). 62 Encinitas: Leaf Blowers.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 360 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
54 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 51 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers Year
Projected GHG
Emissions from
Gas-Powered Leaf
Blowers
(MT CO2e)
Percent
Reduction in
GHG Emissions
GHG Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 250 100% 250
2045 247 100% 247
The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

CARB 2021, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.5.2 Measure ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment In addition to the leaf blower ordinance discussed above, the City will adopt an ordinance restricting the use of gas-powered landscape equipment by 2030 and aim to eliminate all emissions from landscape equipment by 2045. The method to project emissions from landscape equipment is discussed in Section 3 and is based on CARB’s OFFROAD2021 model. Table 52 summarizes the key assumptions and results.

Table 52 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment Year
Projected GHG
Emissions from All GasPowered Landscape
Equipment*
(MT CO2e)
Percent Reduction
in GHG Emissions
GHG Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 1,234 Not started Not started
2045 1,290 100% 1,043*
*Landscape equipment other than leaf blowers, the impact of eliminating emissions from gaspowered leaf blowers is estimated under Measure OR-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers **Measure to start after 2030
The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

CARB 2021, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.6 Zero Waste

7.5.6.1 Measure ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program
The goal of Measure ZW-1 is to implement the Zero Waste Program and reduce the pounds per person per day (PPD) of waste disposed in landfills to 3 PPD by 2030 and 1.5 PPD by 2045. The 2035 and 2045 PPDs are equivalent to an 80 percent waste diversion rate by 2030 and a 90 percent waste diversion rate by 2045.

The City has not conducted a waste characterization study, therefore, the 2016 waste composition data (used in the 2016 GHG inventory) are used and held constant through 2045. 63 The emissions avoided
63 Recent State actions include organic waste recycling, which may reduce the mixed waste emission factor in future years. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 361 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
55 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego from increasing the waste diversion rate is the difference between the waste category BAU emissions and the solid waste emissions using the target diversion rates and corresponding PPDs. Table 53 summarizes the key assumptions and results, calculated based on Equation 13 and Equation 14.

Equation 13 Solid Waste Reduction Calculation
∆ 𝑆𝑊𝑛 = 𝑆𝑊𝐵𝐴𝑈,𝑛 − (2 ∗ 𝑃𝑃𝐷50%) ∗ (1 − 𝐷𝑅𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡,𝑛) ∗ 𝑃𝑛 ∗ 2,000 ∗ 365 Where,
∆ 𝑆𝑊𝑛 = mixed solid waste diverted (avoided) from landfill in a given year, in short tons
𝑆𝑊𝐵𝐴𝑈,𝑛 = BAU mixed solid waste disposal by a city projected for a given year, in short tons
𝑃𝑃𝐷50% = PPD equivalent to 50% diversion rate
𝐷𝑅𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒𝑡,𝑛 = waste diversion rate targeted for a given year in the CAP measure, in % 𝑃𝑛 = projected population in a given year
2 = conversion factor, converting waste disposal (with 50% diversion rate) to waste generation
2,000 = conversion factor, lbs in a ton
365 = conversion factor, days in a year
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from baseline year to CAP horizon end year Equation 14 Emissions Impact from Increased Solid Waste Diversion ∆ 𝐸𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = ∆ 𝑆𝑊𝑛 ∗ 𝐸𝐹𝑚𝑠𝑤 ∗ (1 − 𝐶𝑛
) ∗ (1 − 0.1)
Where
∆ 𝐸𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒,𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = emissions impact in the waste category from a CAP measure in a given year, in MT CO2e
∆ 𝑆𝑊𝑛 = mixed solid waste diverted (avoided) from landfill in a given year, in short ton
𝐸𝐹𝑚𝑠𝑤 = mixed waste emission factor, in MT CO2e/short ton ∆ 𝐶𝑛 = landfill gas capture rate in a given year, in percent

0.1 = default oxidation rate, U.S. Community Protocol
With,
n = a CAP horizon year, from baseline year to CAP horizon end year 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 362 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
56 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 53 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program Year Waste Disposed
(lbs/person/day)
Waste Disposed
(short tons/year)
Waste
Disposed
(MT/year)
Landfill
Gas
Capture
Rate
GHG Emissions
with Targeted
Diversion Rate
(MT CO2e)

BAU GHG
Emissions
(MT
CO2e)
GHG
Emissions
Reductions
(MT CO2e)
2030 3.0 43,246 39,232 90% 3,815 14,173 10,357
2045 1.5 22,379 20,302 90% 1,974 14,669 12,694
Emissions from waste are calculated based on the mixed waste emission factor of 0.98 MT CO2e/short ton, an oxidation rate (10%), and the waste capture rates. The emissions reductions are the projections under the CAP Update, based on CAP Update assumptions and future impact of State policies and programs.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.7 Carbon Sequestration

7.5.7.1 Measure CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City The City will evaluate its current urban tree canopy and establish a goal for increasing the canopy cover.

The most recent urban tree canopy assessment in the San Diego region, based on high-resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), shows the City has approximately 22 percent existing urban tree canopy.64 While awaiting the completion of a tree canopy assessment the City will maintain the current 22 percent canopy cover through 2030. Once the assessment is complete, a tree canopy goal will be established for the City. As a proxy goal, the CAP Update assumes an increase in tree canopy cover of 5 percent, or a total canopy cover of 27 percent by 2045, or another percentage as determined by the study.

The carbon sequestration potential is calculated based on the projected canopy cover and the CO2 absorption rate per acre.
65 Measure CS-2 through Measure CS-5 also aim to increase the number of trees planted in the City, the carbon sequestration impacts of these measures are removed from Measure CS-1 to avoid double counting. Table 54 summarizes the key assumptions and results.

Table 54 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City Year
Canopy Cover
Target
(%)
Targeted
Canopy Cover
(Acres)
CO2 Sequestered Rate
(MT CO2/acre/year)*
Carbon
Sequestration
(MT CO2)
2030 22% 2,756 1.56 4,096
2045 27% 3,383 1.56 4,841
*Average of trees per year. An improved estimate of the carbon sequestration rate can be evaluated once the implementation parameters are decided.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Brown et al 2004, Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 64 The assessment was done in 2014 for all urban areas in the San Diego County using method developed by University of Vermont and USDA Forest Service.
65 Brown, et al.: Baseline Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals for Forest, Range, and Agricultural Lands in California (2004).
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 363 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
57 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego

7.5.7.2 Measure CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments The City’s current water efficient landscape regulation includes the following requirements for tree planting: (1) a minimum of one tree for every five parking spaces at new residential and non-residential developments; and (2) a minimum of one tree per unit at new residential developments, including single-family and multi-family developments. A minimum of 15 gallons in size and proper irrigation and maintenance are required.66
As discussed under Measure BD-4, based on building permit data in recent years, an annual average of approximately 250,000 sq. ft. of new nonresidential developments and 6,000 sq. ft. of additions to nonresidential developments were added that would be subject to the landscape regulation. 67 The
Encinitas Municipal Code off-street parking regulations require on average of one parking space per 250 sq. ft. gross floor area; therefore, approximately 1,024 new parking spaces will be added every year at these new nonresidential developments.68 The new parking spaces will yield 205 new trees planted annually.

For new residential developments, the number of trees added will be the same as the number of new housing units described in Section 3. The proposed strategy is to encourage thoughtful site design practices to optimize tree planting and open space. The carbon sequestration potential from the new trees is based on the projected total number of trees planted and the average CO2 absorption rate per mature tree per year.
69 Table 55 summarizes the key assumptions and results, calculated based on Equation 15.

Equation 15 CO2 Sequestered Calculation from Increased Urban Tree Planting ∆ 𝐸𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = ∑ (
𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠
𝑃𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠 ,𝑛 ∗ 𝐶𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠)
Where,
∆ 𝐸𝐶𝐴𝑃 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒,𝑛 = CO2 sequestered from a CAP measure in a given year, in MT CO2 𝑃𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠,𝑛 = number of new trees planted from baseline year to a given year for each of tree species
𝐶𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑠 = carbon sequestration rate of each of tree species, MT CO2 per year With,
tree species = type of new trees planted
n = a CAP horizon year, from baseline year to CAP horizon end year 66 Encinitas Municipal Code: Sec. 30.54.060 Parking Area Landscaping, accessed May 21, 2024. 67 2017-2022 building permit data were provided by the city to EPIC (May 2024). 68 Encinitas Municipal Code: Sec. 30.54.030 Schedule of Required Off-Street Parking, accessed May 21, 2024. The minimum parking requirements for commercial, office, restaurant/food, retail, etc., are different. The average is used here. 69 On average, the CO2 sequestration rate is 0.035 MT CO2 per tree per year. The carbon sequestration rate depends on the tree species, climate zone, planting location, and tree age. A more accurate carbon sequestration rate will be evaluated once the parameters are decided in implementation of the measure. California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD). Appendix D Default Data Tables (October 2017).
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 364 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
58 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 55 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments
Year
Total Landscape Trees
Added at NonResidential
Developments
(New and Additions)
Total Landscape
Trees Added at
New Residential
Developments
Total
Landscape
Trees Added
CO2 Sequestered*
(MT CO2/tree/year)
Carbon
Sequestration
(MT CO2)
2030 2,867 432 3,299 0.0354 117
2045 5,939 895 6,834 0.0354 242
*Average of trees per year. An improved estimate of the carbon sequestration rate can be evaluated once the implementation parameters are decided.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.7.3 Measure CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property The City will incentivize residents and businesses to plant 500 trees per year on private property through free tree giveaway program. Similar to Measure CS-2, the carbon sequestration potential from the new trees is based on the projected total number of trees planted and the average CO2 absorption rate per mature tree per year.
70 Table 56 summarizes the key assumptions and results, calculated based on Equation 15.

Table 56 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property Year
Cumulative
Number of Trees
from the Free Tree
Program*
CO2 Sequestered Rate
(MT CO2/tree/year)**
Carbon
Sequestration
(MT CO2)
2030 500 1.56 18
2045 2,000 1.56 17
*Program starts in 2026
**Average of trees per year. An improved estimate of the carbon sequestration rate can be evaluated once the implementation parameters are decided.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024

7.5.7.4 Measure CS-4: Adopt and Implement a Mature Tree Ordinance The City is in the process of adopting a Mature Tree Ordinance with new replacement ratio based on replacement tree locations and species for new developments and redevelopments, including new multi-family developments, new commercial or mixed-use developments, and redevelopment of existing commercial and multi-family properties. Currently, the ratio is 1:1 for all developments.

The new ratios are: (1) 3:1 replacement ratio if replacing on the same property, (2) 4:1 replacement ratio if replacing on a different property, (3) and 2:1 replacement ratio if replacing with native trees on 70 On average, the CO2 sequestration rate is 0.035 MT CO2 per tree per year. The carbon sequestration rate depends on the tree species, climate zone, planting location, and tree age. A more accurate carbon sequestration rate will be evaluated once the parameters are decided in implementation of the measure. California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD). Appendix D Default Data Tables (October 2017).
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 365 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
59 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego the same property as defined by the ordinance. Because the ordinance is still at the drafting stage with no implementation data available, this measure is not quantified for GHG reductions currently.

7.5.7.5 Measure MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees
The City has been planting and maintaining City trees in accordance with the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan and will continue to plant new trees in the City by identifying right of way and park land that have space for additional trees. The goal is to plant and maintain an average of 100 net new trees per year to the City's urban forest.

Similar to Measure CS-2 and CS-3, the carbon sequestration potential from the new trees is based on the projected total number of trees planted and the average CO2 absorption rate per mature tree pear year.
71 Table 57 summarizes the key assumptions and results, calculated based on Equation 15.72 Table 57 Key Assumptions and Results from Measure MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees Year
Cumulative
Number of New
City Trees
CO2 Sequestered Rate
(MT CO2 /tree/year)**
Carbon
Sequestration
(MT CO2)
2030 1,875 1.56 66
2045 3,375 1.56 119
**Average of trees per tree. An improved estimate of the carbon sequestration rate can be evaluated once the implementation parameters are decided.

Sums may not add up to totals due to rounding. Values are not rounded in the intermediary steps in the calculation.

Energy Policy Initiatives Center, University of San Diego 2024 71 On average, the CO2 sequestration rate is 0.035 MT CO2 per tree per year. The carbon sequestration rate depends on the tree species, climate zone, planting location, and tree age. A more accurate carbon sequestration rate will be evaluated once the parameters are decided in implementation of the measure. California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD). Appendix D Default Data Tables (October 2017).
72 2016 through 2023 historical city tree planting data are from Encinitas CAP Dashboard. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 366 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
60 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego ATTACHMENT 1: AVOIDED VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED FROM ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN (ATP) PROJECTS
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was drafted in November 2018. The plan documents Encinitas’ existing bikeway and walkway systems and recommends new projects to improve the systems. The ATP indicates that most future bicycle and walking activities are likely to originate from within residential areas, with the most common trip destinations being schools and parks, followed by commercial, retail and employment centers.

The ATP provides a list of proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects, which together would provide a much-improved network of multimodal connectivity and encourage more residents to use active modes of transportation (walk and bicycle) in lieu of a vehicle. This document details the methods used to update the estimate of the potential vehicle miles traveled (VMT) associated with projects in the ATP and summarizes results of the analysis. These results inform greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction calculations for the City’s 2025 climate action plan (CAP) update.73 A.1 Comparison with Previous Analysis
The method used to estimate potential VMT avoided for projects in the ATP is consistent with the approach used in the 2020 CAP interim update. Since the unit capacity of the potential sites in the 2021- 2029 Housing Element remains unchanged from the 2018 Housing Element Update (HEU), the unit capacity from the HEU also remains the same here. Trip distance and frequency estimates have been updated using data from Google’s Environmental Insights Explorer (EIE). 74 A.2 Methods and Inputs
Estimates for avoided VMT were found using the following equation:

Equation 16 Annual VMT Avoided Calculation
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑉𝑀𝑇 𝐴𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑑 = 𝑋𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘 ∗ 2𝛽𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘 ∗ 𝜔𝑤𝑎𝑙𝑘 + 𝑋𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒 ∗ 2𝛽𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒 ∗ 𝜔𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒 Where,
𝑋= housing units within the pedestrian/bicycle zones
𝛽= median one-way trip distance in miles to activity center 𝜔= number of trips per household per year to activity center. 73 GHG reduction estimates associated with implementation of the ATP are provided under CAP Measure CET-1and are not included here.
74 Google: Environmental Insights Explorer.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 367 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
61 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Figure 9 Concept Map Illustrating Pedestrian and Bicycle Zones and Affected Areas A2.1 Trip Distance and Frequency
Trip distance is measured as the one-way distance in miles individuals are willing to travel using a given mode of transportation to each activity center identified. 75 Trip frequency is measured as the number of
trips made by households, using a given mode of transportation, to each activity center annually.

Google’s EIE were used to estimate the travel distance and frequency by pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel (Table 58). 76 EIE is a tool that provides city-level multi-modal transportation data based on continuous observation, making it more relevant for assessing active transportation in Encinitas.77 Previously, county-level data from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS)78 was used for calculations. For example, in Table 1, pedestrians are willing to walk an average one-way distance of

0.55 miles to Food & Dining activity centers, and would do this, on average, 71.51 times per year. Bicycle riders are willing to ride an average distance of 1.53 miles to Food & Dining activity centers areas, and

7.77 times per year.
75 The Encinitas ATP groups ‘points of interest’ near ATP project areas into one of three major activity centers: (1) business, (2) recreation, and (3) public/education/community. To align with NHTS data, these activity centers were reclassified into six categories: food & dining, other general errands, recreation, religious & community activities, retail goods & services, and school. A seventh category was added—transit—using data available through SanGIS for transit access locations (e.g., bus stops, train stations).
76 Google Environmental Insights Explorer (Accessed: December 2024). 77 ICLEI: Technical Review of Google Environmental Insights Explorer Data for Local Greenhouse Gas Inventories (August 2019). 78 Federal Highway Administration (2019). 2017 National Household Transportation Survey – California Add-on. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed 14. Feb 2020.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 368 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
62 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 58 Trip Distance and Frequency per Household Estimates Activity Center
Pedestrian Bicycle
Trip Distance
(mi)
Trip Frequency
(trips/unit/yr)
Trip Distance
(mi)
Trip Frequency
(trips/unit/yr)
Food & Dining 0.55 71.51 1.53 7.77
Other General Errands 0.48 20.74 1.99 1.55
Recreation 0.68 39.31 2.56 5.57
Religious & Community Activities 0.62 4.02 1.95 0.31
Retail Goods & Services 0.92 74.91 3.13 3.41
School 0.92 20.12 1.86 1.86
Transit 0.58 17.34 2.12 2.79
A2.2 Housing Units
ArcGIS was used to determine travel distance ‘zones’ for each activity center category using the median pedestrian and bicycle travel distances provided in Table 1 (see Error! Reference source not found. for a v isualization of the ‘zones’).79 The number of housing units within each zone were then estimated using parcel level data obtained through SanGIS for the City of Encinitas only. Housing units were estimated using two scenarios: (2) under full buildout of the HEU (Table 59). Appendix C of the HEU was used to modify existing parcel data to determine the number of units per parcel under full buildout of the HEU.80 Table 59 HEU Buildout Housing Units within Pedestrian and Bicycle Zones Activity Center Pedestrian Bicycle
Food & Dining 13,960 28,213
Other General Errands 5,173 26,321
Recreation 22,312 29,889
Religious & Community Activities 14,770 29,539
Retail Goods & Services 24,016 29,889
School 22,209 29,412
Transit 19,835 29,889
A.3 Avoided Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Inputs provided in Table 58 and Table 59 were applied using Equation 16 to calculate avoided VMT associated with ATP projects. Results are provided in Table 60 under the full buildout of the HEU.

Increased housing density as a result of the HEU in areas with increased access to active transportation options will lead to an increase in VMT avoided.
79 Zones were defined using travel distances along defined routes (roads, pathways, pedestrian bridges, etc.) and not “as the crow flies.”
80 Encinitas: 2021-2029 Housing Element.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 369 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
63 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Table 60 Avoided VMT for ATP Projects – Full Buildout of HEU Activity Center Category
Pedestrian
Avoided VMT
(mi/yr)
Bicycle Avoided
VMT (mi/yr)
Total Avoided
VMT (mi/yr)
Food & Dining 1,089,179 670,969 1,760,148
Other General Errands 103,243 161,856 265,099
Recreation 1,186,369 852,881 2,039,251
Religious & Community Activities 73,184 35,744 108,928
Retail Goods & Services 3,312,545 638,057 3,950,602
School 826,174 202,690 1,028,865
Transit 396,007 352,984 748,992
All Categories 6,986,703 2,915,182 9,901,885
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 370 of 514
DRAFT
City of Encinitas CAP Update March 2026
64 Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC), University of San Diego Figure 10 City of Encinitas ATP- Pedestrian and Bicycle Zones for the Food & Dining Activity Center Category (Map for Illustrative Purposes)
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 371 of 514
DRAFT
Appendix G
2026 CAP Implementation Matrix
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 372 of 514
DRAFT
Strategy Measure Lead Department(s), Divison(s) Supporting Department(s), Divison(s) Building Decarbonization BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency
Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Building Decarbonization BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization
Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Building Decarbonization BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency
Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Building Decarbonization BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization
Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Building Decarbonization BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Building Decarbonization MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Municipal Facilities
Public Works, Administration Engineering, Capital Improvement Fire & Marine Safety, Administration
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts, Administration
Building Decarbonization MBD-2: Require New Municipal Facilities be AllElectric Development Services, Sustainability Engineering, Capital Improvement Fire & Marine Safety, Administration
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts, Administration
Renewable Energy MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Renewable Generation and Battery Storage at Existing
Municipal Facilities
Public Works, Administration Engineering, Capital Improvement Fire & Marine Safety, Administration
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts, Administration
Renewable Energy MRE-2: Require New Municipal Facilities to Install Microgrids with On-Site Solar and Battery Storage
Development Services, Sustainability Public Works, Administration Engineering, Capital Improvement
Fire & Marine Safety, Administration
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts, Administration
Renewable Energy RE-1: Maintain membership in San Diego Community Power
Development Services, Sustainability City Manager's Office Renewable Energy RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Development Services, Sustainability Development Planning, Land Development & Building Water Efficiency WE-1: Support Local Water Districts Water Conservation Efforts
San Dieguito Water District, Olivenhain
Municipal Water District
None
Water Efficiency WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be PrePlumbed for Graywater Systems Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Water Efficiency MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts,
Administration
Public Works, Street Maintenance
Clean and Efficient Transportation CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan Engineering, Capital Improvement Engineering, Traffic Engineering Clean and Efficient Transportation CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program Development Services, Policy Planning and Sustainability
Public Works, Administration
Clean and Efficient Transportation CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential,
Nonresidential and Major Redevelopment Projects
Development Services, Land Development
Engineering
Development Services, Policy Planning
Clean and Efficient Transportation CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled Development Services, Policy Planning None Clean and Efficient Transportation CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow Engineering, Capital Improvement Engineering, Traffic Engineering Clean and Efficient Transportation CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Clean and Efficient Transportation CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Land Development & Building Clean and Efficient Transportation MCET-1 : Transition to Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet
Public Works, Administration Fire & Marine Safety, Administration Clean and Efficient Transportation MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation Demand Management Program
Development Services, Sustainability Human Resources
Clean and Efficient Transportation MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
Engineering, Capital Improvement Development Services, Sustainability Public Works, Administration
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts, Administration
Zero Emission Equipment ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas Powered Leaf Blowers Development Services, Development Planning & Code Enforcement
None
Zero Emission Equipment ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment
Development Services, Sustainability Development Services, Development Planning & Code Enforcement
Zero Waste ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program Public Works, Environmental Services None Carbon Sequestration CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City Development Services, Sustainability Public Works, Administration Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts, Administration
Carbon Sequestration CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments
Development Services, Development
Planning & Code Enforcement
None
Carbon Sequestration CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property Development Services, Sustainability None Carbon Sequestration CS-4: Adopt and Implement a Mature Tree Ordinance
Development Services, Policy Planning Development Services, Development Planning & Code Enforcement
Carbon Sequestration MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees Public Works, Street Maintenance Parks, Recreation & Cultural Arts, Parks, Beaches and Trails
CAP Coordination and Reporting CCR-1: CAP Coordination and Reporting All Departments All Departments 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 373 of 514
DRAFT
Appendix H
2025 City of Encinitas
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 374 of 514
DRAFT
City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:46,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2 3
Mi 0 1 2
Very High High Moderate
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Encinitas
5 Encinitas Blvd
N Coast Highway
101

UNINCORPORATED
SAN DIEGO CO.

CARLSBAD

SAN MARCOS

SOLANA BEACH
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
C
O
.

March 24, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF ENCINITAS – SAN DIEGO COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 375 of 514
DRAFT
Appendix I
Designated Low-Income
Community Boundary
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 376 of 514
DRAFT

SPHERE OF

INFLUENCE

OLIVENHAIN

SPHERE OF

INFLUENCE

LEUCADIA

OLD ENCINITAS

CARDIFF-BY-THE-SEA

NEW ENCINITAS
San Elijo Lagoon
Batiquitos Lagoon
5 5
5 101
101
Legend
Community Area Boundary
Community Area Boundary
Low Income Community Census Tract
City Facilities
By Encinitas GIS Division
Date of Map Production:

February, 2026
California Climate Investments
Priority Population Designated
Low-Income Community Boundary
T:\Ap plicat ion s Apps Team \esri ArcGI S\Adho c M aps\PL AN_2 6_Lo wIncom eComm unity.mxd ± 0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Source: California Climate Investments. 2024. Priority Populations Mapping Tool 4.0. https://gis.carb.arb.ca.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/ ?id=5dc1218631fa46bc8d340b8e82548a6a&page=Priority-Populations-4_0. 2026-09-23 Item #01
Date accessed: February 12, 2026

Page 377 of 514 ends

Energy Policy Initiatives Center
Climate Action Plan Update
Cost Analysis
A preliminary estimate of the financial impact to the
City of Encinitas, and residents and businesses affected by CAP measures March 2026
Prepared for the City of Encinitas
Prepared by the Energy Policy Initiatives Center
University of San Diego, 5998 Alcalá Park, San Diego, CA 92110 ◆ www.sandiego.edu/epic 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 378 of 514
© University of San Diego. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer
The Energy Policy Initiatives Center prepared this report for the City of Encinitas. This report represents Energy Policy Initiatives Center’s professional judgment based on the data and information available at the time Energy Policy Initiatives Center prepared this report. Energy Policy Initiatives Center relies on data and information from third parties who provide it with no guarantees such as of completeness, accuracy or timeliness. Energy Policy Initiatives Center makes no representations or warranties, whether expressed or implied, and assumes no legal liability for the use of the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. Readers of the report are advised that Energy Policy Initiatives Center may periodically update this report or data, information, findings, and opinions and that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report.

About EPIC
The Energy Policy Initiatives Center is a non-profit research center of the USD School of Law that studies energy policy issues affecting California and the San Diego region. Energy Policy Initiatives Center’s mission is to increase awareness and understanding of energy- and climaterelated policy issues by conducting research and analysis to inform decision makers and educating law students.

For more information, please visit the Energy Policy Initiatives Center website at www.sandiego.edu/epic.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 379 of 514
City of Encinitas Climate Action Plan Cost Analysis March 2026 Energy Policy Initiatives Center

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT.............................................................................................................. 2

1.2 KEY FINDINGS................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2.1 Benefit Cost Analysis............................................................................................................ 2

1.2.2 Implementation Cost Analysis.............................................................................................. 5 2 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OVERVIEW AND METHODS ..................................................................... 7

2.1 TYPES OF BENEFITS AND COSTS........................................................................................................ 7

2.2 PERSPECTIVES ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1 Administrator Perspective.................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Participant Perspective......................................................................................................... 8

2.2.3 Non-Participant Perspective (Subsidies) .............................................................................. 9

2.2.4 Measure Perspective.......................................................................................................... 10

2.3 KEY CONCEPTS............................................................................................................................. 10

2.3.1 CAP Update Framework .................................................................................................... 10

2.3.2 Target Year ......................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.3 Implementation Year.......................................................................................................... 11

2.3.4 Useful Life........................................................................................................................... 11

2.3.5 Analysis Period................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.6 Discount Rate..................................................................................................................... 12

2.3.7 Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................. 13

2.3.8 Incremental Cost................................................................................................................ 14

2.3.9 Normalized Dollars ............................................................................................................ 14

2.4 BENEFIT-COSTS ANALYSIS METRICS ................................................................................................ 15

2.4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)..................................................................................................... 16

2.4.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio.............................................................................................................. 16

2.4.3 Dollar per Metric Ton of CO2e Reduced............................................................................ 17

2.4.4 Discounted Payback Period ............................................................................................... 18 3 IMPLEMENTATION COST ANALYSIS OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 20

3.1 PROCESS TO ESTIMATE CAP UPDATE IMPLEMENTATION COSTS .......................................................... 20

3.1.1 Identify Implementation Actions........................................................................................ 20

3.1.2 Establish Preliminary Cost Estimates.................................................................................. 20

3.1.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)............................................................... 21

3.2 CAP IMPLEMENTATION COSTS EVALUATED ...................................................................................... 21

3.2.1 Framework for Evaluating CAP Update Costs ................................................................... 21

3.2.2 Policy Drivers...................................................................................................................... 21 4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BCA AND ICA ................................................................................. 23

4.1 COMPARING THE BCA AND ICA..................................................................................................... 23

4.2 INTEGRATING BCA AND ICA.......................................................................................................... 24 5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 28

5.1 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 28 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 380 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center

5.1.1 Results by Policy Driver...................................................................................................... 30

5.1.2 Results for Municipal Measures and Those With Significant Capital Investment............... 30

5.1.3 Potential Impact of Incentives............................................................................................ 31

5.2 IMPLEMENTATION COST ANALYSIS................................................................................................... 32

5.2.1 Impacts to the General Fund by CAP Measure ................................................................. 32

5.2.2 Results by Anticipated Funding Source ............................................................................. 33

5.3 POTENTIAL GRANT FUNDING RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 35 6 RESULTS BY MEASURE ...................................................................................................................... 37

6.1 BUILDING DECARBONIZATION......................................................................................................... 38

6.1.1 BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency.................................. 38

6.1.2 BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization........................................ 39

6.1.3 BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency............................ 42

6.1.4 BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization.................................. 43

6.1.5 BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings................................................................................ 45

6.1.6 MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Existing Municipal Facilities 48

6.2 CARBON SEQUESTRATION .............................................................................................................. 51

6.2.1 CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City ............................................................... 51

6.2.2 CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments ............................... 52

6.2.3 CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property........................................................... 54

6.2.4 MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees................................................................................ 56

6.3 CLEAN AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION ........................................................................................ 58

6.3.1 CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan ............................................................. 58

6.3.2 CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program......................................................................... 60

6.3.3 CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential, Nonresidential, and Major Redevelopment Projects ......................................................................... 62

6.3.4 CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled ............................................................................... 64

6.3.5 CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow ............................................................................................... 66

6.3.6 CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations .......................................... 68

6.3.7 CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations .................................... 70

6.3.8 MCET-1: Transition to Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet ........................................... 72

6.3.9 MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation Demand Management Program 75 6.3.10 MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations.................................................. 77

6.4 RENEWABLE ENERGY ..................................................................................................................... 79

6.4.1 MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Solar and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities 79

6.4.2 RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power .......................................... 83

6.4.3 RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems ..... 85

6.5 WATER EFFICIENCY........................................................................................................................ 88

6.5.1 MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species ............ 88

6.5.2 WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts ..................................... 90

6.5.3 WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be Pre-Plumbed for Graywater Systems..... 92

6.6 ZERO-EMISSION EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................................... 94

6.6.1 ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers ................................................................... 94

6.6.2 ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment ................................................... 96 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 381 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center

6.7 ZERO WASTE ................................................................................................................................ 98

6.7.1 ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program........................................................................... 98

6.8 CAP COORDINATION AND REPORTING.......................................................................................... 100

6.8.1 CCR-1: CAP Coordination and Reporting........................................................................ 100 7 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 102 8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 103 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 382 of 514
City of Encinitas Climate Action Plan Cost Analysis March 2026 Energy Policy Initiatives Center

TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Overall Framework for CAP Update Cost Analysis.........................................................1 Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of BCA Perspectives................................................................8 Figure 3 Conceptual Framework of Strategies and Measures in the CAP Update..................... 10 Figure 4 Illustrative Example of Discounting Costs and Benefits to 2026..................................13 Figure 5 Annual vs. Cumulative GHG Emission Reductions .......................................................14 Figure 6. Metrics for the CAP Update Cost Analysis ..................................................................15 Figure 7. Interpreting Results of a Scatterplot............................................................................18 Figure 8. Conceptual Diagram of Payback Period......................................................................19 Figure 9 Framework for Evaluating CAP Update Implementation Costs ...................................21 Figure 10 Count of CAP Update Measures by Policy Driver ......................................................22 Figure 11 How the BCA and ICA are Integrated ........................................................................25 Figure 12 Illustrative Impact of Subsidies on Participant Perspective Cost Effectiveness ..........32 Figure 13 Percentage of CAP Update Implementation Costs by Funding Source..................... 34

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Top Ten Most Cost-Effective CAP Update Measures .......................................................3 Table 2 BCA Results by Policy Driver............................................................................................4 Table 3 Municipal Measures and Those with Significant Capital Investment ............................... 5 Table 4 Ongoing Implementation Costs to the General Fund by Measure .................................5 Table 5 One-Time Implementation Costs to the General Fund by Measure................................6 Table 6. Examples of Non-Participants at Various Levels .............................................................9 Table 7 San Diego Region Consumer Price Index ......................................................................15 Table 8 Measure Policy Drivers ...................................................................................................22 Table 9 Comparison of BCA and ICA .........................................................................................24 Table 10 Integration of BCA and ICA Cost.................................................................................26 Table 11 Summary of BCA Results by CAP Measure and Policy Driver......................................29 Table 12 BCA Results by Policy Driver........................................................................................30 Table 13 BCA Results for Municipal Measures or Measures with Significant Capital Investment ....................................................................................................................................................31 Table 14 Estimated One-Time Cost Impact to General Fund by CAP Measure (2025$)............ 32 Table 15 Estimated Annual Ongoing Cost Impact to General Fund by CAP Measure (2025$) . 33 Table 16 Estimated One-Time Costs by Funding Source (2025$) ..............................................34 Table 17 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs by Funding Source (2025$)....................................34 Table 18 Example Grant Funding Sources by CAP Measure......................................................36 Table 19 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure BD-1.........................................................38 Table 20 BCA Results Measures BD-1 ........................................................................................39 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 383 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center
Table 21 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-1 (2025$)......................................39 Table 22 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure BD-2.........................................................41 Table 23 BCA Results for Measure BD-2.....................................................................................42 Table 24 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measures BD-2 (2025$) ....................................42 Table 25 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-3 (2025$)......................................43 Table 26 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure BD-4.........................................................44 Table 27 BCA Results for Measure BD-4.....................................................................................44 Table 28 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-4 (2025$)......................................45 Table 29 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure BD-5.........................................................46 Table 30 BCA Results for Measures BD-5...................................................................................47 Table 31 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-5 (2025$)......................................47 Table 32 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure BD-5 (2025$) ................................................47 Table 33 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MBD-1......................................................49 Table 34 BCA Results for Measure MBD-1 .................................................................................50 Table 35 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MBD-1 (2025$).............................................50 Table 36 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CS-1 .........................................................51 Table 37 BCA Results for Measure CS-1.....................................................................................52 Table 38 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CS-1 (2025$) ................................................52 Table 39 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CS-2 .........................................................53 Table 40 BCA Results for Measures CS-2 ...................................................................................54 Table 41 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CS-3 .........................................................55 Table 42 BCA Results for Measure CS-3.....................................................................................56 Table 43 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CS-3 (2025$)......................................56 Table 44 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCS-1 ......................................................57 Table 45 BCA Results for Measure MCS-1..................................................................................57 Table 46 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure MCS-1 (2025$)...................................58 Table 47 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-1 ......................................................59 Table 48 BCA Results for Measure CET-1 ...................................................................................59 Table 49 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-1 (2025$) ....................................60 Table 50 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-2 ......................................................61 Table 51 BCA Results for Measure CET-2 ...................................................................................62 Table 52 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-2 (2025$) ....................................62 Table 53 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CET-2 (2025$)...............................................62 Table 54 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-3 ......................................................63 Table 55 BCA Results for Measure CET-3 ...................................................................................64 Table 56 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CET-3 (2025$)...............................................64 Table 57 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CET-4........................................................65 Table 58 BCA Results for Measure CET-4 ...................................................................................66 Table 59 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-4 (2025$) ....................................66 Table 60 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CET-4 (2025$)...............................................66 Table 61 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CET-5........................................................67 Table 62 BCA Results for Measures CET-5..................................................................................68 Table 63 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-5 (2025$) ....................................68 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 384 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center
Table 64 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-6 ......................................................69 Table 65 BCA Results for Measure CET-6 ...................................................................................70 Table 66 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measures CET-6 (2025$)...................................70 Table 67 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CET-7........................................................71 Table 68 BCA Results for Measure CET-7 ...................................................................................72 Table 69 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-7 (2025$) ....................................72 Table 70 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCET-1 ....................................................74 Table 71 BCA Results for Measure MCET-1................................................................................75 Table 72 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MCET-1 (2025$) ...........................................75 Table 73 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCET-2 ....................................................76 Table 74 BCA Results for Measure MCET-2................................................................................77 Table 75 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MCET-2 (in 2025 $) ........................................77 Table 76 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCET-3 ....................................................78 Table 77 BCA Results for Measure MCET-3................................................................................79 Table 78 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MCET-3 (in 2025 $) ........................................79 Table 79 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MRE-1 ......................................................81 Table 80 BCA Results for Measure MRE-1 – Ownership Model .................................................82 Table 81 BCA Results for Measure MRE-1 – PPA Model ............................................................82 Table 82 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MRE-1 (2025$) - Ownership Model..............83 Table 83 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MRE-1 (2025$) - PPA Model......................... 83 Table 84 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MRE-1 (2025$) - Ownership Model ...............83 Table 85 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure RE-1..........................................................84 Table 86 BCA Results for Measure RE-1 .....................................................................................84 Table 87 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure RE-2..........................................................86 Table 88 BCA Results for Measure RE-2 – Ownership Model.....................................................87 Table 89 BCA Results for Measure RE-2 – PPA Model................................................................87 Table 90 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure RE-2 (2025$) ......................................88 Table 91 Data Inputs and Assumption for Measure MWE-1.......................................................89 Table 92 BCA Results for Measure MWE-1.................................................................................90 Table 93 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MWE-1 (in 2025 $) .........................................90 Table 94 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure WE-1 ........................................................91 Table 95 BCA Results for Measure WE-1....................................................................................92 Table 96 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure WE-1 (2025$).....................................92 Table 97 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure WE-2 ........................................................93 Table 98 BCA Results for Measure WE-2....................................................................................94 Table 99 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure WE-2 (2025$).....................................94 Table 100 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures ZE-1 ......................................................95 Table 101 BCA Results for Measure ZE-1 ...................................................................................96 Table 102 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure ZE-2........................................................97 Table 103 BCA Results for Measure ZE-2 ...................................................................................98 Table 104 Estimated Annual One-Time Costs for Measure ZE-2 (2025$)...................................98 Table 105 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure ZW-1.......................................................99 Table 106 BCA Results for ZW-1.................................................................................................99 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 385 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center
Table 107 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure ZW-1 (2025$) .................................100 Table 108 Estimated Annual One-Time Costs for Measure ZW-1 (2025$) ............................... 100 Table 109 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CCR-1 (2025$) ............................... 101 Table 110 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CCR-1 (2025$)..........................................101 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 386 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 1
1 INTRODUCTION
The Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update Cost Analysis (Cost Analysis) summarizes results from both a benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and an implementation cost analysis (ICA). Each analysis answers a different question. The ICA estimates the impact of implementing CAP Update measures on the City of Encinitas budget. The BCA estimates the financial impacts of 28 of 32 proposed CAP Update measures on homes and businesses, and how cost effectively a measure reduces one metric ton of carbon-dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e reduced).1 Figure 1 shows components of the Cost Analysis, the questions each analysis seeks to answer, and the metrics of the results.

This analysis should be considered a preliminary assessment of cost effectiveness and financial impacts of proposed CAP Update measures. A more detailed analysis may be required to fully assess the anticipated cost and financial impacts of a project associated with each measure.

The cost analysis can be refined as each measure nears its implementation timeframe and more detailed information is available regarding implementation actions.

Figure 1 Overall Framework for CAP Update Cost Analysis 1 Four measures were not included in the BCA analysis because no GHG reductions were included for these measures in the CAP Update. A more detailed explanation is provided in Section 5.

CAP
Cost Analysis
Benefit-Cost Analysis
(BCA)
Implementation
Cost Analysis
(ICA)
What is the cost to the City of
Encinitas to implement CAP
measures?
How cost-effective are CAP
measures at reducing
greenhouse gases (GHGs)?
What are the financial impacts on
those affected by CAP measures
(e.g, residents and businesses)?
Cost-Effectiveness
Financial Impact
on Participants
Questions
Dollars
Net Present Value per
Metric ton of Carbon-Dioxide
Equivalent Reduced
($NPV / MT CO2e)
Net Present Value
Discounted Payback
Benefit-Cost Ratio
Results
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 387 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 2

1.1 Organization of Report
The report is organized into seven sections. Section 2, Benefit-Cost Analysis Overview and Methods, briefly summarizes the methods used in the BCA. Section 3, Implementation Cost Analysis Overview, summarizes the process and methods used in the ICA. Section 4, describes how the two analyses are interrelated. Section 5, Summary of Results, provides a high-level summary of results from the BCA and ICA. Section 6, Results by Measure, provides more detailed cost analysis results for each measure, a brief summary of calculation methods, and inputs and assumptions used to estimate results. A brief conclusion is provided in Section 7. A list of references is included in Section 8.

1.2 Key Findings
Key findings from the analysis are summarized below.

1.2.1 Benefit Cost Analysis
• CAP Update Measures Would Have an Average Net Cost of about $245 per Metric Ton of CO2e Reduced – Considering the 28 CAP Update measures included in the BCA, the average net cost to reduce metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) would be about $245.
2 Results range from a net benefit of about $500 per MT CO2e reduced to a net cost of about $22,000 per MT CO2e reduced. [Section 5.1] • The Ten Most Cost-Effective Measures Would Have an Average Net Cost of About $60 per Metric Ton of CO2e Reduced – These ten measures represent about 80 percent of cumulative GHG reductions in the BCA (Table 1). For comparison, in the latest California Cap-and-Invest Program auction, the cost of CO2 emissions allowances was about $30 per MT CO2e (CARB, 2025c). Five of these measures would have a net benefit for every metric ton of CO2e reduced. Combined, these measures would have an average net benefit of about $300 per MT CO2e reduced over the lifetime of associated projects but represent only about 3% of cumulative emission reductions from the BCA. [Section 5.1]
2Overall results represent the Measure perspective, as described in Section 2.2. Average values reported throughout this report are weighted by cumulative tons reduced in the BCA. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 388 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 3
Table 1 Top Ten Most Cost-Effective CAP Update Measures • Of the Four Policy Drivers, “State Mandated” Measures Would Have the Lowest Average Net Cost – Measures mandated by state requirements would have an average net cost of about $60 per MT CO2e reduced and represent about 15 percent of cumulative GHG emission reductions in the BCA (Table 2). Measures from the 2018 CAP and those proposed in the 2026 CAP Update would have a net cost of $120 and $130, respectively. Combined, these two policy drivers would account for about 80% of cumulative GHG emission reductions in the BCA. Other City plans or policies that were Measure Policy Driver
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)*
Measure
Perspective Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)**
MRE-1: Municipal Solar and Battery Storage*** 2018 CAP 5,939 $477 RE-2: Nonresidential Solar Systems*** 2018 CAP 4,192 $469 WE-1: Water Conservation State Mandated 11,403 $262
ZE-2: Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment 2026 CAP Update 18,628 $225 BD-1: Existing Residential Energy Efficiency 2018 CAP 3,563 $224 MBD-1: Existing Municipal Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 2,492 ($12) RE-1: Membership in San Diego Community Power 2018 CAP 298,014 ($59) ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program State Mandated 208,029 ($70) BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization 2026 CAP Update 752,374 ($74) BD-2: New Residential Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 18,119 ($76) Total / Average 1,322,753 ($58)
**All values are 2025$;
***BCA for this measure was completed using an hourly analysis. Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 *Over the time horizon of the analysis, depending on the effective useful life of the action. This value is different from the annual GHG reduction in the CAP Update for target year 2045.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 389 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 4
previously approved, which have the smallest GHG reduction (5 percent of total), would have the highest net cost of about $2,500 per MT CO2e. [Section 5.1.1] Table 2 BCA Results by Policy Driver
• Municipal Measures and Those with Significant Capital Investment Would have a Net Cost of about $1,500 per MT CO2e Reduced – Measures that affect Municipal operations or measures for which the City would make a significant infrastructure investment or purchase would have an average net cost of about $1,500 per MT CO2e reduced (Table 3). The five measures from the 2018 CAP would have a net cost of about $350 per MT CO2e reduced and account for about one quarter of cumulative emissions in this subset of measures. The three measures that are newly proposed in the CAP Update would have an average net cost of just under $500 per MT CO2e reduced and account for about one third of cumulative emissions in this subset of measures. [Section

5.1.2]
Policy Driver
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)*
Average Measure
Perspective Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)**
State Mandated 220,752 ($57)
2018 CAP 449,403 ($121)
2026 CAP Update 838,526 ($129)
Other City Plan or Policy 86,521 ($2,487)
Total / Average 1,595,202 ($245)
Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026
*Over time horizon of analysis, depending on the effective useful life of the action. This value is different from the annual GHG reduction in the CAP Update for target year 2045.
**All values are 2025$; Average value weighted by cumulative GHG reduction from BCA.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 390 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 5
Table 3 Municipal Measures and Those with Significant Capital Investment

1.2.2 Implementation Cost Analysis
• Annual Ongoing Costs to the City of Encinitas General Fund to Implement Newly Proposed Measures in the 2026 CAP Update Would be About $320,000 per Year Over 20 Years – Total annual ongoing costs to the General Fund from all measures average $4.0M per year, largely attributed to implementing projects in the Active Transportation Plan ($3.3M annually) (Table 4). Cost estimates for implementing these projects were based on historically approved annual funding amounts. See Table 5 for one-time costs.

Table 4 Ongoing Implementation Costs to the General Fund by Measure Measure Policy Driver
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)*
Measure
Perspective Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)**
MRE-1: Municipal Solar and Battery Storage*** 2018 CAP 5,939 $477 MBD-1: Existing Municipal Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 2,492 ($12) MCET-3: Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 2018 CAP 28,814 ($137) MCET-2: TDM Programs for Municipal Employees 2026 CAP Update 856 ($211) CET-3: TDM Programs in Redevelopment Projects 2026 CAP Update 38,352 ($433) MCET-1: Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet State Mandated 1,319 ($732) CET-5: Roundabouts and Traffic Signal Retiming Other City Plan or Policy 72,674 ($1,785) CET-2: Flexible Fleet Program 2018 CAP 1,995 ($3,296)
MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees 2018 CAP 1,416 ($4,571) CET-1: Active Transportation Projects Other City Plan or Policy 7,812 ($9,794) MWE-1: Drought Tolerant or Native Species 2026 CAP Update 130 ($22,188) Total / Average 161,801 ($1,490)
**All values are 2025$;
***BCA for this measure was completed using an hourly analysis. Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 *Over the time horizon of the analysis, depending on the effective useful life of the action. This value is different from the annual GHG reduction in the CAP Update for target year 2045.

Measure Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
CET-1: Active Transportation Projects Other City Plan or Policy $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 MWE-1: Drought Tolerant or Native Species 2026 CAP Update $308,148 $205,432 $205,432 $205,432 MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees 2018 CAP $77,870 $177,870 $277,870 $377,870 MCET-2: TDM Programs for Municipal Employees 2026 CAP Update $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 CCR-1: CAP Coordination and Reporting 2018 CAP $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 CS-3: Tree Planting on Private Property 2026 CAP Update $23,446 $23,446 $23,446 $23,446 BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization 2026 CAP Update $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 CET-5: Roundabouts and Traffic Signal Retiming Other City Plan or Policy $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 391 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 6
• One-Time Costs to the City of Encinitas General Fund to Implement Newly Proposed Measures in the 2026 CAP Update Would be About $240,000 in the first 10 years – Total one-time costs for all CAP measures (six measures impacting the General Fund with one-time costs) would total about $640,000 over the first 10 years. Table 5 summarizes one-time costs by measure. See Table 4 above for ongoing costs.

Table 5 One-Time Implementation Costs to the General Fund by Measure • New Measures Proposed in the 2026 CAP Update Represent 8 Percent of the Costs to the General Fund – Similarly, the new measures represent 7 percent of the total costs regardless of funding source.
• Municipal Measures Represent 83 Percent of the Total Costs to the General Fund, When Excluding Active Transportation Plan Implementation from Overall Costs – Total costs to the General Fund are primarily attributed to municipal investments (83 percent), including vehicle purchases and charging stations, energy efficiency infrastructure, planting drought-tolerant landscaping, and maintaining city trees. • 51 Percent of the Costs for Implementing All Measures in the CAP Update are Contingent on Grant Funding – Two measures account for 72 percent of estimated cost that are contingent grant funding, including CET-1 (Implement the Active Transportation Plan) (56 percent of grant funding costs), and CET-5 (Improve Traffic Flow) (16 percent of grant funding costs).
• 3 Percent of Total Implementation Costs Will Come from Fee Revenue or Enterprise Revenue Financing – The remaining costs would come from grant funding (51 percent contingent upon grant funding or already awarded) and the General Fund (46 percent).

Measure Policy Driver
One-Time
Cost
2026 - 2030
One-Time
Cost
2031 - 2035
One-Time
Cost
2036 - 2040
One-Time
Cost
2041 - 2045
MCET-1: Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet State Mandated $128,925 $128,925 $0 $0 MRE-1: Municipal Solar and Battery Storage 2018 CAP $100,000 $0 $0 $0 CET-3: TDM Programs in Redevelopment Projects 2026 CAP Update $100,000 $0 $0 $0 BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization 2026 CAP Update $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 MBD-1: Existing Municipal Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP $45,000 $0 $0 $0 ZE-2: Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment 2026 CAP Update $0 $40,000 $0 $0 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 392 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 7
2 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OVERVIEW AND METHODS
This section provides an overview of the methods, framework, and key concepts and terms used in the BCA.

2.1 Types of Benefits and Costs
The BCA evaluates financial benefits and costs directly related to implementing a proposed CAP Update measure or engaging in an activity defined within in a City CAP Update. Direct financial benefits include cost savings, such as utility bill or vehicle fuel reductions. Direct costs include the purchase, installation, and/or maintenance of equipment, infrastructure, or services.

Financial incentives or subsidies, such as rebates and tax credits, are considered cost reductions for participants. GHG reductions are not always the primary reason for implementing a measure. Other justifications could include increased transportation options, economic benefits, water reduction, beautification, or shade. This analysis does not take into consideration any these or any other co-benefits such as health impacts or the social cost of carbon.

2.2 Perspectives
When evaluating the benefits and costs of CAP Update measures, one consideration is to determine whose benefits and costs are being evaluated. Multiple perspectives can be considered in the analysis, including the administrator of the program (e.g., the jurisdiction), participants in the program (e.g., residents and businesses within the jurisdiction), and those who pay the cost to subsidize programs (non-participants (e.g., taxpayers or utility ratepayers).

The measure perspective, which combines these three main perspectives, allows for a more comprehensive view and includes costs to administer CAP programs, costs to residents and businesses, and any subsidies provided.

The framework in Figure 2 summarizes these four perspectives, identifies who is potentially affected by a CAP Update measure, and provides examples of their respective benefits and costs.
3 3 Adapted from the California Standard Practice Manual, which is used by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency programs. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 393 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 8
Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of BCA Perspectives

2.2.1 Administrator Perspective
The administrator perspective answers the question: What are the impacts to the City of Encinitas budget associated with the implementation of CAP Update measures? Activities to administer the CAP include research, development, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of CAP measures. In the context of the CAP Update BCA, the City of Encinitas would be considered the administrator. Because these activities will be absorbed into existing work programs without the need to increase City personnel, no staffing data was collected for the ICA, and therefore only professional services and materials and supplies are accounted for in the analysis of this perspective in this report. Additional information about how administrator costs from the ICA were integrated into the BCA is included in Section 4.2.

2.2.2 Participant Perspective
The participant perspective answers the question: What are the financial benefits and costs to those who participate in or act to comply with a CAP Update measure? There can be direct benefits and/or costs to engage in activities to reduce GHG emissions defined in a CAP Update measure. For example, a business owner who chooses to install a heat pump water heater under BD-5 (Decarbonize Existing Buildings) would incur capital costs for the purchase and installation of the system. The reduction in natural gas costs over the lifetime of that Administrator Participant Non-Participant
A P NP
Costs
Benefits
Who? City City
City Residents,
Businesses
City, regional, state, or
national residents and
businesses
Development,
implementation, and
enforcement of
energy efficiency
policy
Energy audit, installation of
efficiency equipment,
operations and maintenance,
and replacement
(rebates and tax credits
considered cost reductions)
Utility ratepayer funds
from regional residents for
rebates and incentives
No Financial
Benefits Energy cost savings
No Financial
Benefits
Total Measure
TM
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 394 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 9
system would be a benefit to the business owner. Participants can also receive rebates, incentives, and tax credits, which reduce participant costs but increase non-participant costs.

There are two scenarios where the City is a Participant. One in which the City implements projects related to its own facilities, vehicles, or land (e.g., converting the municipal fleet to electric vehicles) and incurs cost and benefits. In this case, this perspective includes all capital costs directly associated with the City’s participation in or compliance with the measure, as well as the resulting benefits, if any, received by the City.

In other cases, the City of Encinitas is the implementing participant and incurs costs to implement a project, but action by participating residents and businesses — who receive the benefits — actually reduces GHG emissions. As an example, if the City were to install a bike lane, it would incur all costs to build and maintain the project, but benefits would accrue to residents who use the bike lane and avoid driving and related fossil fuel use.

2.2.3 Non-Participant Perspective (Subsidies)
The non-participant perspective answers the question: What are the financial benefits and costs, if any, to subsidize activities of participants? Residents, businesses, and the City of Encinitas could incur indirect costs even though they are not engaging in an activity defined in a CAP measure. In general, non-participant costs are defined as the cost to subsidize activities taken by participants through rebates, incentives, and tax credits. Non-participants can incur this cost through taxes, fees, and/or utility surcharges. Who is defined as a non-participant can vary and is not limited to those within the geographic boundary of the City of Encinitas (Table 6). Given the uncertainty around subsidies, and to be conservative, the BCA only considered the effects of subsidies in a limited number of measures where City of Encinitas would provide funding. Additional information about how non-participant costs from the ICA were integrated into the BCA are included in Section 4.2.

Table 6. Examples of Non-Participants at Various Levels National
State
Regional
City
Federal
Tax Credit
U.S.

Tax Revenue
Incentive
Type
Revenue
Source
Population
Affected
U.S.

Taxpayers
State
Grant
California Tax or
Other Revenue
California
Taxpayers or
Regulated Entities
Utility
Incentive
Electric Utility
Customers
San Diego
County
City
Rebate
City Residents and
Businesses
City Residents and
Businesses
Geographic
Scope
U.S.

California
San Diego
County
City
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 395 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 10

2.2.4 Measure Perspective
The measure perspective answers the question: What are the total direct financial benefits and costs associated with a greenhouse gas reduction measure? The three perspectives defined above provide discrete and valuable insights but individually represent an incomplete view of the financial impacts of the measure in the CAP Update. For instance, looking solely at the participant perspective may obscure the true cost of a measure, particularly if an activity is highly subsidized. Similarly, if a measure has high administrative costs, understanding how they affect the overall measure cost effectiveness can be helpful.

2.3 Key Concepts
The following key concepts were used in developing CAP Update BCA calculations used in this report.

2.3.1 CAP Update Framework
Figure 3 illustrates how the elements of the CAP Update are connected. The plan is broken into strategies (e.g., Energy) that comprise greenhouse gas reduction measures. Each measure has associated implementation actions, which can result in projects, programs, or policies. Costs related to implementation actions and the related projects, programs, or policies are the focus of this Cost Analysis. References herein to “measure” refer to the measure as a whole. For example, results of the analysis will be aggregated at the measure level. However, it is necessary to estimate the cost implications of specific projects, programs, or policies (e.g., heat pump water heaters, water-efficient appliances, etc.).

Figure 3 Conceptual Framework of Strategies and Measures in the CAP Update MRE-1.2: Seek funding and
implement capital
improvement project(s) to
install microgrids at suitable
facilities.

MRE-1.1: Complete an
analysis to determine the
role of energy storage,
on- site renewable
generation, and microgrids at
municipal facilities and sites,
including parking lots.

Implementation
Action
MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-Site Solar and
Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities Measure Energy
MRE-1.3: Continue utilizing
the 'Power100' electricity
rate offered by San Diego
Community Power for all
municipal facilities.

Strategy
Install solar photovoltaics
and battery storage projects
on Community Center
Project/
Program/
Policy
Install solar photovoltaics
and battery storage projects
on Public Works
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 396 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 11

2.3.2 Target Year
The target year represents a point in time when the GHG emissions impacts from the measures in the CAP Update are considered. The CAP Update has emissions targets for the years 2030 and 2045. The CAP Update seeks to reduce annual GHG emissions to achieve target levels.

The BCA considers all the costs and benefits associated with projects, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions through 2045. This includes project activity that extends beyond the 2045 target year.

2.3.3 Implementation Year
The implementation year is the year in which a measure is started, installed, or put into use. To achieve GHG reductions in the CAP Update, measures — and associated projects, programs, or policies — will be implemented over many years. For example, the City may purchase electric vehicles for its fleet every year for 10 years. Each year would be considered an implementation year for a given project. This analysis is not only concerned with one installation, in 2026 or subsequent start years, but with all installations through 2045. One reason for this analytical framework is to capture the changing assumptions over the 20-year analysis period. For example, the emissions intensity for electricity will decline dramatically over this period. A result for a project implemented in 2026 may not be representative for all the projects that would be needed to meet the 2045 emissions target.

In most cases, the BCA assumes that the first implementation start year is 2026. In instances where the GHG reduction in the CAP assumes that activity starts prior to 2026, the BCA captures costs and benefits starting from 2026. For projects that have a later start year in the CAP Update GHG analysis, that same start year is used for the BCA; however, all cost and benefits are discounted back to 2026 as the present value base year. 4 Most projects, programs,
and policies are assumed to be implemented every year through 2045, the final implementation year.

2.3.4 Useful Life
The useful life (or project life) is the operating life of a project and represents how long a project or piece of equipment is expected to last before it would have to be replaced. This analysis considers implementation of projects through the 2045 target year. For projects with an implementation year of 2045, the useful life will extend beyond this target year. For example, since solar photovoltaics have a useful life of 25 years, a project installed in 2045 would extend to 2070. Figure 5 below helps to visualize this. Projects that would reach the end of their useful life before the 2045 target year are assumed to be replaced in order to have GHG reductions in that target year. In all cases, this analysis examines all benefits, costs, and emissions impacts over the entire useful life of all projects, programs, and policies with an implementation year between 2026 and 2045.
4 All dollar values in the report are 2025$, even though costs and benefits are discounted to 2026. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 397 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 12

2.3.5 Analysis Period
This is the period from the first implementation year (2026) to the final year of the useful life of measures, including those installed in 2045. Not all measures have the same analysis period.

Some measures would be implemented from 2026 to 2045 (e.g., CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential, Nonresidential and Major Redevelopment Projects), while others would extend from 2026 to 2070 (e.g., RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems). Converting all costs and benefits to present value allows for comparison of measures with different timeframes. There are measures with multiple project or equipment types each with their own inputs and assumptions (e.g., building decarbonization measures). In these cases, the analysis assumed that equipment was replaced so that the useful life of all equipment ends in the same year. For example, if two projects start in 2026 and one has a 10-year useful life and the other a 20-year useful life, the analysis assumes that the project with the 10-year useful life would be repeated so the useful life of both measures would end in the 2045 target year. In a few cases, it is necessary to replace a project after 2045 to have the useful lives align.

2.3.6 Discount Rate
A discount rate is used to convert future values to present value.5 The discount rate is a key variable and has an impact on BCA results. Higher discount rates reduce the present values of future benefits and costs (i.e., lessen the value of future dollars relative to the baseline year in the analysis), while lower discount rates place a higher value on future values. Additionally, higher discount rates tend to make projects less attractive when costs are paid upfront and benefits are spread out over many years. To be consistent with similar analysis, this analysis assumes a discount rate of 3 percent, as used in the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades (Revision 1.0) (CEC&S, 2025).

For the analysis here, all values are discounted back to 2026, regardless of the implementation year. This ensures that results from one measure are compatible and comparable with other measures analyzed. Figure 4 illustrates this process. In this illustrative example, the greenhouse gas reduction measure requires that they begin in different years, but all are discounted to the same baseline year in the analysis.
5 See Section 2.4.2.1 for more on present value.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 398 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 13
Figure 4 Illustrative Example of Discounting Costs and Benefits to 2026

2.3.7 Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions
While the CAP Update is primarily concerned with annual reductions in the target years, the BCA is concerned with cumulative GHG reductions over the useful life of all projects implemented through 2045. The objective is to estimate all costs, benefits, and GHG emissions impacts for all projects that operate and reduce emissions in the 2045 target year –- over their entire useful life. This analysis assumes that all measures begin in 2026 to allow comparisons across all measures. So, for implementation actions with a 25-year useful life, the overall analysis period would be 2026 to 2070 (i.e., final implementation year of 2045 plus a 25-year useful life). Although the cumulative GHG value used in the BCA analysis differs from the GHG value for the 2045 target year used in the CAP Update, the annual value for the target year in the BCA is generally consistent with the emissions value in the CAP Update.

Figure 5 demonstrates the difference between annual and cumulative GHG emission reductions and how the target year GHG reduction value is consistent between the CAP Update and BCA. In this simplified illustrative example, the same as described above, there are five projects, each with a five-year useful life and emission reductions of 5 MT CO2e annually.

Project 1 is installed in 2026, and each subsequent project is installed annually thereafter through 2030. In the target year 2030 all projects are operational and reducing GHG emissions.

The total reduction in 2030 from all five projects is 25 MT CO2e. This is the annual value that would be used in a CAP for the GHG reduction associated with this measure in the target year.

By contrast, all projects implemented between 2026 and 2030 have a cumulative reduction of 125 MT CO2e. The objective for the BCA is to determine the cost and benefits associated with all 125 MT CO2e reduced, even though the CAP would show a 25 MT CO2e reduction for this measure.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 399 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 14
Figure 5 Annual vs. Cumulative GHG Emission Reductions
The methods used in the BCA to estimate GHG reductions are generally consistent with those used in the CAP Update. Additional information on the specific methods used to estimate the GHG reductions resulting from CAP Update can be found in Section 7 of Appendix A of the CAP Update documents, including inputs, assumptions, and formulas. More information about the data and assumptions used in the BCA is provided in Section 6 of this report.

2.3.8 Incremental Cost
The BCA focuses on the incremental cost of implementing CAP measures; that is, the cost difference between the baseline condition (i.e., what would have happened) and implementing the project or action in the CAP Update. In some cases, the baseline condition is a piece of equipment or appliance, like a vehicle or water heater. In this case, the incremental cost would be the difference between replacing the existing equipment with a typical or average model versus replacing it with a version that reduces GHG emissions. In some cases, there is no existing version of the project or equipment. For example, for measures that would install a bicycle lane. In this case, the baseline condition is no bike lane, so the full cost of constructing a bike lane would be considered the incremental cost.

2.3.9 Normalized Dollars
Dollar values are normalized to a constant year to accurately analyze historic and current benefit and cost data. This process reduces the interannual impact of external influences, such as inflation and deflation, on the dollar value of a good or service. While several indices exist to normalize dollar values, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is one of the most common and is applied in this analysis (FRB Dallas, 2017). The base year of 2025 is used for normalization for all actions for consistency and for comparison across actions; that is, all collected data values were normalized to 2025 dollars (2025$) using the CPI (Table 7) (FRED, 2026). 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 400 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 15
Table 7 San Diego Region Consumer Price Index
All dollar values were normalized before being integrated into BCA calculations using the following equation:

Equation 1. Normalization of Data Values Using Consumer Price Index Where,
𝑋! = normalized dollar value in base year
𝑋" = nominal dollar value in year t
𝐶𝑃𝐼! = Consumer Price Index in base year
𝐶𝑃𝐼" = Consumer Price Index in year t
When the dollar year is not specified for a data value(s) in a report or literature used, the year of publication is applied for normalization.

2.4 Benefit-Costs Analysis Metrics
Results of the BCA are expressed in several ways, including net present value, benefit-cost ratio, discounted payback, and dollar per metric ton of CO2e reduced (Figure 6). Results may not be able to be quantified for all metrics for all CAP Update measures. For example, if a participant only incurs costs or only receives benefits, or if benefits are never equal to or greater than costs, a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) and payback period cannot be calculated. For example, if the City installs roundabouts, it incurs costs but does not receive any financial benefits; therefore, it would not be possible to calculate a benefit cost ratio from the City’s perspective since the numerator of the equation would be zero. Similarly, the drivers that use the roundabout and reduce vehicle fuel consumption and costs, would not incur any costs but would receive financial benefits (zero in the denominator).

All metrics are calculated using present value dollars. Using the present value6 addresses the time value of money (e.g., receiving ten dollars today is worth more than receiving ten dollars in the future) by applying a discount rate to the benefits and costs (Section 2.3.6). A three percent discount rate is applied in this analysis (CECS, 2025). Methods for calculating the metrics in Figure 6 are included below.

Figure 6. Metrics for the CAP Update Cost Analysis
6 In this context and moving forward, present value represents the value in the start year of the analysis, 2026. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
CPI 269 275 283 293 299 304 320 344 362 373 385
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 401 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 16

2.4.1 Net Present Value (NPV)
Net present value (NPV) is calculated as the difference between the present value benefits and the present value costs for each install year (Equation 2). Computing the NPV of the CAP Update measures is a way to objectively evaluate the long-term financial viability and social value of each measure. It accounts for the time value of money — recognizing that costs and benefits today are worth more than future costs — allowing for the comparison of measures with different scales and timeframes.

Equation 2. Net Present Value Calculation
Where,
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = net present value
𝑃𝑉#$%$&'"( = present value of benefits stream
𝑃𝑉)*("( = present value of costs stream

2.4.2 Benefit-Cost Ratio
The BCR is used to assess the relationship between the present value benefits and costs of a project or action. A BCR that is greater than one means the anticipated benefits of the action outweigh anticipated costs over the analysis period; if it is less than one, the anticipated costs outweigh benefits. This metric illustrates the relative cost-effectiveness when comparing multiple CAP Update measures; measures with higher BCR values tend to be more costeffective. BCRs can only be shown for measures that have both benefits and costs for a given group of participants. How subsidies (rebates and incentives) are calculated for the participant 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 402 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 17
perspective will impact the result; this analysis identifies all subsidies as cost reductions to participants. The BCR is calculated by dividing the present value benefits by the present value costs for a given install year (Equation 3).

Equation 3. Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculation
Where,
𝐵𝐶𝑅 = benefit-cost ratio
𝑃𝑉#$%$&'"( = present value of benefits stream
𝑃𝑉)*("( = present value of costs stream

2.4.2.1 Calculating Present Value Benefits and Costs
Once all benefits and costs have been laid out over an action’s useful life, the discount rate is applied to both the benefit and cost streams for each installation year to calculate their respective present values (Equation 4 and Equation 5, respectively).

Equation 4.Present Value Benefits Calculation
Equation 5. Present Value Costs Calculation
Where,
𝑃𝑉#$%$&'"( = present value of benefits stream
𝐵" = benefits in year t
𝑃𝑉)*("( = present value of costs stream
𝐶" = costs in year t
𝑟 = discount rate
𝑇 = useful life of measure/action

2.4.3 Dollar per Metric Ton of CO2e Reduced
The dollar per metric ton of CO2e reduced ($/MT CO2e) is calculated by dividing the NPV by the cumulative GHGs reduced over the analysis period (Equation 6). The $/MT CO2e is used to 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 403 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 18
determine how cost-effectively CAP Update measures reduce one MT CO2e. This metric standardizes results to allow for comparisons across measures. A positive value indicates a net benefit per ton reduced, whereas a negative value indicates a net cost per ton reduced.

Equation 6. Dollar per Metric Ton of CO2e Calculation
Where,
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = net present value
𝐺𝐻𝐺𝑠" = greenhouse gases reduced in year t
𝑇 = useful life of measure/action
While the $/MT CO2e results allow for comparison across all CAP measures, this metric can be misleading if not considered in combination with the amount of GHG emissions reduced.

Plotting the $/MT CO2e for each measure in conjunction with its GHG reductions shows a comparison of cost effectiveness (Figure 7). In Figure 7, a measure toward the top of the scatterplot is more cost effective than those at the bottom. Similarly, measures to the right of the scatterplot reduce more GHGs than those on the left. The upper right quadrant, which represents high GHG reductions and net benefits, would be the most desirable. The lower left quadrant, which shows low GHG reductions and net costs, would be the least desirable.

Figure 7. Interpreting Results of a Scatterplot

2.4.4 Discounted Payback Period
There are two types of payback periods: simple and discounted. The simple payback period is the easiest to calculate (total cost divided by annual benefit) but ignores the time value of money. A discounted payback period is the amount of time required for the cumulative 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 404 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 19
discounted benefits of a project to be equal to the cumulative discounted costs of an action or measure (Figure 8). Payback periods can only be shown for measures where the benefits are equal to or greater than the associated costs.

Figure 8. Conceptual Diagram of Payback Period
Determining the payback period requires calculating the cumulative cash flow of discounted benefits and discounted costs (Equation 7). The cumulative cash flow for any given year is the sum of the benefits and costs (both discounted) for that year and all previous years. The number of years with a negative cumulative discounted cash flow, n, starts in year one and goes up to the year before cumulative discounted benefits are greater than cumulative discounted costs.

Equation 7. Discounted Payback Period Calculation
Where,
𝐷𝑃𝑃 = discounted payback period
𝑛 = number of years with a negative cumulative discounted cash flow 𝐶𝐹% = discounted cash flow in year n
𝐶𝐹%+, = discounted cash flow in year n + 1
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 405 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 20
3 IMPLEMENTATION COST ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
The ICA estimates costs anticipated for the City to implement the Updated CAP during its 20- year timeline—FY 2026–27 to FY 2044–45. The costs presented are estimates primarily based on data provided by and discussions with City of Encinitas staff that would participate in anticipated implementation tasks included in the draft CAP Update. The following sections summarize the process used to estimate CAP Update implementation costs and the overall framework used to identify and evaluate those costs.

3.1 Process to Estimate CAP Update Implementation Costs The general steps in the process to estimate CAP Update implementation costs were to: (1) determine the actions required to implement the greenhouse gas reduction measures in the draft updated CAP; (2) estimate associated operational and capital costs. Staff costs were not included in the ICA because it was determined that additional staff would not be necessary to implement the draft updated CAP.

3.1.1 Identify Implementation Actions
The CAP Update includes implementation actions that represent the expected activities necessary to implement the proposed GHG reduction measures. The CAP Update implementation actions include specific programs, policies, and projects that would be implemented to reduce GHG emissions. The CAP Update includes 32 measures and over 100 implementation actions. An additional measure, CCR-1(CAP Coordination and Reporting), was added to the ICA to capture costs associated with the overall management of the CAP, coordinating across departments, and tracking and reporting progress. Section 2.3.1 describes the CAP Update framework used in the ICA.

3.1.2 Establish Preliminary Cost Estimates
After the implementation actions were developed for each GHG reduction measures in the CAP Update, City of Encinitas staff estimated non-staffing costs, including capital expenditures, materials and supplies, professional services, and other costs that would be required to implement CAP Update activities. To facilitate and standardize the collection of implementation cost data from City staff across several departments, EPIC created a data collection template for Sustainability Division staff to use in meetings with staff from each participating department to discuss and determine cost estimates. In some cases, where cost estimates from the BCA were available from reliable and relevant sources, BCA costs were used in the ICA (e.g., the cost of installing solar photovoltaics and batteries), as discussed in Section

4.2. The cost estimates presented here reflect the expected costs to implement the activities in the CAP Update as of February 2026. They are based on assumptions of the efforts needed to implement the proposed GHG reduction measures and associated implementation actions in the CAP Update. If the CAP Update measures change over time, implementation costs could be different from those reported here and would need to be adjusted. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 406 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 21

3.1.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC)
Quality control and data validation occurred at several stages. Primary data validation occurred after initial cost estimates were collected. EPIC and City staff performed a second internal quality control check after the City Council authorized the completion of the BCA portion of this Cost Analysis. Based on this initial review, some cost components were updated to create consistency across all departments and CAP Update measures. EPIC conducted a final review of all costs prior to inclusion in this report.

3.2 CAP Implementation Costs Evaluated
This section summarizes the costs evaluated in the ICA.

3.2.1 Framework for Evaluating CAP Update Costs
The overall goal of the CAP Update ICA is to develop a preliminary estimate of the total cost to implement quantified GHG reduction measures over the 20-year anticipated implementation timeframe. The ICA evaluates cost data by categorizing the implementation actions of every measure by policy driver, funding source, expenditure type, and expenditure timeline. Figure 9 illustrates this cost analysis framework.

Figure 9 Framework for Evaluating CAP Update Implementation Costs

3.2.2 Policy Drivers
There are different policy drivers for each measure, which helps to define why it was included in the CAP. Table 8 defines the CAP measure policy drivers. Results for both the ICA and BCA are presented in relationship to these policy driver categories.

Other City
Policy or Plan
State-Mandated
Program
2026
CAP Update
2018 CAP
CAP Measures and Related
Implementation Actions
Capital
Projects
Professional
Services
Other
Materials
and
Supplies
General Fund
Grant Funding
Etc.

City Budget
Policy Driver
Funding
Source
Policy
Direction
Identify
Funding
Budget/
Implement
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 407 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 22
Table 8 Measure Policy Drivers
Thirteen measures in the CAP Update were included in the 2018 adopted CAP, eight measures are newly proposed in the 2026 CAP Update, four are other city plans or policies approved by Council, and three are mandated by the State (Figure 10).

Figure 10 Count of CAP Update Measures by Policy Driver Policy Driver Definition
2018 CAP
Any measure which was adopted in the 2018
CAP and is included in the CAP update (e.g.
municipal solar)
2026 CAP Update New measures that are being proposed for the current CAP update
State Mandated
Any measure that is required to be
implemented as a result of a state-mandate
(e.g, organic waste diversion)
Other City
Plan or Policy
Any measure that implements a Council
adopted plan or policy that predates the CAP
(e.g., Active Transportation Plan)
3 4
8 13
State Mandated
Other City Plan or Policy
2026 CAP Update
2018 CAP
Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 408 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 23
4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BCA AND ICA
While the BCA and ICA are separate analyses that answer different questions, they are interconnected. This section compares the two analyses to show the similarities and differences in the data shared between the two.

4.1 Comparing the BCA and ICA
As noted in Sections 2 and 3, the BCA and ICA set out to answer different questions. The goal of the BCA is to determine the financial impact on residents and businesses and how cost effectively a given measure can reduce a MT CO2e. The ICA estimates the budget impact to the City of Encinitas. There are several key differences when comparing the two analyses. While costs are considered in both, the BCA focuses on the incremental costs from a given project or action. For example, the difference in cost between a fossil fuel vehicle and an electric vehicle.

The BCA assumes that the City would have purchased a car anyway, but as a result of the CAP, it would purchase an electric vehicle. In this case, the incremental cost is the focus. The ICA, in general, estimates total costs to the City for implementing CAP measures. In this example, the ICA would include the total cost of the new electric vehicle. Additionally, the BCA accounts for all benefits – including any cost savings from a measure, whereas no financial benefits are considered in the ICA. Finally, the BCA estimates the net cost of a measure to reduce a MT CO2e, whereas the ICA does not take GHG into consideration. This is mainly because the ICA only considers costs to the City of Encinitas, and additional costs would be incurred by residents and businesses to reach CAP GHG emission targets. Another key difference is that BCA considers costs, benefits, and GHG emissions over the entire life of all projects associated with the GHG reductions in the CAP. The ICA only considers the costs incurred between 2026 and 2045. Table 9 compares the BCA and ICA and highlights key differences between them. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 409 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 24
Table 9 Comparison of BCA and ICA

4.2 Integrating BCA and ICA
Figure 11 demonstrates how the BCA and ICA are interconnected. As noted above, while these are two separate analyses, there are several ways in which information from the ICA is included in the BCA, and vice versa. For example, cost estimates for studies, compliance efforts, policy development, etc. from the ICA are included in the BCA as Administrator costs. Examples of where ICA costs were incorporated into the BCA as administrative include BD-1 (Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency), BD-2 (Require New Residential Development Decarbonization), BD-5 (Decarbonize Existing Buildings), and CET-6 (Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations), and CET-7 (Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations).

Similarly, subsidies and incentives provided by the City that are accounted for in the ICA are included in the BCA as Non-Participant costs. Several measures include subsidies for participants, including BD-5 (Decarbonize Existing Buildings), CS-3 (Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property), MCET-2 (Implement a Municipal Employee TDM Program), and ZE-2 (Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment).

Benefit-Cost Analysis Implementation Cost Analysis
Goal Determine costs and financial benefits
over the life of the projects related to
CAP measures
Determine costs to the City of Encinitas
to implement CAP measures
Perspective Residents, businesses, and, in some
cases, the City of Encinitas
City of Encinitas
Costs Incremental cost of equipment,
installation, maintenance, replacement,
utility costs, and program administration,
etc. Subsidies treated as cost reduction.

Total cost of equipment, installation,
consultants, studies, materials and
supplies, subsidies, etc.

Financial
Benefits
Utility bill reductions, vehicle fuel
reductions, etc.

Not considered
GHG
Emissions
Cumulative GHG emissions over the full
period of analysis. This differs from the
annual GHG values included in the CAP.

Not considered
Analysis
Period
From the project implementation year to
the final year of the useful life of the last
project implemented. Most projects start
in 2026 but the final year of analysis
ranges from 2045 to about 2070,
depending on the measure.
2026-2045
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 410 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 25
Also, ICA costs that are actual budget projections or defined by external funding are included in the BCA. As an example, estimated annual implementation costs from the ICA for CET-1 (Implement the Active Transportation Plan) were used as Participant costs in the BCA.

In cases where estimated Participant costs from the BCA are more up to date or accurate, they are included in the ICA. An example is MRE-1 (Install Microgrids with On-site Renewable Generation and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities). Data from BCA research represents the best available data for this measure and is included in the ICA. Additional measures where BCA research was used in ICA results include CS-3 (Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property), MCS-1 (Plant and Maintain City Trees), and MWE-1 (Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species).

Figure 11 How the BCA and ICA are Integrated
Table 10 summarizes which costs from the ICA were used in the BCA, and vice versa.

Costs to City
of Encintas
Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA)
A
Administrator
City of Encinitas
P
Participant
Residents, Businesses,
City of Encinitas
NP
Non-Participant
Subsidy
Study, compliance,
consultant costs, etc.

Subsidy, incentive,
free tree costs, etc.

Equipment, trees,
appliance costs, etc.

Financial Impact on
Residents and Busineses
Implementation
Cost Analysis (ICA)
Costs
Equipment, maintenance,
replacement, utility costs
Benefits
Utility bill reductions,
vehicle fuel reductions, etc.

Cost
Reduction
BCA Perspectives
M
Measure
M=A+P+NP
+
+
=
Where BCA cost
is more accurate
Where City
cost is defined
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 411 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 26
Table 10 Integration of BCA and ICA Cost
In general, the costs to implement CAP Update measures used in the ICA and BCA are consistent; however, as noted in Section 2.3.5, there are a few cases in which the costs differ between the two analyses. There are some measures that would require different types of projects or actions to achieve the GHG reductions in the CAP Update, each with different useful lives. For the BCA, in these cases, it is necessary to align the useful lives of different project types and may require the analysis to consider costs after 2045. For example, under CET-5 (Improve Traffic Flow), the City would install roundabouts and retime traffic signals. Since roundabouts have a 60-year useful life and traffic signal retiming has a 20-year useful life, it CAP Update Measure
ICA values
used in BCA
BCA values
used in ICA
BD-1: Existing Residential Energy Efficiency X
BD-2: New Residential Building Decarbonization X
BD-4: New Nonresidential Building Decarbonization X
BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization X
CS-3: Tree Planting on Private Property X
MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees X
CET-1: Active Transportation Projects X
CET-2: Flexible Fleet Program X
CET-3: TDM Programs in Redevelopment Projects X
CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled X
CET-6: Residential Electric Vehicle Charging X
CET-7: Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging X
MCET-2: TDM Programs for Municipal Employees X
RE-2: Nonresidential Solar Systems X
MRE-1: Municipal Solar and Battery Storage X
WE-2: Pre-Plumb for Greywater Systems X
MWE-1: Drought Tolerant or Native Species X
ZE-2: Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment X
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 412 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 27
would take multiple rounds of the traffic signal retiming to equal the full 60-year period for roundabouts. The BCA would include the costs and benefits of the full 60-year period for both roundabouts and traffic signal retiming while the ICA would only include the costs of each through 2045.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 413 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 28
5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
This section summarizes results for the BCA and ICA. More detailed results for each measure are presented in Section 6.

5.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis
Table 11 summarizes the BCA results for each measure and indicates the associated policy driver. Considering the 28 measures included in the BCA, the CAP Update would have an average net cost of about $245 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective.7 Average values reported throughout this report are weighted by cumulative tons reduced in the BCA. 8 The range of results is from a net benefit of about $500 per MT CO2e reduced to a net cost of about $22,000 per MT CO2e reduced.

The top 10 most cost-effective measures, which represent over 80 percent of cumulative GHG reductions in the BCA, would have an average net cost of about $58 per MT CO2e reduced (Table 11). For comparison, the cost of CO2 emissions allowances in the latest California Capand-Invest Program auction was about $30 per MT CO2e (CARB, 2025c). Six of these measures would have a net benefit per MT CO2e reduced, ranging from about $225 to $475 and would be considered the most cost effective. These measures represent about 3 percent of the cumulative GHG reduction from the analysis for this report. Three of these measures were included in the CAP adopted in 2018, one is proposed in the CAP Update, and one was mandated by the state. The two most cost-effective measures (MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Solar and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities and RE-2a: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems) have a net benefit of about $475 per MT CO2e reduced.

Five measures would have a net cost less than $100 per MT CO2e reduced. These measures would have an average net cost of about $70 per MT CO2e reduced and represent just under 80% of cumulative GHG reductions in the BCA. Of these measures, three were in the adopted 2018 CAP, one is proposed in the 2026 CAP Update, and one is state-mandated.

The seven least cost-effective measures have a net cost greater than $1,000 per MT CO2e reduced. These measures would range from a net cost of over $22,000 to $1,100 per MT CO2e reduced and account for about 7 percent of cumulative emissions reductions. Three of these are previously approved City plans or policies, two were adopted in the 2018 CAP, and two are proposed in the 2026 CAP Update. The two least cost-effective measure (MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species) and WE-2 (Require New SingleFamily Homes to be Pre-Plumbed for Graywater Systems) also have smallest GHG reduction of measure included in the BCA. Notably, WE-2 was approved and in effect prior to the adoption 7 The Measures perspective includes costs and benefits from the Administrator (City of Encinitas), Participant (residents and businesses), and Non-Participants (subsidies), as described in Section 2.2. 8 $/MT CO2e values for measures with higher GHG reductions influence the overall average more than measures with lower GHG reductions.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 414 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 29
of the 2018 CAP and focused primarily on reducing water usage. Including WE-2 in the CAP Update is taking account for emission reductions that are already occurring.

Table 11 Summary of BCA Results by CAP Measure and Policy Driver Measure Policy Driver
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)*
Measure
Perspective Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)**
MRE-1: Municipal Solar and Battery Storage*** 2018 CAP 5,939 $477 RE-2: Nonresidential Solar Systems*** 2018 CAP 4,192 $469 WE-1: Water Conservation State Mandated 11,403 $262
ZE-2: Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment 2026 CAP Update 18,628 $225 BD-1: Existing Residential Energy Efficiency 2018 CAP 3,563 $224 MBD-1: Existing Municipal Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 2,492 ($12) RE-1: Membership in San Diego Community Power 2018 CAP 298,014 ($59) ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program State Mandated 208,029 ($70) BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization 2026 CAP Update 752,374 ($74) BD-2: New Residential Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 18,119 ($76) CET-7: Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging 2018 CAP 15,976 ($127) MCET-3: Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations 2018 CAP 28,814 ($137) MCET-2: TDM Programs for Municipal Employees 2026 CAP Update 856 ($211) CET-6: Residential Electric Vehicle Charging 2018 CAP 17,438 ($231) BD-4: New Nonresidential Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 50,706 ($351) ZE-1: Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers 2018 CAP 738 ($409)
CET-3: TDM Programs in Redevelopment Projects 2026 CAP Update 38,352 ($433) CS-3: Tree Planting on Private Property 2026 CAP Update 1,532 ($505) CS-1: Tree Canopy 2026 CAP Update 7,498 ($574)
CS-2: Tree Requirement at New Developments Other City Plan or Policy 5,739 ($646) MCET-1: Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet State Mandated 1,319 ($732) CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled 2026 CAP Update 30,221 ($1,089) CET-5: Roundabouts and Traffic Signal Retiming Other City Plan or Policy 72,674 ($1,785) CET-2: Flexible Fleet Program 2018 CAP 1,995 ($3,296)
MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees 2018 CAP 1,416 ($4,571) CET-1: Active Transportation Projects Other City Plan or Policy 7,812 ($9,794) WE-2: Pre-Plumb for Greywater Systems Other City Plan or Policy 295 ($17,674) MWE-1: Drought Tolerant or Native Species 2026 CAP Update 130 ($22,188) Total / Average 1,606,266 ($244)
**All values are 2025$;
***BCA for this measure was completed using an hourly analysis. Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 *Over the time horizon of the analysis, depending on the effective useful life of the action. This value is different from the annual GHG reduction in the CAP Update for target year 2045.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 415 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 30

5.1.1 Results by Policy Driver
State mandated measures would have the lowest average net cost of about $60 per MT CO2e reduced and a cumulative GHG reduction in the BCA equivalent to about 15 percent of the total. The greenhouse gas reduction measures included in the 2018 CAP would have an average net cost of about $120 per MT CO2e reduced and account for about 30 percent of cumulative MT CO2e from the BCA. New measures that are proposed in the 2026 CAP Update would have a similar average net cost of about $130 per MT CO2e reduced and the largest cumulative GHG emission reduction (about 50 percent of total) of any policy driver. Other City plans or policies that were previously approved, would have the highest net cost of just over $1,700 per MT CO2e reduced but represent just 5 percent of cumulative GHG emissions reductions in the BCA. Taken together, the three policy drivers with the lowest net cost would have an average net cost of about $116 per MT CO2e reduced and represent about 95% of cumulative emissions reductions in the BCA.

Table 12 BCA Results by Policy Driver

5.1.2 Results for Municipal Measures and Those With Significant Capital Investment Table 13 summarizes results for municipal measures that affect City facilities or operations and measures for which the City would make a significant infrastructure investment or purchase.

This subset of measures would have an average net cost of about $1,500 per MT CO2e reduced and represent about 10 percent of cumulative GHG reductions. Six of these measures were adopted in the 2018 CAP, three are proposed in the CAP Update, and two were previously approved by Council or state mandated.

Policy Driver
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)*
Average Measure
Perspective Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)**
State Mandated 220,752 ($57)
2018 CAP 449,403 ($121)
2026 CAP Update 838,526 ($129)
Other City Plan or Policy 86,521 ($2,487)
Total / Average 1,595,202 ($245)
Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026
*Over time horizon of analysis, depending on the effective useful life of the action. This value is different from the annual GHG reduction in the CAP Update for target year 2045.
**All values are 2025$; Average value weighted by cumulative GHG reduction from BCA.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 416 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 31
Table 13 BCA Results for Municipal Measures or Measures with Significant Capital Investment

5.1.3 Potential Impact of Incentives
As noted above, to be conservative and to account for uncertainty, this analysis only included the impacts of subsidies anticipated to be provided by the City. It is possible that additional incentives could be available over the analysis period. Figure 12 illustrates the potential impacts of a range of subsidy levels on the cost effectiveness of all measures from the Participant perspective. Since subsides reduce Participant costs, results presented below are for the Participant Perspective only. This differs from other values presented in the Key Findings (Section 1.2.1) and Summary of Results (Section 5.1), which shows results for the Measure perspective. It is important to recognize that increasing subsidies would lower Participant costs but increase Non-Participant costs, so there would be no change to the current results for the Measure perspective.

The current overall cost effectiveness for the Participant Perspective for 28 measures included in this analysis would be about $240 per MT CO2e reduced. If there were subsidies available to reduce the present value Participants costs for all measures by 5 percent, this result would be $220 per MT CO2e reduced. If the Participant cost could be reduced by 20 percent, the result would be about $170 per MT CO2e reduced for the Participant perspective.

Measure Policy Driver
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)*
Measure
Perspective Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)**
MRE-1: Municipal Solar and Battery Storage*** 2018 CAP 5,939 $477 RE-2: Nonresidential Solar Systems*** 2018 CAP 4,192 $469 WE-1: Water Conservation State Mandated 11,403 $262
ZE-2: Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment 2026 CAP Update 18,628 $225 BD-1: Existing Residential Energy Efficiency 2018 CAP 3,563 $224 MBD-1: Existing Municipal Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 2,492 ($12) RE-1: Membership in San Diego Community Power 2018 CAP 298,014 ($59) ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program State Mandated 208,029 ($70) BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization 2026 CAP Update 752,374 ($74) BD-2: New Residential Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP 18,119 ($76) Total / Average 1,322,753 ($58)
**All values are 2025$;
***BCA for this measure was completed using an hourly analysis. Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 *Over the time horizon of the analysis, depending on the effective useful life of the action. This value is different from the annual GHG reduction in the CAP Update for target year 2045.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 417 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 32
Figure 12 Illustrative Impact of Subsidies on Participant Perspective Cost Effectiveness

5.2 Implementation Cost Analysis
This section provides an overview of the cost to the City to implement measures in the CAP update.

5.2.1 Impacts to the General Fund by CAP Measure
Table 14 and Table 15 summarize the one-time and annual cost impacts to the General Fund by CAP measure. Only measures that result in costs to the General Fund are included in these tables. Section 5.2.2 further summarizes the overall cost impacts to the General Fund as well as all other anticipated funding sources.

Table 14 Estimated One-Time Cost Impact to General Fund by CAP Measure (2025$) Reduction in
Present Value
Participant
Costs
Participant
Perspective Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
0% ($240)
5% ($222)
10% ($204)
15% ($186)
20% ($168)
*All values are 2025$
Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026
Measure Policy Driver
One-Time
Cost
2026 - 2030
One-Time
Cost
2031 - 2035
One-Time
Cost
2036 - 2040
One-Time
Cost
2041 - 2045
MCET-1: Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet State Mandated $128,925 $128,925 $0 $0 MRE-1: Municipal Solar and Battery Storage 2018 CAP $100,000 $0 $0 $0 CET-3: TDM Programs in Redevelopment Projects 2026 CAP Update $100,000 $0 $0 $0 BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization 2026 CAP Update $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 MBD-1: Existing Municipal Building Decarbonization 2018 CAP $45,000 $0 $0 $0 ZE-2: Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment 2026 CAP Update $0 $40,000 $0 $0 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 418 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 33
Table 15 Estimated Annual Ongoing Cost Impact to General Fund by CAP Measure (2025$)

5.2.2 Results by Anticipated Funding Source
Table 16, Table 17, and Figure 13 show the funding sources for CAP Update implementation costs. Total estimated annual costs to implement CAP Update measures range from $7.7 million to $8.3 million. About 56 percent of the estimated funding needed to implement CAP Update measures would come from sources other than the General Fund. Implementing CAP measures representing about 50 percent of total costs would be contingent upon grant funding. Similarly, one-time funding requirements total $7 million, with 89 percent contingent on grant funding.

Measure Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
CET-1: Active Transportation Projects Other City Plan or Policy $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 MWE-1: Drought Tolerant or Native Species 2026 CAP Update $308,148 $205,432 $205,432 $205,432 MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees 2018 CAP $77,870 $177,870 $277,870 $377,870 MCET-2: TDM Programs for Municipal Employees 2026 CAP Update $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 CCR-1: CAP Coordination and Reporting 2018 CAP $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 CS-3: Tree Planting on Private Property 2026 CAP Update $23,446 $23,446 $23,446 $23,446 BD-5: Existing Building Decarbonization 2026 CAP Update $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 CET-5: Roundabouts and Traffic Signal Retiming Other City Plan or Policy $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 419 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 34
Figure 13 Percentage of CAP Update Implementation Costs by Funding Source Table 16 Estimated One-Time Costs by Funding Source (2025$) Table 17 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs by Funding Source (2025$) Contingent on
Grant Funding
52% General Fund:

Other City Plan or
Policy
39%
General Fund: 2026 CAP Update
4%
General Fund: 2018 CAP
3%
General Fund: State
Mandated

0.1%
Enterprise
2% Awarded Grant Funding

0.2%
Fee Revenue

0.2%
Funding Source
One-Time Cost
2026 - 2030
One-Time Cost
2031 - 2035
One-Time Cost
2036 - 2040
One-Time Cost
2041 - 2045
Contingent on Grant Funding $3,120,000 $1,350,000 $2,001,072 $0 General Fund $423,925 $218,925 $0 $0
Awarded Grant Funding $222,000 $0 $0 $0
Enterprise $26,281 $0 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
Funding Source
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
General Fund $3,825,464 $3,822,748 $3,922,748 $4,022,748 Contingent on Grant Funding $3,716,150 $4,366,150 $3,866,150 $3,866,150 Enterprise $206,473 $206,473 $206,473 $206,473
Fee Revenue $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 $18,000
Awarded Grant Funding $8,400 $8,400 $8,400 $8,400
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 420 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 35

5.3 Potential Grant Funding Resources
Recognizing the City’s limited discretionary budget in the General Fund each fiscal year, grant funding will play a key role in implementing CAP measures. As identified in Figure 12, 50 percent of estimated implementation costs are contingent on grant funding. When identifying the funding source for the measures in the CAP Update, staff considered which measures could reasonably be grant funded, based on historic and current grant funding opportunities from regional, State, and federal agencies as well as grant funding previously awarded to the City.

Table 18 provides examples of possible grant funding sources associated with each measure identified as being contingent on grant funding. The specific grant programs in Table 18 are intended to be illustrative of grant funding that could assist with measure implementation as some of the programs may have expired or may not be the best fit for the City at the time of implementation.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 421 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 36
Table 18 Example Grant Funding Sources by CAP Measure
CAP Measure Example Grant Program (Agency)
BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings Member Agency Grant (San Diego Community Power)*
MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and
Decarbonization Projects at Existing Municipal
Facilities
Public Agency Funding Programs (San Diego
Regional Energy Network)
MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and
Decarbonization Projects at Existing Municipal
Facilities
SD Energy Link (San Diego Gas and Electric)*
MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Solar and
Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities
Community Resilience Center Grant Program
(California Strategic Growth Council)
MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Solar and
Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities
Public Agency Funding Programs (San Diego
Regional Energy Network)
CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (Caltrans)*
CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan Active Transportation Program (California Transportation Commission)
CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan Smart Growth Incentive Program (SANDAG)* CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program Flexible Fleets Pilot Grant Program (SANDAG) CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow Smart Growth Incentive Program (SANDAG) MCET-1: Transition to Zero Emission Vehicle
Municipal Fleet Power Your Drive (SDG&E)
MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations. Communities in Charge (CEC)
MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations.

California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project
(CALeVIP) (CEC)
MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations.

California’s National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Formula Program (CEC)
MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations.

Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program
(Federal Highway Administration)
CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City
Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program
(California Governor’s Office of Land Use and
Climate Innovation)
*The City has been awarded grant funding in previous cycles of this grant program 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 422 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 37
6 RESULTS BY MEASURE
This section summarizes results for the each of the measures included in the CAP Update Cost Analysis. Four measures were not included in the BCA because they did not have associated GHG reductions in the draft CAP Update. Of these ICA costs were only included for BD-3. As a result, MBD-2, MRE-2, and CS-4 are not included in this section. • BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency - This measure did not have an associated GHG reduction because the ordinance adopted was based on the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) but was not costeffective (and therefore not implementable) under the 2022 CALGreen. At the time of this Cost Analysis, the cost-effective analysis for this reach code option in the 2025 CALGreen was not available. Therefore, this measure could not be included in the BCA, but ICA costs are reported.
• MBD-2: Require New Municipal Facilities be All-Electric - The GHG reduction of this measure can be quantified once new municipal facilities are planned and designed.

Future new facilities currently anticipated to be built over the next 5 to 10 years include Fire Station No. 1 (reconstruction) and a new Fire Station No. 6. This measure was not included in the BCA or ICA because costs could not be estimated at this time. It is likely that the construction of all-electric facilities would be more affordable than constructing a mixed fuel facility.
• MRE-2: Require New Municipal Facilities to Install Microgrids with On-Site Solar and Battery Storage – For reasons similar to MBD-2 above, this measure was not included in the BCA or ICA because costs could not be estimated at this time. • CS-4: Adopt and Implement a Mature Tree Ordinance - The City is in the process of adopting a Mature Tree Ordinance with a proposed new replacement ratio requirement based on replacement tree locations and species. There are no GHG reductions were included in the CAP Update because the ordinance is still at the drafting stage with no implementation data available, and, therefore, this measure was not included in the BCA or ICA.

CCR-1 (CAP Coordination and Reporting) was added to the ICA to capture costs associated with the overall management of the CAP, coordinating across departments, and tracking and reporting progress. This measure is not included in the CAP Update and would not have an associated GHG reduction; therefore, it is not included in the BCA. ICA costs are reported for this measure.

Measures presented in this section are grouped by CAP Update strategy. For each measure, information is provided for data inputs and assumptions used in the BCA, a summary of BCA results, and a summary of estimated impact to City of Encinitas budget (ICA results). All subsidies anticipated to be provided by the City are included in the analysis. To account for uncertainty around other rebates and incentives from other sources, no additional subsidies (i.e., Non-Participant costs) were considered. If subsidies are available in the future, the cost effectiveness of measures would improve (Section 5.1.3). This section provides more 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 423 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 38
information about methods and assumptions used to assess the cost effectiveness and financial impacts of each CAP Update measure. Additional information on the specific methods used to estimate the GHG reductions resulting from CAP Update measures can be found in Section 7 of Appendix A of the CAP Update documents, including inputs, assumptions and formulas.

6.1 Building Decarbonization

6.1.1 BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency Measure BD-1 would readopt the energy efficiency code requirement for existing residential buildings (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle. The GHG emissions reduction estimate for this measure in the CAP Update is based on 500 existing homes completing retrofits by 2030 and 2,000 existing homes completing retrofits by 2045.

6.1.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Homeowners who implement energy efficiency retrofits would be the participants and incur the cost to install energy efficiency measures. Homeowners also would receive a benefit as this activity would reduce energy consumption and result in lower electric and natural gas bills. The BCA assumed that homeowners would implement the Water Heater Package because it is the most cost-effective of the eligible energy efficiency retrofits to demonstrate compliance with the reach code. The package includes an R-6 water heater blanket, R-3 hot water pipe insulation, and low-flow fixtures (CEC&S, 2025b). Table 19 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the benefit cost analysis of Measure BD-1.

Table 19 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure BD-1
Description Input* Source
Incremental Retrofit Cost ($/home) $125.68 (CEC&S). 2025b Electricity Rate- Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Natural Gas Rate- Residential ($/therm) $2.69 SDG&E, 2026 Electricity Savings (kWh/home/yr) N/A CEC&S, 2025
Natural Gas Savings (therms/home/yr) 17 CEC&S, 2025
Number of SFH Covered by Ordinance (homes/year) 104 City of Encinitas, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2e/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Natural Gas Emissions Rate (MT CO2e per therm) 0.005 EPIC, 2026 Useful Life (years) 15 CEC&S, 2025
Discount Rate (%) 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 424 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 39
BCA results for BD-1 show an overall net benefit of about $225 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. The BCR would be greater than one, indicating that the estimated present value benefits are greater than the present value costs. The discounted payback would be five years for Participants. This is the point when the cumulative discounted benefits are greater than the cumulative discounted costs over the analysis period. Table 20 summarizes the BCA results for BD-1.

Table 20 BCA Results Measures BD-1

6.1.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 21 shows the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement Measures BD-1. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing BD-1 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250, which will be paid by fee revenue, to cover the cost of plan review and building inspection by contract staff for developments that must comply with the building code requirement. No one-time costs are associated with BD-1.

Table 21 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-1 (2025$)

6.1.2 BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization Measure BD-2 would readopt the high-performance code requirement (“reach code”) that encourages all-electric construction for new buildings via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle. The GHG emissions reduction estimate for this measure in the CAP Update is based on the goal for 75 percent of new homes to be all-electric by 2045.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 3,563 ($9) N/A N/A
Participant (P) Homeowners,
Renters 3,563 $233 5.3 5
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 3,563 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 3,563 $224 4.5 6
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

6.1.2.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
While home builders would incur the initial cost of installing the energy upgrades, the analysis assumes that homebuyers and renters would be the participants and incur the incremental cost of heat pump or electric water heating and space heating/cooling equipment in multifamily units and heat pump or electric space heating/cooling, cooking, and clothes drying equipment in single-family units (CEC&S, 2024b). They also would receive the benefits in the form of lower electric and natural gas bills. In the statewide cost-effectiveness study on which these results were based, it is less expensive to replace natural gas appliances with electric versions in single family homes. This is represented in Table 22 as a negative value (i.e., overall savings). Costs for this measure were taken from the 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction report. The report states that the “associated costs included the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and natural gas infrastructure, and the associated infrastructure costs for providing natural gas to the building.” (CEC&S, 2024b)
To derive a single GHG emission reduction result for the package of measures, it was necessary to analyze different equipment types over the same time period. To accomplish this, cooking and clothes drying equipment were replaced at the end of their effective useful life in order understand the costs and benefits over the effective useful life of heat pump technologies. To simplify this analysis, modifications were made to the useful lives of cooking and clothes drying equipment to require only one replacement over this period.

Table 22 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure BD-2. This analysis uses a volumetric ($/kWh) electricity rate to estimate the impact on electric use from building electrifications. This value includes some average costs related to demand charges ($/kW), but this analysis does not specifically estimate the impact on demand charges.

Also, since new buildings are required to have solar photovoltaics, a portion of the electric consumption from devices included in the analysis for BD-2 would be supplied from solar and not the grid. The BCA analysis did not take this into account. A more detailed, hourly analysis would be necessary to estimate impacts of demand charges and solar electricity production. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 426 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 41
Table 22 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure BD-2
BCA results for BD-2 show net cost of about $76 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Because this measure has a negative cost (i.e., savings) to convert to electric appliances, there is no incremental upfront investment to recover, therefore BCR and discounted payback are not defined. Table 23 summarizes the BCA results for BD-2.

Description Input* Source
Energy Package Incremental Cost - Single-Family ($/home)** ($7,091) CEC&S, 2024 Energy Package Incremental Cost - Multi-Family ($/unit) $742 CEC&S, 2020 Incremental Replacement Cost - Cooking Appliances ($/each) $1,292 CA eTRM, 2025 Incremental Replacement Cost - Heat Pump Clothes Dryer ($/each) $1,480 CA eTRM, 2025 Electricity Rate- Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Natural Gas Rate- Residential ($/therm) $2.69 SDG&E, 2026 SF Natural Gas Saving with All-Electric (therms/home/yr) 69 CEC&S, 2024 MF Natural Gas Saving with All-Electric (therms/home/yr) 102 CEC&S, 2020 SF Electricity Added with All-Electric Code Minimum (kWh/home/yr) 1,293 CEC&S, 2024 MF Electricity Added with All-Electric Code Minimum (kWh/home/yr) 704 CEC&S, 2020 Number of new All-Electric Homes-Single-Family (homes/year) 14 CEC&S, 2024 Number of new All-Electric Homes-Multi-Family (homes/year) 44 CEC&S, 2020 Electric Emissions Rate (MT CO2e per therm) Varies
by year EPIC, 2026
Natural Gas Emissions Rate (MT CO2e per therm) 0.005 EPIC, 2026 Effective Useful Life (years) - Cooking Appliances 10 CEC&S, 2024; CEC&S, 2020; Assumed 10 years for simplification
Effective Useful Life (years) - Heat Pump Clothes Dryer 10 CEC&S, 2024; CEC&S, 2020; Assumed 10 years for simplification
Effective Useful Life (years) - Heat Pump HVAC 20 CEC&S, 2024; CEC&S, 2020; Assumed 20 years for simplification
Effective Useful Life (years - Heat Pump Water Heater 20 CEC&S, 2024; CEC&S, 2020; Assumed 20 years for simplification
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$
**In this case, a negative value is considered a savings. Energy Policy Initiatives Center, 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 427 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 42
Table 23 BCA Results for Measure BD-2

6.1.2.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 24 shows the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement Measure BD-2. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing BD-2 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250, which will be paid by fee revenue, to cover the cost of plan review and building inspection by contract staff for developments that trigger the existing residential energy efficiency building code requirement. No one-time costs are associated with BD-2.

Table 24 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measures BD-2 (2025$)

6.1.3 BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency Measure BD-3 would readopt an existing commercial energy efficiency building code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle, if cost effective. City of Encinitas would develop a reach code for City Council consideration and adoption, conduct training on new code requirements for the public and City staff, and implement the reach code for all applicable existing commercial building permit applications.

As noted at the beginning of Section 6, this measure does not have an associated GHG reduction in the CAP Update.

6.1.3.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
As explained at the beginning of Section 6, this measure was not included in the BCA.

6.1.3.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 25 shows the estimated annual ongoing cost the City is expected to incur to implement Measure BD-3. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing BD-3 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250, which will be paid by fee revenue, to cover the cost of plan review and building inspection by contract staff for developments that trigger the existing residential energy efficiency building code requirement. No one-time costs are associated with BD-3.

Table 25 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-3 (2025$)

6.1.4 BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization Measure BD-4 would adopt a code requirement for new nonresidential buildings via ordinance for the 2025 State Building Code cycle and future cycles. The GHG emissions reduction estimate for this measure in the CAP Update is based on the goal of capturing 75 percent of newly constructed medium office and small hotel building area, about 250,000 square feet annually.9

6.1.4.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Nonresidential building owners would be the participant and incur the cost to install heat pump or electric water heating and space heating/cooling equipment. Building owners or occupants would receive a benefit as this activity would reduce energy consumption and result in lower electric and natural gas bills. Table 26 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure BD-4. This analysis only considers volumetric ($/kWh) electricity rate savings and not demand charge ($/kW) reductions. A more detailed, hourly analysis would be necessary to estimate these impacts. Also, since new buildings are required to have solar photovoltaics, a portion of the electric consumption from devices included in the analysis for BD-2 would be supplied from solar and not the grid. The BCA analysis did not take this into account. A more detailed, hourly analysis also would be necessary to estimate these impacts.
9 Medium retail buildings would already be required to include decarbonization measures. Similar measures were shown not to be cost effective for quick service restaurants. See California Energy Codes and Standards: A Statewide Utility Program. 2025. 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Buildings Single Family Building Upgrades.

Available at
https://localenergycodes.com/download/1222/file_path/fieldList/Single%20Family%20Retrofits%20CostEff%20Repo rt.pdf.

Table 27 BCA Results for Measure BD-4
Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost for Energy Package ($/square foot) $2.72 CEC&S, 2024a Annual Electricity Added (kWh/square foot) 2.1 CEC&S, 2024a Annual Gas Savings (therms/square foot) 0.1 CEC&S, 2024a Electricity Rate - Commercial ($/kWh) $0.36 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Natural Gas Rate - Commercial ($/therm) $1.50 SDG&E, 2026b Useful Life (years) 20 CEC&S, 2024a
Discount Rate (%) 3% CEC&S, 2025
Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2e/MWh) Varies by year EPIC, 2026 Natural Gas Emissions Rate (MT CO2e per therm) 0.005 EPIC, 2026 *All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 50,706 ($1) N/A N/A Participant (P)
Non-Residential
Building Owners,
Occupants
50,706 ($350) N/A N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 50,706 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 50,706 ($351) N/A N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 430 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 45

6.1.4.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 28 shows the estimated annual ongoing cost the City is expected to incur to implement Measure BD-4. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing BD-4 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250, which will be paid by fee revenue to cover the cost of plan review and building inspection by contract staff for developments that trigger the existing residential energy efficiency building code requirement. No one-time costs are associated with BD-4.

Table 28 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-4 (2025$)

6.1.5 BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings
Through decarbonization in residential and nonresidential buildings, Measure BD-5 would reduce the 2016 baseline citywide natural gas use by about 68 percent by 2045 in existing buildings.

6.1.5.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The BCA used a mix of nonresidential and residential building measures to achieve a natural gas reduction consistent with the overall CAP Update goal for Measure BD-5. The analysis used data from the Electronic Technical Resource Manual (eTRM) for measures that replace natural gas use with electricity use (i.e., fuel substitution).

Homeowners that implement fuel substitution measures would be participants and incur the cost to install electric cooking appliances and heat pump technologies for clothes dryers, space heating/cooling equipment, domestic water heating, and pool heating. Nonresidential building owners also would be participants and incur the cost to install electric cooking equipment, including fryers and ovens, and heat pump technologies for water heating and space heating/cooling. Building owners would receive a benefit as this activity would reduce overall energy consumption and lower electric and natural gas bills.

Table 29 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure BD-5. This analysis only considers volumetric ($/kWh) electricity rate savings and not demand charge ($/kW) impacts. A more detailed, hourly analysis would be necessary to estimate impact on demand charges.

Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost of Equipment ($) Varies by
technology eTRM, 2025
Residential Natural Gas Reduction (therms) 174,998 Encinitas, 2026a Commercial Natural Gas Reduction (therms) 81,730 Encinitas, 2026a Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Natural Gas Rate - Residential ($/therm) $2.69 SDG&E, 2026a Electricity Rate - Commerical ($/kWh) $0.36 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Natural Gas Rate - Commercial($/therm) $1.50 SDGE GN-3, Effective Jan 10, 2026 Electricity Reduction/Addition (kWh) varies eTRM, 2025
Natural Gas Reduction (therms) Varies by
technology eTRM, 2025
Distribution of Natural Gas Savings among
eTRM measures
Varies by
technology NLR, 2026a; NLR, 2026b
Distribution of Electricity Reduction/Additions
among eTRM measures
Varies by
technology NLR, 2026a; NLR, 2026b
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
MT CO2e per therm 0.005 EPIC, 2016
Useful Life (years) varies eTRM, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 432 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 47
Table 30 BCA Results for Measures BD-5

6.1.5.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 31 and Table 32 show the estimated annual ongoing costs and one-time costs, respectively, that the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing BD-5 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $20,000, which is expected to be paid from the General Fund, to expand the Green Building Incentive Program to provide subsidies for electrification of existing buildings. The total one-time cost associated with BD-5 is $250,000. The one-time cost includes $150,000 to conduct a building and housing stock electrification analysis, which is contingent on grant funding. The one-time cost also includes $100,000 to develop and implement an ordinance and program aimed at advancing building electrification from 2026 to 2035. This portion of the one-time cost is expected to be paid from the City’s General Fund
Table 31 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure BD-5 (2025$) Table 32 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure BD-5 (2025$) Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 752,374 ($0.12) N/A N/A Participant (P) Homeowners, Renters, NonResidential Building Owners 752,374 ($73) 0.51 N/A Non-Participant (NP) City of Encinitas 752,374 ($0.40) N/A N/A Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 752,374 ($74) 0.51 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
General Fund 2026 CAP Updated $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2026 CAP Updated $150,000 $0 $0 $0 General Fund 2026 CAP Updated $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 433 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 48

6.1.6 MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and Decarbonization Projects at Existing Municipal Facilities
Under Measures MBD-1, the City of Encinitas would install energy efficiency measures and electric appliances and equipment at all municipal facilities. The GHG reduction estimate in the CAP Update is based on the goal of maintaining municipal facilities’ energy (electricity and natural gas use) at or below 8,000 MMBtu. To achieve this, the City would reduce or substitute natural gas use at municipal facilities through energy efficiency, and conservation, and electrification projects.

6.1.6.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
For this measure, the City of Encinitas would be the Participant and incur the cost to install energy efficiency and fuel substitution measures, including heat pump technologies for water heating and space heating/cooling. The City also would receive a benefit as this activity would reduce overall energy consumption and result in lower electric and natural gas bills. Table 33 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure MBD-1. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 434 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 49
Table 33 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MBD-1
BCA results for Measure MBD-1 show a net cost of about $10 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR less than one for the Measure Perspective. It is not possible to calculate a discounted payback for this measure because costs are not recovered over the analysis period. Table 34 summarizes the BCA results for this measure.

Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost of Equipment ($) Varies by
technology eTRM, 2025
Commercial Natural Gas Reduction (therms) 81,730 Encinitas, 2026a Electricity Rate - Commerical ($/kWh) $0.36 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Natural Gas Rate - Commercial ($/therm) $1.50 SDGE GN-3, Effective Jan 10, 2026
Electricity Reduction/Addition (kWh) Varies by
technology eTRM, 2025
Natural Gas Reduction (therms) Varies by
technology eTRM, 2025
Distribution of Natural Gas Savings among
eTRM measures
Varies by
technology NLR, 2026a; NLR, 2026b
Distribution of Electricity Reduction/Additions
among eTRM measures
Varies by
technology NLR, 2026a; NLR, 2026b
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
MT CO2e per therm 0.005 EPIC, 2026
Electric Emissions Rate (MT CO2e/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Useful Life (years) Varies by
technology eTRM, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 435 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 50
Table 34 BCA Results for Measure MBD-1

6.1.6.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 35 summarizes estimated one-time costs the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing Measure MBD-1 would result in a one-time cost of $45,000 from the General Fund in 2026-2030 for the Facilities Condition Assessment to consider energy efficiency and electrification opportunities at City facilities. This measure would also result in one-time costs of $500,000 during 2031-2035 and 2036-2040, which would be contingent on grant funding, to install energy efficiency and electrification measures at City facilities. San Diego Regional Energy Network public agency programs have been identified as a potential source for grant funding for Measure MBD-1. Other State and federal grant funding opportunities for installation of energy efficiency measures and all-electric appliances have existed in the past and may also become available in the future. There are no ongoing costs associated with Measure MBD-1.

Table 35 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MBD-1 (2025$) Estimated City implementation costs differ from benefit-cost analysis results for Measure MBD1 as the City implementation costs estimate the entire cost of equipment replacement, while the benefit-cost analysis includes the incremental cost to install efficient and electric equipment and to replace equipment at the end of its useful.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**Discounted
Payback (Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 2,492 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 2,492 ($12) 0.9 N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 2,492 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 2,492 ($12) 0.9 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2018 CAP $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 General Fund 2018 CAP $45,000 $0 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 436 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 51

6.2 Carbon Sequestration

6.2.1 CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City
Measure CS-1 would evaluate the City’s current urban tree canopy and establish a goal for increasing the City’s urban tree canopy. The City’s current tree canopy is estimated to be 22 percent (City of San Diego, 2016) and the CAP Update GHG reduction from this measure is based on achieving 25 percent tree canopy by 2030 and 30 percent by 2045.

6.2.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
There would be multiple participants for this measure, including the City of Encinitas, and residential and nonresidential property owners. Participants would incur all planting, replanting, and maintenance costs. Because GHG reductions from this measure derive from the natural ability of trees to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store carbon, no financial benefits are included in the analysis. Other non-financial benefits could accrue to building owners and the public, including increased property value (Kovacs, K., et al. 2022), shade, and beautification, but are not considered in the BCA. The analysis assumes that a percentage of trees will not survive and will have to be removed and replaced. Therefore, the total number of trees planted in the analysis is higher than the CAP Update targets. Tree costs for this measure are expressed on an annual basis to align with recurring maintenance and lifecycle assumptions, rather than as a one-time installation cost. Table 36 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CS-1.

Table 36 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CS-1
BCA results for CS-1 show a net cost of about $575 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Because there are no financial benefits to participants from this measure, it is not Description Inputs* Source
Average Cost - Medium Tree ($/tree/year) $28 Tree People, 2021 Life Expectancy (years) 24 Tree People, 2021
Annual Mortality Rate 4% Tree People, 2021
Number of Trees Planted per Year through 2045 1,413 Calculated Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
Sequestration Rate (MTCO2e/tree/year) 0.035 CALEEMOD, 2022 CAP Target 2045 (additonal acres with trees) 626 Encinitas, 2026 CAP Target 2045 (new trees required to reach
27% Urban Canopy Cover) 27,583 Calculated
Additional Trees Needed 16,269 Calculated
Tree Density (trees/acre) 29 Baer, K. C., et al. 2017
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 437 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 52
possible to calculate the BCR or discounted payback. Table 37 summarizes the BCA results for CS-1.

Table 37 BCA Results for Measure CS-1

6.2.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 38 summarizes estimated one-time costs the City is expected to incur to implement the Measure CS-1. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing Measure CS-1 would result in a one-time cost in 2026-2030, which would be contingent on grant funding, to conduct the LiDAR study and analysis to determine the current and feasible target tree canopy coverage.

Grant funding for Measure CS-1 may be available from the statewide Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program (LUCI, 2026) or other potential future sources. There are no ongoing costs associated with this Measure CS-1.

Table 38 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CS-1 (2025$)

6.2.2 CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments Measure CS-2 would continue to implement the City’s current tree and landscape requirements by enforcing the municipal code parking area landscape requirement of tree planting: a minimum of one tree for every five parking spaces in new construction projects (residential and nonresidential) and additions to existing multi-family and nonresidential buildings. The GHG reduction estimate in the CAP Update for Measure CS-2 is based on the property owners planting 3,200 new trees by 2030 and 6,800 by 2045.

Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2026 CAP Update $50,000 $0 $0 $0 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 438 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 53

6.2.2.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Developers would incur the initial cost; however, for purposes of this analysis, homeowners, multifamily building owners, and nonresidential building owners would be the participants and incur the cost to install, maintain, and replace trees as needed. There are no financial benefits included in the analysis. As with other tree-related measures, other non-financial benefits could accrue to building owners and the public, including shade and beautification but these are not quantifiable. Because the analysis assumes that a percentage of trees will not survive and will have to be replaced, the total number of trees planted is higher than the CAP Update targets.

Table 39 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CS-2.

Table 39 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CS-2
BCA results for CS-2 show a net cost of about $650 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Because there are no financial benefits to participants from this measure, it is not possible to calculate the BCR and discounted payback. Table 40 summarizes the BCA results for CS-2.

Description Inputs* Source
Average Cost - Medium Residential Tree ($/tree/year) $28 Tree People, 2021 Average Cost - Medium Nonresidential Tree ($/tree/year) $41 Tree People, 2021 Life Expectancy (years) 24 Tree People, 2021
Annual Mortality Rate 4% Tree People, 2021
Number of Nonresidential Trees Planted per Year
through 2045 266 EPIC; Calculated
Number of Residential Trees Planted per Year through
2045 40 EPIC; Calculated
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
Sequestration Rate (MTCO2e/tree/year) 0.035 CALEEMOD, 2022 CAP Target 2045 (number of new trees) 6,834 EPIC; Calculated *All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 439 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 54
Table 40 BCA Results for Measures CS-2

6.2.2.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
There are no ongoing or one-time costs to the City associated with Measure CS-2. All costs are borne by the participant, which in this case are the residential and non-residential property owners. The cost for the City to review applications for compliance with the current tree and landscape requirements would be negligible.

6.2.3 CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private Property Under Measure CS-3, starting in 2026, the City of Encinitas would give away 100 trees per year to residents and businesses to plant on private property. The GHG reduction estimate in the CAP Update is based on 500 trees planted by 2030 and 2,000 by 2045.

6.2.3.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Private property owners would be the participant for this measure. Trees would be provided at no cost to the property owners, but they would incur maintenance and replacement costs, if necessary. No financial benefits are considered in the analysis (see 6.2.2). The City of Encinitas would be the Non-Participant, since it would pay the cost of the trees. No financial benefits would accrue to the City of Encinitas from this measure. Table 41 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CS-3. Because the analysis assumes that a percentage of trees will not survive and will have to be replaced, the total number of trees planted is higher than the CAP Update targets.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 5,739 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) Residential and Nonresidential Property Owners 5,739 ($646) N/A N/A Non-Participant (NP) N/A 5,739 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 5,739 ($646) N/A N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 440 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 55
Table 41 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CS-3
BCA results for CS-3 show a net cost of about $500 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Residential and non-residential property owners who receive free trees would have a net cost of about $275 per MT CO2e reduced due to ongoing maintenance and replacement costs. The City of Encinitas would incur the cost of providing free trees, resulting in a net cost of about $230 per MT CO2e reduced. Because there is no financial benefit to the City of Encinitas or the residents, it is not possible to calculate a BCR or discounted payback. Table 42 summarizes the BCA results for CS-3.

Description Inputs* Source
Cost to Purchase Tree ($/tree) $105 City of Vista as reference, 2025 Residential Medium Yard Tree ($/tree/year) $27 Tree People, 2021 Commercial Medium Tree ($/tree/year) $41 Tree People, 2021 Maintenance - Residential ($/tree/year) $7 Tree People, 2021 Maintenance - Nonresidential ($/tree/year) $18 Tree People, 2021 Removal - Residential ($/tree/year) $3 Tree People, 2021 Removal - Nonresidential ($/tree/year) $5 Tree People, 2021 Life Expectancy (years) 24 Tree People, 2021
Annual Mortality Rate (%) 7% Roman, L.A., et al. (2014) Percent of trees never planted 15% Roman, L.A., et al. (2014) Number of Residential Trees Planted per year through 2045 95 Calculated Number of Commercial Trees Planted per year through 2045 95 Calculated Number of Total Trees Required per year to Reach Target 223 Calculated CAP Target 2045 (number of new trees) 2,000 Calculated
Sequestration Rate (MTCO2e/tree/year) 0.04 CALEEMOD, 2022 Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 441 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 56
Table 42 BCA Results for Measure CS-3

6.2.3.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 43 summarizes the ongoing costs for Measure CS-3. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred.

Implementing Measure CS-3 would result in an ongoing budget need of $23,446 annually from the General Fund through 2045 to fund a tree giveaway or rebate program for residents and businesses. There are no one-time costs associated with Measure CS-3.

Table 43 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CS-3 (2025$)

6.2.4 MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees
Measure MCS-1 would plant and maintain City trees in accordance with the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan. The GHG reduction estimate in the CAP Update is based on an average of 1,900 net new trees to City's tree inventory, and 3,400 net new trees by 2045.

6.2.4.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The City of Encinitas would be the participant for this measure and would incur costs to plant, maintain, and replant trees, as needed, on City property. No financial benefits would accrue to the City of Encinitas from this measure. Table 44 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure MCS-1. Because the analysis assumes that a percentage of trees will not survive and will have to be replaced, the total number of trees planted is higher than the CAP Update targets.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
General Fund 2026 CAP Update $23,446 $23,446 $23,446 $23,446 All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center; City of Encinitas, 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 442 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 57
Table 44 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCS-1
BCA results for MCS-1 show a net cost of about $4,500 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Because there is no financial benefit to the City of Encinitas, it is not possible to calculate a benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback. Table 45 summarizes the BCA results for MCS-1.

Table 45 BCA Results for Measure MCS-1

6.2.4.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 46 summarizes the ongoing costs for Measure MCS-1. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred.

Implementing Measure MCS-1 would result in an ongoing budget need growing from approximately $76,000 annually in 2026 to $376,000 by 2041, based on the number of trees Description Inputs* Source
Purchase and Planting Cost ($/tree) $158 City of Encinitas, 2025d Annual Maintenance Cost($/tree/year) $200 City of Encinitas, 2025d Average Removal Cost - Young Tree ($/tree) 350 City of Encinitas, 2025d Average Removal Cost - Mature Tree ($/tree) $1,500 City of Encinitas, 2025d Life Expectancy (years) 20 City of Encinitas, 2025d
Mortality Rate 4% City of Encinitas, 2025d
Number of Trees Planted per Year 2026-2045 104 Calculated Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
GHGs (MTCO2e/tree/year) 0.035 CALEEMOD, 2022
CAP Target 2045 (number of new trees) 3,375 Calculated
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 1,416 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 1,416 ($4,571) N/A N/A Non-Participant (NP) N/A 1,416 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 1,416 ($4,571) N/A N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 443 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 58
needing maintenance. Tree removal is expected to be funded from the General Fund and costs about $1,500 annually. There are no one-time costs associated with this Measure MCS-1.

Table 46 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure MCS-1 (2025$)

6.3 Clean and Efficient Transportation

6.3.1 CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan
Measure CET-1 would continue to implement the Citywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP) based on the Modal Alternatives Project (MAP, i.e., ATP Implementation Plan) project prioritization. The GHG reduction estimate in the CAP Update is based on implementation of about 45 percent of the ATP by 2045, which would reduce vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by nearly 360,000 in 2030 and 4 million in 2045.

6.3.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
This measure would have two participants: City of Encinitas and residents who use the ATP facilities. City of Encinitas would incur the cost of implementing the projects in the ATP, including bicycle facilities (i.e., Class I, II, IIB, III, IIIB, IV), pedestrian facilities (i.e., sidewalks, trails, and crosswalks), road edge enhancement, roundabouts, traffic circles, pedestrian crossing/bridges, pedestrian signals, and undercrossing projects. No financial benefits would accrue to the City, because the facilities are intended to be used by residents and visitors.

Residents who use constructed active transportation facilities would not incur any costs but would receive the benefit of lower gasoline and electricity costs resulting from fewer miles driven. Table 47 summarizes the main data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CET-1.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost*
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost*
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost*
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost*
2041 - 2045
General Fund 2018 CAP $76,411 $176,411 $276,411 $376,411 General Fund 2018 CAP $1,458 $1,458 $1,458 $1,458
*Costs represent average annual costs over the 5-year period All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center; City of Encinitas, 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 444 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 59
Table 47 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-1 BCA results for CET-1 show a net cost of about $9,800 per MT CO2e reduced and BCR less than one for the Measure Perspective. This result is due to the high capital costs associated with the projects implemented for this measure (e.g., bike lanes, sidewalks, etc.) and the relatively low GHG reduction. From the perspective of residents who use the active transportation projects, this measure would have a net benefit of $1,250 per MT CO2e reduced due to lower vehicle fuel costs. Because there is no financial benefit to the City of Encinitas and no cost to the residents, it is not possible to calculate a benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback for other perspectives. Table 48 summarizes the BCA results for CET-1.

Table 48 BCA Results for Measure CET-1
Description Input* Source
ATP Implementation Cost Based on
reports Chen Ryan, 2023; Kimley Horn, 2024
Gasoline Cost ($/gal) 4.48 EIA, 2025
Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by year EMFAC, 2021 Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by year EMFAC, 2021 Useful Life (years) 60 FHA, 2013
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by year EPIC, 2026 Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 7,812 ($29) N/A N/A Participant (P) City of Encinitas 7,812 ($11,017) N/A N/A Participant (P) Residents 7,812 $1,251 N/A N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 7,812 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 7,812 ($9,794) 0.1 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 445 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 60

6.3.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 49 shows the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement Measure CET-1. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing CET-1 would result in an annual ongoing cost through 2045 to the General Fund of $5,000 for implementation actions as part of the 2018 CAP and $3.3M for actions otherwise previously approved by City Council. This estimated cost reflects the average historical expenditures by the City for active transportation infrastructure projects. There would be an additional $2.5M cost through 2045, which would be contingent on grant funding assist with implementation of mobility projects for this measure.

There are no one-time costs associated with CET-1.

Table 49 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-1 (2025$)

6.3.2 CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program
CET-2 would implement a microtransit program in the City of Encinitas. While the GHG reduction goal in the CAP Update is based on replacing the Encinitas Circulator and in the COASTER connection by 2030 with two cutaway minibuses, the BCA assumes that the City would hire a company to provide the microtransit service in the City of Encinitas.

6.3.2.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
This measure would have two participants: City of Encinitas and residents and visitors who ride the microtransit system. The City assumes that another entity would incur the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and fueling the minibuses as part of a pilot program similar to other pilot programs in the region. Because the minibuses are intended to be used by residents and visitors, no financial benefits accrue to the City. Residents who ride the minibuses would pay a nominal fee and would receive the benefit of lower vehicle fuel costs. Table 50 summarizes the main data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CET-2.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
General Fund Other City Plan or Policy $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 Contingent on Grant Funding Other City Plan or Policy $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 446 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 61
Table 50 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-2 BCA results for CET-2 show a net cost of about $3,300 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR less than one for the Measure Perspective. This result is due in part to the cost the City of Encinitas would incur to fund the microtransit program. Residents who use the microtransit program would incur a cost to participate but would also accrue benefits from reduced fossil fuel use.

For them, this measure would have a net cost of about $150 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR less than one. Table 51 summarizes the BCA results for CET-2.

Description Input* Source
Microtransit System Cost ($/year) $600,000 City of Encinitas, 2026c Average Transit Fare ($/person/trip) $2.50 NCTD, 2026
Electricity Rate - Commerical ($/kWh) $0.36 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by year EMFAC, 2021 Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by year EMFAC, 2021 Fuel Efficiency (kWh/mile) 2.8 MTS, 2025
Useful Life (years) 7 MTS, 2020
Passengers per Year 37,422 Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2014
Number of Microtransit Vehicles 2 Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2014 Miles Avoided from Microtransit Program
(miles/year) 43,922 Parsons Brinkerhoff, 2014
Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
Discount Rate (%) 3% CEC&S, 2025
Useful Life (years) 60 FHA, 2013
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by year EPIC, 2026 Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 447 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 62
Table 51 BCA Results for Measure CET-2

6.3.2.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 52 and Table 53 show the estimated annual ongoing costs and one-time costs, respectively, that the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. The City has been awarded $222,000 in grant funding to complete a Microtransit Study to determine the ideal program design for the City of Encinitas. The study will consider both on-demand and fixed route options of various sizes and service capacity. The program is anticipated to require an additional $600,000 annually in grant funding beginning in 2031.

Table 52 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-2 (2025$) Table 53 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CET-2 (2025$)

6.3.3 CET-3: Require Transportation Demand Management Programs for New Residential, Nonresidential, and Major Redevelopment Projects CET-3 would require new residential, nonresidential, and major redevelopment projects to implement transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to mitigate the traffic impacts of projects. The GHG reduction goal in the CAP Update is based on an annual reduction of five Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 1,995 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 1,995 ($3,146) N/A N/A Participant (P) Residents 1,995 ($150) 0.8 N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 1,995 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 1,995 ($3,296) 0.1 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2018 CAP $0 $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Awarded Grant Funding 2018 CAP $222,000 $0 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 448 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 63
million VMT in 2030 and 28 million VMT in 2045 as a result of the TDM strategies implemented.

6.3.3.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The BCA analysis is based on the implementation of a program similar to the San Diego Association of Governments’ Try Transit program.10 This measure would have two participants.

Project developers or employers would cover the initial cost of monthly transit passes. Because the program would be intended for residents and employees, no financial benefits accrue to the project developer or employers. Residents and employees who participate in the program would incur costs of ongoing transit passes but would receive the benefit of lower gasoline and electricity costs resulting from lower vehicle fuel use. Table 54 summarizes the main data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CET-3.

Table 54 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-3 Overall, results for CET-3 show a net cost of $430 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR less than one. From the perspective of the developer or employer (Non-Participant), who would initially subsidize transportation alternatives, CET-3 would have a net cost of about $70 per MT CO2e reduced. Residents who participate in the program would have a net cost of about $365 per MT CO2e reduced. Table 55 summarizes the BCA results for CET-3. 10 https://www.sandag.org/projects-and-programs/regional-initiatives/sustainable-transportation-services/commuterprograms/try-transit. Additional options such as vanpool and carpool could be evaluated in a future analysis.

Description Input* Source
SANDAG Try Transit Program (cost/participant) $88 SANDAG. 2023 Regional Adult Month Pass ($/month) $72 NCTD, 2025
Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Efficiency (kWh/mile) 2.8 MTS, 2025
Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 449 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 64
Table 55 BCA Results for Measure CET-3

6.3.3.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 56 shows the estimated one-time costs that the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing CET-3 would result in a one-time cost of $100,000 to develop a TDM ordinance between 2031 and 2035, which is expected to be paid from the General Fund. No ongoing costs are associated with CET-3.

Table 56 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CET-3 (2025$)

6.3.4 CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled
Measures CET-4 would develop and implement a comprehensive set of studies, programs, and regulations to work towards a citywide VMT reduction. The GHG reduction from this measure in the CAP Update is based on reducing VMT per capita to 5 percent below the 2016 level (1 mile per capita per day) by 2045.

6.3.4.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The BCA assumes a combination of increased telecommute and transit use to achieve the GHG reduction in the CAP Update. For the BCA, the participants in this measure would be residents and employees. They would incur costs to telecommute and take transit and receive financial benefits from reduced vehicle fuel and energy use. Table 57 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CET-4. To achieve the VMT reductions included in the CAP Update, the BCA assumed that residents and employees would telecommute and use transit. Specifically, by 2045, the analysis assumes that an additional 25% Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 38,352 ($2) N/A N/A Participant (P) Residents, Employees 38,352 ($363) 0.7 N/A Non-Participant (NP) Developer, Employer 38,352 ($68) N/A N/A Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 38,352 ($433) 0.6 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
General Fund 2026 CAP Update $0 $100,000 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 450 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 65
of employees in Encinitas telecommute three days per week, and that 15% of the population uses transit two days per week.

Table 57 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CET-4
Results for this CET-4 show a net cost of about $1,100 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective and a BCR less than one. Table 58 summarizes the BCA results for CET-4.

Description Input* Source
Regional Adult Month Pass ($/month) $72.00 NCTD, 2025
One time office set up cost for telecommute $750
EPIC estimate for chair,
monitor, and other
accessories
Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Efficiency (kWh/mile) 2.8 MTS, 2025
Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 451 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 66
Table 58 BCA Results for Measure CET-4

6.3.4.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 59 and Table 60 show the estimated annual and one-time costs that the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing CET-4 would result in an annual cost of $50,000 starting from 2031 to 2045 as well as a one-time cost of $200,000 between 2031 and 2035, both of which are contingent on grant funding.

Table 59 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-4 (2025$) Table 60 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CET-4 (2025$)

6.3.5 CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow
CET-5 would improve traffic flow by retiming traffic lights and installing roundabouts at intersections in the City. The GHG reduction in the CAP Update for this measure is based on the goals of retiming traffic signals at 60 intersections by 2045 and installing nine roundabouts by 2030, and 17 completed by 2045.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2026 CAP Update $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2026 CAP Update $0 $200,000 $0 $0 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 452 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 67

6.3.5.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
This measure would have two participants: the City of Encinitas and residents. The City of Encinitas would incur the cost of retiming traffic signals and installing roundabouts, and the related maintenance. Because the program would be intended for residents and visitors, no financial benefits would accrue to the City of Encinitas. Residents who drive within the city boundary would not incur any costs but would receive the benefit of lower gasoline and electricity costs resulting from improved driving efficiency and lower fuel use.

As with other measures (e.g., BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization) that have multiple project types or technologies, results for this measure combine results from both roundabouts and retiming traffic signals. Since roundabouts have a much longer useful life, the analysis assumed that traffic signal retiming projects were redone at the end of their useful life, so the total implementation period for signal retiming projects equaled the usefulness of roundabouts. As a result, cost assumptions for the BCA may not match those of the ICA. Table 61 summarizes the main data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CET-5.

Table 61 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CET-5
BCA results for CET-5 show a net cost of about $1,800 per MT CO2e reduced by this measure and a BCR less than one for the Measure Perspective. Costs and benefits would accrue to different participants. The City would incur costs but not realize any benefits. From the City’s perspective the net cost to reduce a MT CO2e would be about $2,000. However, from the perspective of residents who participate in the program, who would incur no costs but receive benefits due to reduced vehicle fuel costs, this measure would have a net benefit of about $230 per MT CO2e reduced. Table 62 summarizes the BCA results for CET-5.

Description Input* Source
Installation Cost - Roundabout ($/project) $6,913,381 Kimley Horn, 2024 Implementation Cost - Traffic Signal ($/project) $515,924 Kimley Horn, 2024 Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by year EMFAC, 2021 Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by year EMFAC, 2021 Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by year EPIC, 2026 Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
Roundabout Useful Life (years) 60 FHA, 2013
Traffic Signals Useful Life (years) 20 CaTrans, 2021
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 453 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 68
Table 62 BCA Results for Measures CET-5

6.3.5.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 63 shows the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement Measure CET-5. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing this measure would result in an annual ongoing cost to the General Fund of $20,000, to retime traffic lights on a recurring basis and an additional average of $700,000 per year needed from grant funding to design and install roundabouts. No one-time costs are associated with Measure CET-5.

Table 63 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-5 (2025$)

6.3.6 CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Under CET-6, the City will continue to implement the existing building code requiring residential electric vehicle charging and readopt the code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle. The estimated GHG reduction in the CAP Update is based on 375 residential permits approved with electric vehicle charging station equipment required by 2030 and 40 per year between 2030 and 2045.

6.3.6.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
There would be two participants for this measure. While developers would originally incur the costs of installing the charging equipment, this analysis assumes that the homebuyer would pay Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**Discounted
Payback (Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 72,674 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) Residents 72,674 $234 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 72,674 ($2,019) N/A N/A Non-Participant (NP) City of Encinitas 72,674 $0 N/A N/A Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 72,674 ($1,785) 0.1 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Contingent on Grant Funding Other City Plan or Policy $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 General Fund Other City Plan or Policy $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 454 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 69
the cost. The developer would not receive any financial benefits. Homebuyers also would receive benefits from decreased vehicle fuel use.

To fully capture all the costs associated with the GHG emission reduction for this measure, which were derived by taking the difference between emissions from gas vehicles and electric vehicles, the analysis assumes that there is a cost for the charger and an incremental cost to purchase an electric vehicle. The analysis assumes that all miles are charged at home and that in 2035 all new vehicles are electric. Only 50 percent of the miles are considered for the BCA, since the GHG emissions reduction in the CAP Update assumes that about 50 percent of miles are driven outside the City boundary. Starting in 2035, the analysis assumes that the baseline vehicle would be electric (Newsom, 2025). As a result, there would be no incremental cost for the vehicle, no incremental financial benefit, and no GHG emissions reduction attributable to this measure from 2035 to the end of the analysis period. Table 64 summarizes the main data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CET-6.

Table 64 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures CET-6 Description Input* Source
Home Charger - Level 2 (Mounted) Equipment ($) $1,098 SDG&E, 2026 Home Charger - Labor ($) $1,216 Handoff, 2026
Home Charger- Total ($) $2,314 EPIC, calculated
EV Charger Maintenance - Level 2 ($/station/year) $400 U.S. DOE, 2026 Incremental Cost of Vehicle (Gas to Electric) $9,785 US DOE, 2025 Allocation of Incremental Cost of Vehicle
($/mile/EV/year) $0.33 EPIC, calculated
Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
EV Charger Useful life (year) 10 Sowder, 2023
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Mile Driven (miles/ EV/year) 16,879 EMFAC 2021
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 455 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 70
Overall BCA results for CET-6 show a net cost of about $230 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Because it is not possible to separate the impact to emissions from chargers and vehicles, this analysis considers the combined costs and benefits in the Participant perspective. Table 65 summarizes the BCA results for CET-6.

Table 65 BCA Results for Measure CET-6

6.3.6.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 66 shows the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing CET-6 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250, which is expected to be paid through development fee revenue. No one-time costs are associated with CET-6.

Table 66 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measures CET-6 (2025$)

6.3.7 CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Under Measure CET-7, the City would continue to implement the existing building code requiring nonresidential electric vehicle charging infrastructure and readopt the code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle. The estimated GHG reduction for this measure in the CAP Update is based on 70 nonresidential permits approved with electric vehicle charging station equipment required by 2030, and 10 additional permits per year between 2030 and 2045.

6.3.7.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
There would be two participants for this measure. Developers would incur the costs of installing the charging equipment but would not receive any financial benefits. Nonresidential building occupants would receive benefits from decreased vehicle fuel use. Table 67 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure CET-7.

Table 67 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure CET-7
Overall BCA results for CET-7 show a net cost of about $130 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Participating developers or building owners who install EV chargers would have a net benefit of $45 per MT CO2e reduced, mainly due to the difference between the electricity rate paid and the charging rate paid by vehicle owners. Participating vehicle owners would have a net cost of about $170 per MT CO2e reduced, mainly due to the fact that charging costs for associated miles would be higher than the equivalent cost for gasoline. Table 68 summarizes the BCA results for CET-7.

Description Input* Source
Public Level 2 Charger Installation ($) $6,017 Pierce & Slowik, 2024 Public Level 2 Charger Rate ($) $0.45 UCSD, 2026
EV Charger Maintenance - Level 2 ($/station/year) $400 U.S. DOE, 2026 Incremental Cost of Vehicle (Gas to Electric) $9,785 US DOE, 2025 Allocation of Incremental Cost of Vehicle
($/mile/EV/year) $0.33 EPIC, calculated
Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
EV Charger Useful life (year) 10 Sowder, 2023
EV Miles Charged (miles/year/charger) 38,209 City of Encinitas, 2026a Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Mile Driven (miles/ EV/year) 16,879 EMFAC 2021
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 457 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 72
Table 68 BCA Results for Measure CET-7

6.3.7.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 69 shows the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement Measure CET-7. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing this measure would result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250 which is expected to be paid through special revenue fees.

There are no one-time costs associated with CET-7.

Table 69 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CET-7 (2025$)

6.3.8 MCET-1: Transition to Zero Emission Vehicle Municipal Fleet Under MCET-1 the City would continue to convert gasoline-fueled cars and light-duty trucks to zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and purchase renewable diesel for all diesel-fueled heavy-duty trucks. The GHG reduction estimate in the CAP Update is based on converting 50 percent of light-duty fleet to ZEVs by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 and requiring 100 percent of fleet heavy-duty fleet to use renewable diesel by 2030.

6.3.8.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The City would be the participant for this measure. It would incur the cost to purchase and maintain vehicles and associated chargers. The City also would receive financial benefits from decreased vehicle fuel costs. To be consistent with estimated GHG reductions in the CAP Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 15,976 ($2) N/A N/A Participant (P) Developer,
Building Owner 15,976 $45 1.9 3
Participant (P) Vehicle Owner 15,976 ($170) 0.0 N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 15,976 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 15,976 ($127) 0.4 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Fee Revenue 2018 CAP $2,250 $2,250 $2,250 $2,250
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 458 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 73
Update, the BCA assumes that vehicles are replaced every 10 years and the baseline vehicle is the gasoline mode through 2034. Costs included in the BCA for this measure vary from those in the ICA, since the BCA assumed vehicle replacements over the analysis period. Table 70 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure MCET-1. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 459 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 74
Table 70 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCET-1 Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost: Light- Gas to Electric $9,600 DOE, 2025 Incremental Cost: Light- Hybrid to Electric $7,200 DOE, 2025 Incremental Cost: Light- Plug in hybrid to Electric $7,200 DOE, 2025 Incremental Cost: Medium- Gas to Electric $18,800 DOE, 2025 Incremental Cost: Medium- Hybrid to Electric $9,300 DOE, 2025 Operations and Maintenance - Electric Vehicle ($/year) $1,000 Premium Autos, Inc. 2025 Operations and Maintenance - Gas Vehicle ($/year) $1,300 Premium Autos, Inc. 2025 Electricity rate - Commercial ($/kWh) $0.16 Hourly average of AL-TOU, 2025 Number of Additional DC Fast Chargers ($/charger) 5 City of Encinitas, 2025e Cost per Charger $157,354 Pierce, L., and Slowik, P. 2024 Operations and Maintenance - DC Fast Charger ($/charger/year) $800 U.S. DOE, 2026 Electricity Rate - Commercial ($/kWh) $0.36 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
Electric Vehicle efficiency (kWh/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC2021
CO2 emissions from gasoline (MT CO2/ gallon) 0.008887 U.S. EPA, 2025a Gas Vehicle Efficiency Light-Duty Gas (MPG) 11 City of Encinitas, 2025e Gas Vehicle Efficiency Light-Duty Hybrid (MPG) 26 City of Encinitas, 2025e Gas Vehicle Efficiency Light-Duty Plug-in Hybrid (MPG) 27 City of Encinitas, 2025e Gas Vehicle Efficiency Medium-Duty Gas (MPG) 5 City of Encinitas, 2025e Gas Vehicle Efficiency Medium-Duty Hybrid (MPG) 7 City of Encinitas, 2025e Average Miles Driven Light-Duty Gas (VMT/Car/year) 5,930 City of Encinitas, 2025e Average Miles Driven Light-Duty Hybrid (VMT/Car/year) 4,039 City of Encinitas, 2025e Average Miles Driven Light-Duty Plug-In Hybrid (VMT/Car/year) 3,226 City of Encinitas, 2025e Average Miles Driven Medium-Duty Gas (VMT/Car/year) 3,643 City of Encinitas, 2025e Average Miles Driven Medium-Duty Hybrid (VMT/Car/year) 2,584 City of Encinitas, 2025e Useful Life (years) 10 City of Encinitas, 2025e
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
Roundabout Useful Life (years) 60 FHA, 2013
Traffic Signals Useful Life (years) 20 CalTrans, 2021
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 460 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 75
BCA results for MCET-1 show a net cost of about $730 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR of less than one for the Measure perspective. Table 71 summarizes the BCA results for MCET-1.

Table 71 BCA Results for Measure MCET-1

6.3.8.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 72 summarizes the one-time costs for Measure MCET-1. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred.

Implementing Measure MCET-1 would result in a one-time cost from the General Fund of about $130,000 in the first two 5-year periods to finalize transitioning fleet vehicles to allelectric. A one-time cost of $300,000, which is contingent on grant funding, also would be needed in the first two five-year periods to install electric vehicle charging equipment for fleet vehicles. Grant funding for Measure MCET-1 may be available from San Diego Gas and Electric Power Your Drive program, or other similar program in the future to install electric vehicle charging equipment. There are no ongoing costs associated with MCET-1.

Table 72 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MCET-1 (2025$)

6.3.9 MCET-2: Implement a Municipal Employee Transportation Demand Management Program
Under Measure MCET-2, the City would expand the existing telecommute policy and transit rebate program to incentivize City employees who telecommute and commute to work by alternative transport as a model for other local employers. GHG reduction estimates in the CAP Update are based on 110 City employees taking advantage of the City’s telework by 2030.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 1,319 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 1,319 ($732) 0.3 N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 1,319 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 1,319 ($732) 0.3 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding State Mandated $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 General Fund State Mandated $128,925 $128,925 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 461 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 76
Similarly, in 2045, 110 City employees would take advantage of the City’s telework policy and the number of City employees commuting alternatively to work would increase by 20 percent or 26 employees.

6.3.9.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The City of Encinitas and City employees would both be participants in this measure. The City would incur any costs to develop and manage programs, and for any incentives provided.

Benefits would accrue to employees who reduce vehicle fuel or energy costs. Table 73 summarizes the main data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure MCET2.

Table 73 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCET-2 BCA results for MCET-2 show a net cost of about $210 per MT CO2e reduced by this measure for the Measure Perspective and a BCR less than one. Municipal employees would have a net benefit of about $570 per MT CO2e reduced, a benefit cost ratio greater than one, and a discounted payback of 2 years. The City of Encinitas would pay the subsidy to employees.

Table 74 summarizes the BCA results for MCET-2.

Description Input* Source
One time office set up cost for
telecommute $750
EPIC estimate for chair,
monitor, and other
accessories
Regional Adult Month Pass ($/month) $72.00 NCTD, 2025
Electricity rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT
CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a
Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 462 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 77
Table 74 BCA Results for Measure MCET-2

6.3.9.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 75 summarizes the estimated ongoing costs for Measure MCET-2. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing Measure MCET-2 would result in an annual cost of $45,000, to be paid through the General Fund, to support an employee alternative commute rebate program.

There are no ongoing costs associated with MCET-2.

Table 75 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MCET-2 (in 2025 $)

6.3.10 MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Under MCET-3 the City would install publicly available electric vehicle charging stations in municipally owned parking lots and encourage nonresidential property owners to install electric vehicle charging stations, in accordance with the EV Charging Station Master Plan (City of Encinitas. 2023). The GHG reduction for this measure is based on installation of 113 publicly available Level 2 electric vehicle chargers and 15 DC Fast Chargers by 2030.

6.3.10.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
This measure has multiple participants. The City would install and maintain the electric vehicle charging stations but receive no financial benefits. Vehicle owners that charge their EVs would incur costs to charge and incremental costs to purchase a vehicle but would realize the benefit Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 856 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) Municipal
Employees 856 $571 7.2 2
Non-Participant (NP) City of Encinitas 856 ($782) N/A N/A Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 856 ($211) 0.8 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
General Fund 2026 CAP Update $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 $42,000 General Fund 2026 CAP Update $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 463 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 78
of lower vehicle fuel costs. Table 76 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure MCET-3.

Table 76 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MCET-3 Overall BCA results for MCET-3 show a net cost of about $140 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR less than one for the Measure Perspective. The City would have a net benefit of about $360 per MT CO2e reduced, a BCR greater than one, and a one-year discounted payback. This is a result of the cost paid by vehicles to charge is greater than the cost to purchase electricity on average to cover costs of maintenance and replacement. Vehicle owners would have a net cost of about $500 per MT CO2e reduced due mainly to the cost of charging. Table 77 summarizes the BCA results for MCET-3.

Description Input* Source
Public DC Fast Charger Installation ($/charger) $157,354 Pierce & Slowik, 2024 Public Level 2 Charger Installation ($/charger) $6,017 Pierce & Slowik, 2024 Public Level 2 Charger Rate ($) $0.45 UCSD, 2026
Public DC Fast Charger Rate ($) $0.63 UCSD, 2026
EV Charger Maintenance - Level 2 ($/station/year) $400 U.S. DOE, 2026 EV Charger Maintenance - DC Fast ($/station/year) $800 U.S. DOE, 2026 Incremental Cost of Vehicle (Gas to Electric) $9,785 US DOE, 2025 Allocation of Incremental Cost of Vehicle
($/mile/EV/year) $0.33 EPIC, calculated
Electricity Rate - Commercial ($/kWh) $0.36 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Gasoline Rate ($/gallon) $4.48 EIA, 2025
EV Charger Useful life (year) 10 Sowder, 2023
EV Miles Charged - Level 2 (miles/year/charger) 38,209 City of Encinitas, 2026a EV Miles Charged - DC Fast (miles/year/charger) 398,005 City of Encinitas, 2026a Fuel Savings - Gasoline (gal/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Fuel Savings - Electricity (kwh/mile) Varies by
year
EMFAC, 2021
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (lbs CO2/MWh) Varies by
year
EPIC, 2026
Mile Driven (miles/ EV/year) 16,879 EMFAC 2021
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 464 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 79
Table 77 BCA Results for Measure MCET-3

6.3.10.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 78 summarizes the estimated ongoing costs for Measure MCET-3. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing Measure MCET-3 would result in an annual cost of $500,000 which is contingent upon grant funding, to install electric vehicle charging stations. There are no ongoing costs associated with MCET-3.

Table 78 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MCET-3 (in 2025 $)

6.4 Renewable Energy

6.4.1 MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site Solar and Battery Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities
Measures MRE-1 would complete a feasibility study and install 850 kW of on-site solar photovoltaics (PV) generation with battery storage at suitable municipal facilities by 2045.

6.4.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
For this measure, the City of Encinitas is the participant. Two ownership models were considered: one where the City of Encinitas purchases the PV and battery storage systems, and another in which the City enters into a power purchase agreement (PPA) whereby the City would purchase electricity generated by a system installed, operated, and maintained by a third-party. In the ownership model, the City of Encinitas would incur the costs of installing and Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 28,814 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 28,814 $362 5.9 1
Participant (P) Vehicle Owner 28,814 ($499) N/A N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 28,814 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 28,814 ($137) 0.4 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2018 CAP $500,000 $500,000 $0 $0 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 465 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 80
maintaining the PV and battery storage systems. In the PPA model, there would be no upfront cost to the City of Encinitas. In both cases, the City of Encinitas would receive a benefit in the form of lower electricity bills.

For this measure, a detailed analysis was completed for one project (Community Center) to estimate the costs, benefits, and GHG reductions from installing 194 kW of PV and 446 kWh of batteries. The system size used for the analysis was based on preliminary analysis; actual system sizing may vary.11 EPIC scaled results for this representative project to the total capacity of photovoltaics expected (850 MW) from Measure MRE-1. Additional analysis would be needed to determine the appropriate amount of storage for other buildings covered by this measure.

To capture the cost and emissions impacts of installing a solar and battery system, it was necessary to conduct an analysis using hourly data for PV electricity generation, electric utility energy import rates and demand charges, net billing tariff export credits, and GHG emissions.

The GHG emissions impact method used here (e.g., hourly marginal GHG emissions) differs from the calculations included in the draft CAP but were used here to be consistent with the hourly methods used for other aspects of the analysis for Measure MRE-1. This hourly analysis was not used for other measures in the BCA.

Table 79 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure MRE-1.
11 Based on Engie analysis 2020.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 466 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 81
Table 79 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure MRE-1
BCA results from the Ownership Model show a net benefit of about $475 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. This model would have a BCR of about 2 and an 8-year discounted payback. Results for the PPA model show a net benefit of about $30 per MT CO2e Description Input Source
PV and Battery - Installation Cost
($2024/kWDC) $3,200 LBNL, 2025
PV and Battery - Installation Cost
($2025/kWDC) $3,370 FRED, 2026
PV - Operations and Maintenance Cost
($/kWDC) $19 NLR, 2024
PV - Inverter Replacement Cost ($/kWDC) $160 NLR, 2021
Battery - Installation Cost ($/kWh) $700 LBNL, 2025
Power Purchase Agreement Rate ($/kWh) $0.30
Approximate break even rate for
PPA based on analysis. Consistent
with rates for similar projects in
San Dieguito School District
(SDSD, 2025). A lower PPA rate
would yield additional benefits.

Electricity Rate - Volumetric Charge ($/kWh)
Varies by
time of day
and season
SDG&E, 2025. Based on hourly
electricity rates in SDG&E AL-TOU
and TOU-DGR.

Electricity Rate - Demand Charge ($/kW) Varies by
type
SDG&E, 2025. Based on hourly
electricity rates in SDG&E AL-TOU
and TOU-DGR.

PV System Size (kWDC) - Analysis 194.4 Engie, 2020
PV System Size (kWDC) - MRE-1 Goal 850 City of Encinitas, 2026a Battery Size (kWh) 446 Engie, 2020
PV Production Decay Rate (%/year) 1% CPUC, 2021
Battery Decay Rate (/cycle) 0.01% Cellife, 2026
Useful Life - PV (years) 25 NLR, 2023
Useful Life - Battery (years) 15 NLR, 2024
Inverter Replacement Frequency (years) 15 NLR, 2023
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
Electricity Emissions Rate (lbs CO2e/MWh)
Varies by
hour and
year
CPUC, 2024
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 467 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 82
reduced for the Measure Perspective. Since there are no upfront costs for the PPA model, it is not possible to calculate a BCR or payback; however, since PPA rates are typically lower than current electric utility rates, the City would realize an immediate financial benefit. Table 80 and Table 81 summarize the BCA results for MRE-1. Results for the Ownership Model are included in the summary results presented in Section 5. This is to be consistent with the costs included in the ICA for this measure (Section 6.4.1.2).

Table 80 BCA Results for Measure MRE-1 – Ownership Model Table 81 BCA Results for Measure MRE-1 – PPA Model

6.4.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 82, Table 83, and Table 84 summarize the estimated one-time costs Measures MRE-1, including the cost by funding source, policy driver, and anticipated expenditure year, for both the Ownership and PPA models. Staff included estimated costs for a consultant to complete a Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 5,939 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 5,939 $477 1.7 8
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 5,939 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 5,939 $477 1.7 8
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e) NPV$/MT CO2e*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 5,939 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 5,939 $31 N/A N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 5,939 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 5,939 $31 N/A N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 468 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 83
feasibility study. Estimated capital costs for installation of the required solar PV and battery storage systems on City facilities are based on estimates from the BCA. Table 84 shows annual costs of $16,150 are estimated for ongoing maintenance under the ownership model. Under the PPA model, there would be no ongoing costs.

Table 82 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MRE-1 (2025$) - Ownership Model Table 83 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure MRE-1 (2025$) - PPA Model Table 84 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MRE-1 (2025$) - Ownership Model

6.4.2 RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power Measures RE-1 would maintain current customer membership levels in San Diego Community Power (SDCP) at 93 percent and continue Power100, which supplies 100 percent renewable and zero-carbon electricity to customers, as the default service option. The estimated GHG reduction in the CAP Update for this measure is based on the difference in GHG emissions between SDG&E electric service and that of the Power100 service option.

6.4.2.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Residents and businesses that receive electric service via Power100 would be the participants.

They would incur the incremental cost of the 100 percent renewable electricity service options; there would be no financial benefit to participants. Following the methods in the CAP Update to estimate GHG emission reductions, the BCA uses the incremental cost between the SDG&E electric service and Power100. Also, the cost difference between these two options is held constant through 2045. Table 85 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure RE-1.

Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2018 CAP $2,620,000 $0 $1,501,072 $0 General Fund 2018 CAP $100,000 $0 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiative Center; City of Encinitas, 2026 Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2018 CAP $0 $0 $0 $0
General Fund 2018 CAP $100,000 $0 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026-2030
Annual Cost
2031-2035
Annual Cost
2036-2040
Annual Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2018 CAP $16,150 $16,150 $16,150 $16,150 All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiative Center; City of Encinitas, 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 469 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 84
Table 85 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure RE-1
BCA results for RE-1 show an overall net cost of about $60 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Since there are no financial benefits to participants from this measure, it is not possible to calculate a BCR or discounted payback. Table 86 summarizes the BCA results for RE-1.

Table 86 BCA Results for Measure RE-1
Description Input* Source
2025 SDG&E Avg Residential Total Electricity
Cost (excluding CARE/FERA) ($/kWh) $0.36 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025 2025 SDCP Power100 100% Renewable
Residential Total Electricity Cost (excluding
CARE/FERA) ($/kWh)
$0.37 SDCP and SDG&E, 2026
Difference is Total Electricity Cost 2025
(SDG&E minus SDCP) ($/kWh) ($0.005) SDCP and SDG&E, 2027 SDCP Electricity Use in Encinitas (MWh)
Varies by
building,
year
EPIC, 2026
GHG Emissions Rate Varies EPIC, 2026
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 298,014 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) Residents,
Businesses 298,014 ($59) N/A N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 298,014 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 298,014 ($59) N/A N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 470 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 85

6.4.2.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
There are no one-time or ongoing costs to the City associated with RE-1 since the cost to form and become a member of SDCP occurred in the past. There are no costs associated with the City continuing to maintain membership in the SDCP JPA.

6.4.3 RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems
Under RE-2 the City would require certain projects that add square footage or alter existing nonresidential and hotel/motel buildings to install solar photovoltaics. The CAP Update estimate for GHG reductions for this measure assumes that, on average, 48,000 square feet of nonresidential additions or alterations would install solar per year through 2045.

6.4.3.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Similar to MRE-1 (Section 6.4.1), the BCA for this measure assumes that solar would be paired with battery storage in order to optimize cost savings under Net Billing Tariff. Also, two ownership models were considered for RE-2: one where building owners purchase the PV and battery storage systems, and another in which the building owners enter into a power purchase agreement (PPA) whereby they would purchase electricity generated by a system installed, operated, and maintained by a third-party. In the ownership model, the building owner would incur the costs of installing and maintaining the PV and battery storage systems. In the PPA model, there would be no cost to the building owner. In both cases the building owner would receive a benefit in the form of lower electricity bills.

The data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure RE-2 are the same as those used for MRE-1 (Table 87). Analysis for this measure is based on the results of the detailed analysis completed in MRE-1 to estimate the costs, benefits, and GHG reductions from installing 194 kW of PV and 446 kWh of batteries. This was used as a proxy to represent nonresidential systems on alterations and additions for Measure RE-2, understanding that actual system sizing may vary.12 EPIC scaled results for this representative project to 600 MW, the total capacity of photovoltaics expected from Measure RE-2. For more details about the methods used, see Section 6.4.1.1.
12 Based on Engie analysis 2020.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 471 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 86
Table 87 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure RE-2
Description Input* Source
PV and Battery - Installation Cost
($2024/kWDC) $3,200 LBNL, 2025
PV and Battery - Installation Cost
($2025/kWDC) $3,370 FRED, 2026
PV - Operations and Maintenance Cost
($/kWDC) $19 NLR, 2024
PV - Inverter Replacement Cost ($/kWDC) $160 NLR, 2021
Battery - Installation Cost ($/kWh) $700 LBNL, 2025
Power Purchase Agreement Rate ($/kWh) $0.30
Approximate break even rate for
PPA based on analysis. Consistent
with rates for similar projects in
San Dieguito School District
(SDSD, 2025). A lower PPA rate
would yield additional benefits.

Electricity Rate - Volumetric Charge ($/kWh)
Varies by
time of day
and season
SDG&E, 2025. Based on hourly
electricity rates in SDG&E AL-TOU
and TOU-DGR.

Electricity Rate - Demand Charge ($/kW) Varies by
type
SDG&E, 2025. Based on hourly
electricity rates in SDG&E AL-TOU
and TOU-DGR.

PV System Size (kWDC) - Analysis 194.4 Engie, 2020
PV System Size (kWDC) - MRE-1 Goal 850 City of Encinitas, 2026a Battery Size (kWh) 446 Engie, 2020
PV Production Decay Rate (% per year) 1% CPUC, 2021
Battery Decay Rate (% per cycle) 0.01% Cellife, 2026
Useful Life - PV (years) 25 NLR, 2023
Useful Life - Battery (years) 15 NLR, 2024
Inverter Replacement Frequency (years) 15 NLR, 2023
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
Electricity Emissions Rate (lbs CO2e/MWh)
Varies by
hour and
year
CPUC, 2024
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 472 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 87
BCA results for the Ownership Model show a net benefit of about $470 per MT CO2e reduced, a BCR greater than one, and a discounted payback of 8 years for the Measure Perspective. For the PPA Model, overall results show a net benefit of about $25 per MT CO2e reduced and BCR greater than one for the Measure Perspective. Since there are no upfront costs for the PPA model, it is not possible to calculate a BCR for the participant. Table 88 and Table 89 summarize the BCA results for RE-2.

Table 88 BCA Results for Measure RE-2 – Ownership Model Table 89 BCA Results for Measure RE-2 – PPA Model

6.4.3.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 90 summarizes the estimated one-time costs of Measures RE-2, including the cost by funding source, policy driver, and anticipated expenditure year. Implementing RE-2 would Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost
Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas $4,192 ($8) N/A N/A Participant (P) Non-Residential
Building Owners $4,192 $477 1.7 8.0
Non-Participant (NP) N/A $4,192 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A $4,192 $469 1.7 8.0
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost
Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 4,192 ($8) N/A N/A
Participant (P) Non-Residential
Building Owners 4,192 $31 N/A N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 4,192 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 4,192 $23 3.8 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 473 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 88
result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250, which will be paid by fee revenue, to cover the cost of plan review and building inspection by contract staff for developments that trigger the existing residential energy efficiency building code requirement. No one-time costs are associated with RE-2.

Table 90 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure RE-2 (2025$)

6.5 Water Efficiency

6.5.1 MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species For MWE-1, the City would identify locations within parks and the public right-of-way to convert landscaping to drought tolerant or native species. The estimated GHG reduction in the CAP Update is based on converting five percent of public parks and right-of-way landscaping to drought tolerant or native species by 2030 and fifteen percent by 2045.

6.5.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The City of Encinitas would be the Participant and incur costs to replace existing landscaping with drought tolerant alternatives and receive benefits from reduced water utility bills. Table 91 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure MWE-1.

Description Input* Source
Convert Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species ($/sq ft) $6 City of Encinitas, 2025c
Irrigation for Drought Tolerant or Native Species ($/sq ft) $2 City of Encinitas, 2025c Landscape area (sq ft) 3,851,855 City of Encinitas, 2025c Water Rates - OMWD ($/748 gallons) $6.91 OMWD, 2025
Water Rates - SDWD ($/748 gallons) $7.54 SDWD, 2025
Water Use - Parks (Avg FY20-22) - OMWD (% of acre-feet) 1% City of Encinitas, 2025c Water Use - Parks (Avg FY20-22) - SDWD (% of acre-feet) 99% City of Encinitas, 2025c Evapotranspiration Adjustment Factor (ETAF) 0.45 CAPCOA, 2024 Special Landscape Area (sq ft) 0 CAPCOA, 2026
Plant Factor (PF) 0.1 CAPCOA, 2024; Assumes
very low water use plants
Irrigation Efficiency (IE) 0.81 CAPCOA, 2024; Drip
system
Evaporanspiration Rate (in/year) 46.4 CAPCOA, 2024; County of San Diego, 2020
Conversion from (acre-inches/acre to gallons/sq ft) 0.62 CAPCOA, 2024; Drip system conversion
Discount Rate (%) 3% CCE&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 475 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 90
Table 92 BCA Results for Measure MWE-1

6.5.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 93 summarizes the estimated ongoing costs for Measure MWE-1. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing Measure MWE-1 would result in an annual cost ranging from approximately $300,000 to $200,000, to be paid through the General Fund, to support landscape replacement. There are no one-time costs associated with MWE-1.

Table 93 Estimated Ongoing Costs for Measure MWE-1 (in 2025 $)

6.5.2 WE-1: Support Local Water Districts’ Water Conservation Efforts Measures WE-1 would educate residents on the importance of water conservation and offer incentives to reduce water use. The estimated GHG reduction in the CAP Update is based on reducing potable water use to 8,700 acre feet (99 gallons per capita per day) by 2030 and to 8,900 acre feet (97 gallons per capita per day) by 2045.

6.5.2.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
For this measure, the participants would be residents and businesses that install water efficient equipment, including high-efficiency clothes washers, high-efficiency toilets, weather-based “smart” controllers, and turf replacement program. Participants would pay the cost to install water efficient equipment and receive benefits of reduced water bills.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 130 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) City of Encinitas 130 ($22,188) 0.2 N/A Non-Participant (NP) N/A 130 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 130 ($22,188) 0.2 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
General Fund 2018 CAP $308,148 $205,432 $205,432 $205,432 All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center; City of Encinitas, 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 476 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 91
While incentives are currently available, to be conservative, the analysis did not include the impact of incentives. Results represent overall values for four underlying water savings interventions. Turf replacement is the least cost effective of the four and the analysis assumes that 15 percent of total lawn area in Encinitas is replaced by 2045. The analysis also assumes that 75 percent of homes install the other three technologies by 2045. Table 94 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure WE-1.

Table 94 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure WE-1
Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost High-Efficiency Clothes Washers ($/device) $225 U.S. EPA, 2025b; Home Depot & Lowe’s, 2025
Incremental Cost High-Efficiency Toilets ($/device) $75 U.S. EPA, 2025b; Home Depot & Lowe’s, 2025
Incremental Cost Weather Based “Smart” Controllers ($/device) $200 U.S. EPA, 2025b; Home Depot & Lowe’s, 2025
Cost Turf Replacement Program ($/square foot) $10 Aquabarrel, 2025 Incentive High-Efficiency Clothes Washers ($/device) $85 SoCal Water Smart, 2025 Incentive High-Efficiency Toilets ($/device) $40 SoCal Water Smart, 2025 Incentive Weather Based “Smart” Controllers ($/device) $80 SoCal Water Smart, 2025 Incentive Turf Replacement Program ($/square foot) $3 SoCal Water Smart, 2025 Water Bill Savings ($/gallon) $0.01 SDWD, 2024
High-Efficiency Clothes Washers (gallon saved /device/year) 5,110 SoCal Water Smart, 2025 High-Efficiency Toilets (gallons saved/device/year) 13,000 SoCal Water Smart, 2025 Weather Based “Smart” Controllers (gallons saved/device/year) 13,500 SoCalWaterSmart Turf Replacement Program (gallons saved /sqft/year) 26.4 SoCal Water Smart, 2025 Useful Life High-Efficiency Clothes Washers (years) 10 CA eTRM, 2025 Useful Life High-Efficiency Toilets (years) 20 CUWCD, 2016 Useful Life Weather Based “Smart” Controllers (years) 10 California Energy Commission, 2017 Number of Households (#) 24,088 U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 Number of Single Family Homes (#) 18,447 U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 Average Lawn Size (square feet)) 2,500 City of Encinitas, 2025f Number of High-Efficiency Clothes Washers by 2045 (# of devices) 18,066 EPIC estimate; 75% of all households Number of High-Efficiency Toilets by 2045 (# of devices) 18,066 EPIC estimate; 75% of all households Number of Weather Based “Smart” Controllers by 2045
(# of devices) 18,066 EPIC estimate; 75% of all households Area of Turf Replaced by 2045 (square feet) 6,917,625 EPIC estimate; 20% of lawn area Percentage of Projects Receiving Incentives 25% EPIC estimate Discount Rate 3% CCE&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 477 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 92
BCA results for WE-1 show a net benefit of about $260 per MT CO2e reduced, a BCR of 1, and a discounted payback of 19 years for the Measure Perspective. Table 95 summarizes BCA results for Measure WE-1.

Table 95 BCA Results for Measure WE-1

6.5.2.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 96 summarizes the estimated annual ongoing costs the San Dieguito Water District is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing WE-1 would result in an annual ongoing cost of about $64,000 from SDWD Enterprise funds associated with public education and water conservation. There are no one-time costs associated with WE-1.

Table 96 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure WE-1 (2025$)

6.5.3 WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes to be Pre-Plumbed for Graywater Systems
Measure WE-2 would require new single-family homes to be pre-plumbed for graywater systems. The City would do this by continuing to implement the existing building code requiring graywater systems at new single-family homes and readopting the code requirement, as needed. The estimated GHG reduction in the CAP Update is based on 180 new homes preplumbed for graywater systems by 2030 and 370 by 2045. Developers would incur the initial Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas $11,403 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P) Residents $11,403 $262 1.0 19
Non-Participant (NP) N/A $11,403 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A $11,403 $262 1.0 19
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Enterprise State Mandated $64,033 $64,033 $64,033 $64,033 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 478 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 93
cost; however, for purposes of this analysis, homebuyers would be the participants and incur the cost to install and maintain the graywater systems.

6.5.3.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Table 97 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure WE-2.

Table 97 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure WE-2
BCA results for WE-2 show a net cost of about $18,000 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR less than 1 for the Measure Perspective. Because the net present value is negative, it is not possible to calculate a discounted payback. While this is a relatively high net cost in the analysis, WE-2 represents a relatively small amount of GHG emissions reduced and has a small effect on the overall results for all measures. Table 98 summarizes the results for this measure.

Description Input* Source
Installation Cost - Whole Home Graywater System ($) $15,000 SCVWD, 2026 Annual Maintenance Cost ($/year) $450 Angi. 2026
Water Rate ($/gallon) $0.01 SDWD, 2024
Average Water Use Reduction (gallons/year) 36,500 CAPCO, 2024 Occupants (#/home) 2.5 EPIC, 2026
Water Use from Showers, Bathtubs, Sinks (gallons/day/person) 25 CAPCO, 2024 Water Use from Laundry (gallons/day/person) 15 CAPCO, 2025 Useful Life (years) 15 Yu, Z., et al. 2015.

Number of Systems Installed (#/year) 18 City of Encinitas, 2026a SDCWA - Upstream Emissions Rate (MT CO2e/acre foot) 0.39 EPIC, 2026 Discount Rate 3% CCE&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 479 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 94
Table 98 BCA Results for Measure WE-2

6.5.3.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 99 summarizes the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing WE-2 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $2,250 fee revenue to cover the cost of plan review and building inspection by contract staff for developments that must comply with the building code requirements. There are no one-time costs associated with WE-2.

Table 99 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure WE-2 (2025$)

6.6 Zero-Emission Equipment

6.6.1 ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers
Measure ZE-1 would limit use of gas-powered leaf blowers. The City would do this by continuing to enforce the existing ordinance, which restricts the use of gas-powered leaf blowers and educates residents and businesses about the City’s leaf blower regulations. The GHG reduction estimate for this measure in the CAP Update is based on a 100 percent reduction in emissions from gas-powered leaf blowers starting in 2030 and data from the California Air Resources Board Emissions Factor Off-Road model (V1.0.5).

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 295 ($114) N/A N/A
Participant (P) Homebuyers 295 ($17,560) 0.2 N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 295 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 295 ($17,674) 0.2 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Fee Revenue Other City Plan or Policy $2,250 $2,250 $2,250 $2,250 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 480 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 95

6.6.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
Measure ZE-1 would have multiple participants, including residential and non-residential property owners. These participants would incur the cost of purchasing and maintaining zero emission leaf blowers and receive the benefits that result from lower gasoline use. Table 100 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure ZE-1.

Table 100 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measures ZE-1 BCA results for ZE-1show a net cost of about $400 per MT CO2e reduced and a BCR less than one for the Measure Perspective. It would not be possible to calculate a discounted payback since present value benefits are less than present value costs. Table 101 summarizes the BCA results for ZE-1.

Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost of Electric Leaf Blower ($) $300 Home Depot, 2026a Gasoline Cost ($/gallon) 4.48 EIA, 2025
Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026
Average Usage (hours/equipment) 42 CARB, 2025b
Average Fuel Consumption (gallons/equipment/yr) 12 CARB, 2025b Average horsepower of gas-powered leaf blower 3.22 CARB, 2025b Electric Leaf Blower Power (KW) 2.41 Calculated
Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (MT CO2e/MWh) varies EPIC, 2026 Useful Life (years) 5 Lee, K., 2024
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 481 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 96
Table 101 BCA Results for Measure ZE-1

6.6.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
There are no ongoing or one-time costs for the City associated with ZE-1. The cost to enforce the ordinance and educate residents and businesses is negligible and can be absorbed into existing staff functions.

6.6.2 ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment ZE-2 would adopt an ordinance restricting the use of gas-powered landscape equipment. For this measure, the City would develop an ordinance restricting the use of gas-powered landscape equipment for City Council consideration and adoption, develop a rebate program to incentivize and accelerate replacement of gas-powered landscape equipment with electric models, and educate residents and businesses about alternatives to gas-powered landscaping equipment. The GHG reduction for this measure in the CAP Update is based on a 100 percent reduction in emissions from gas-powered landscape equipment by 2045.

6.6.2.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
ZE-2 would have multiple participants, including residential and non-residential property owners. These participants would incur the cost of purchasing and maintaining zero emission landscaping equipment. They would also receive any benefits that result from lowering gasoline use. Table 102 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure ZE-2.

Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas 738 $0 N/A N/A
Participant (P)
Residential and
Nonresidential Property
Owners, Gardeners,
Landscapers
738 ($409) 0.5 N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A 738 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A 738 ($409) 0.5 N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 482 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 97
Table 102 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure ZE-2
BCA results for ZE-2 show a net benefit of about $225 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure Perspective. Because this measure has negative costs (i.e., the average cost of an electric version of lawn and garden equipment is less expensive than the gasoline version), it would not be possible to calculate a benefit cost ratio or discounted payback. Table 103 summarizes the BCA results for ZE-2.

Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost - Electric Chainsaw ($) ($42) Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost - Chainsaws Preempt ($) ($42) Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost - Chippers/Stump Grinders ($) $750 Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost - Lawn Mowers ($) ($250) Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost - Other ($) ($261) Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost - Rear Engine Riding Mowers ($) $850 Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost - Tillers ($) ($261) Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost -Trimmers/Edgers/Brush Cutters ($) ($100) Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Incremental Cost - Wood Splitters ($) ($1,275) Home Depot, 2026b; Lowe's 2026 Gasoline Cost ($/gallon) 4.48 EIA, 2025
Electricity Rate - Residential ($/kWh) $0.42 SDCP and SDG&E, 2025; CEC, 2026 Gasoline engine efficiency (%) 18% Edwards, K., et al. 2011 Electric motor efficiency (%) 85% U.S. DOE, 2014.

Gasoline Gallon Equivalent to kWh Conversion 34 EPA, 2026 Gasoline Emissions Rate (MT CO2/gallon) 0.009 US EPA, 2025a Electric Emissions Rate (MT CO2e/MWh) varies EPIC, 2026 Average Useful Life (years) 10 Lee, K., 2024
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026
*All dollar values are in 2025$; A negative value means the electric option is cheaper on average than the gasoline version.

Average incremental cost estimated from publicly available retail listings from major U.S. home improvement retailers, (e.g., Home Depot and Lowe’s).
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 483 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 98
Table 103 BCA Results for Measure ZE-2

6.6.2.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 104 summarizes the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing ZE-2 would result in a one-time cost of $40,000 in 2031-2035 paid through the General Fund to cover the costs of developing an incentive program and transitioning city-owned landscaping equipment.

Table 104 Estimated Annual One-Time Costs for Measure ZE-2 (2025$)

6.7 Zero Waste

6.7.1 ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program
Under Measures ZW-1, the City would implement a Zero Waste Program to reduce waste disposal from residents and businesses in the community. The GHG reduction from this measure in the CAP Update is based on 80 percent waste diversion (3 lbs./person/day) by 2030 and 90 percent waste diversion (1.5 lbs./person/day) by 2045.

6.7.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis Assumptions and Results
The participants for this measure would be residents and businesses, who would incur the cost of increased cost for solid waste collection service. There are no financial benefits associated with this measure.

Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
General Fund 2026 CAP Update $0 $40,000 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 484 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 99
For the BCA, the analysis includes only single-family residential households. This approach is based on two considerations. First, the number of single-family homes is derived from American Community Survey data, and residential organic recycling service fees can be reasonably estimated per-household. In contrast, commercial properties often share larger bins, and detailed data for the commercial sector is currently limited. Second, achieving full participation in organic waste diversion among residential households is expected to be sufficient to meet the overall targets for this measure. Table 105 summarizes the data inputs and other assumptions used in the analysis of Measure ZW-1.

Table 105 Data Inputs and Assumptions for Measure ZW-1
BCA results for ZW-1 show a net cost of about $70 per MT CO2e reduced for the Measure and Participant Perspectives. Because there are no financial benefits associated with this measure, it is not possible to calculate a BCR or discounted payback. Table 106 summarizes results for ZW1.

Table 106 BCA Results for ZW-1
Description Input* Source
Incremental Cost of Organic Service - Single Family ($/month) $4.44 City of Encinitas, 2026b Number of Organic Containers - Single-Family Homes 18,447 U.S. Census Bureau, 2024 Organic Waste Density - Food (lbs/gallon) 3.5 U.S. EPA, 2016 Organic Waste Density - Yard Trimmings (lbs/gallon) 1.4 U.S. EPA, 2016 Distribution of Waste (% each type) 0.5 U.S. EPA, 2016
Overall Waste Density 2.4 U.S. EPA, 2016
Discount Rate 3% CEC&S, 2025
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 Perspective Entity
Cumulative
GHG Reduction
from BCA
(MT CO2e)
Cost
Effectiveness
(NPV/MT CO2e)*
BenefitCost Ratio**
Discounted
Payback
(Yrs)**
Administrator (A) City of Encinitas $208,029 $0 N/A N/A Participant (P) Residents,
Businesses $208,029 ($70) N/A N/A
Non-Participant (NP) N/A $208,029 $0 N/A N/A
Measure (M)
M=A+P+NP
N/A $208,029 ($70) N/A N/A
*All dollar values are in 2025$ Energy Policy Initiatives Center, USD 2026 **N/A means it was not possible to calculate benefit-cost ratio or discounted payback because there was no associated costs or benefits, or costs or benefits were negative.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 485 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 100

6.7.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Costs
Table 107 and Table 108 summarize the estimated annual ongoing costs the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing ZW-1 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $142,439 and a one-time cost of $26,281 paid through enterprise fees to cover the costs of managing the City's Zero waste program and educating the community about the program and how to properly divert organic waste and recycling.

Table 107 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure ZW-1 (2025$) Table 108 Estimated Annual One-Time Costs for Measure ZW-1 (2025$)

6.8 CAP Coordination and Reporting

6.8.1 CCR-1: CAP Coordination and Reporting

6.8.1.1 Benefit-Cost Analysis
No BCA costs were calculated for this measure as there are no GHG reductions associated with this coordination measure.

6.8.1.2 Estimated City Implementation Cost
Table 109 and Table 110 show the estimated annual ongoing and one-time costs the City is expected to incur to implement the measure. These costs are broken down by expected funding source, policy driver, and year that the cost is expected to be incurred. Implementing CCR-1 would result in an annual ongoing cost of $31,000 to be paid through the general fund to annually report progress metrics. Additionally, $8,400 which has been awarded grant funding by SANDAG to conduct a communitywide greenhouse gas inventory every two years.

An additional $350,000 is expected between 2031 and 2035 to update the City’s CAP and conduct a Climate Equity Study, which are both contingent on grant funding.

Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Enterprise State Mandated $142,439 $142,439 $142,439 $142,439 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Enterprise State Mandated $26,281 $0 $0 $0
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 486 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 101
Table 109 Estimated Annual Ongoing Costs for Measure CCR-1 (2025$) Table 110 Estimated One-Time Costs for Measure CCR-1 (2025$) Funding Source Policy Driver
Annual Cost
2026 - 2030
Annual Cost
2031 - 2035
Annual Cost
2036 - 2040
Annual Cost
2041 - 2045
Awarded Grant Funding 2018 CAP $8,400 $8,400 $8,400 $8,400 General Fund 2018 CAP $31,000 $31,000 $31,000 $31,000
All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
Funding Source Policy Driver
One-Time Cost
2026-2030
One-Time Cost
2031-2035
One-Time Cost
2036-2040
One-Time Cost
2041-2045
Contingent on Grant Funding 2018 CAP $0 $200,000 $0 $0
Contingent on Grant Funding 2026 CAP Update $0 $150,000 $0 $0 All dollar values are in 2025$ City of Encinitas, 2026
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 487 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 102
7 CONCLUSION
This report summarizes the findings of the City of Encinitas Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP) Cost Analysis conducted by the Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC) at the University of San Diego. The purpose of the analysis was to estimate how cost-effectively CAP Update actions reduce GHG emissions, the financial impacts to residents and businesses who are affected by measures, and the City’s budget impact as a result of implementing the measures. This analysis should be considered a preliminary assessment of cost effectiveness and financial impacts. A more detailed analysis may be required to fully assess a particular measure, particularly municipal measures.

Results from the BCA show that the 28 CAP Update measures included in this analysis would have a net cost of about $245 per MT CO2e reduced. The ten most cost-effective measures would have an average net cost of about $60 per metric ton of CO2e reduced and represent just over 80 percent of all cumulative GHG reductions in the BCA. Measures that are state mandated would have an average net cost of about $60 per MT CO2e reduced. Measures from the 2018 CAP and those newly proposed in the 2026 CAP update would have a net cost of between 120-130 per MT CO2e reduced and represent about 80 percent of cumulative GHG emission reductions in the BCA. Measures that affect Municipal operations or measures for which the City would make a significant infrastructure investment or purchase would have an average net cost of about $1,500 per MT CO2e reduced.

Results from the ICA show that costs to the City to implement all measures in the CAP Update total about $7.3M in one-time costs, and an average of $8M in annual ongoing costs. Of these costs, about $640,000 in one-time costs and an average of $4.0M in annual ongoing costs are anticipated to be paid by the General Fund. When excluding costs to fund CET-1 (Implementing the Active Transportation Plan), which was previously approved outside of the climate action planning process and has historically been funded by the General Fund at an average of $3.3M annually, the ongoing cost to the General Fund reduces to about $650,000 annually. Of the total costs to the General Fund, including both one-time costs and 20-year annual costs, less than 1 percent of the costs are for state-mandated programs, 84% are for other previously approved City plans or policies, 7 percent are for measures adopted in the 2018 CAP, and 8 percent are proposed in this CAP Update. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 488 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 103
8 REFERENCES
Angi. 2026. How Much Does a Grey Water System Cost? [2026 Data]. Available at https://www.angi.com/articles/grey-water-system-cost.htm Aquabarrel. 2025. How Much Does A Rain Garden Cost? The A-Z Guide. Available at https://www.aquabarrel.com/rain-gardencost#:~:text=When%20it%20comes%20to%20installing,garden%20totaling%20$4%2C000%2D $16%2C000
Baer, K. C., et al. 2017. San Diego’s Urban Forest, 2017. (Resource Bulletin NRS-134). Northern Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRSRB-134 California Air Pollution Controls Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2024. Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity. Available at https://www.caleemod.com/handbook/full_handbook.html California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2025a. EMission FACtor (EMFAC) model (2021 Version).

Available at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2025b. OFFROAD model (Version 1.0.5). Available at https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/offroad/
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2025c. California Cap-and-Invest Program. Summary of California-Quebec Joint Auction Settlement Prices and Results. November 2025. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-08/results_summary.pdf California Electronic Technical Reference Manual (CA eTRM). 2025. Available at https://www.caetrm.com/login/?next=/
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2026. California Energy Demand, 2025 – 2045. Available at https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report-iepr/2025- integrated-energy-policy-report-0
California Emissions Estimator Model (CALEEMOD). 2022. Appendix D: Technical Source Documentation for Emissions Calculations (April 2022). Available at https://www.caleemod.com/documents/user-guide/05_Appendix%20D.pdf California Energy Codes and Standard (CEC&S). 2020. 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study:

Multifamily New Construction (Revision 1.1). Available at https://localenergycodes.com/download/1552/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Multifamily%20New Con%20Cost-Eff%20Report.pdf
California Energy Codes and Standard (CEC&S). 2024a. 2022 Code: Nonresidential New Construction Reach Code Cost-effectiveness Study (Revision 1.3). Available at https://localenergycodes.com/download/1266/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Nonres%20New%20 Construction%20Cost-eff%20Report.pdf
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 489 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 104
California Energy Codes and Standard (CEC&S). 2024b. 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Single Family New Construction (Revision 1.3). Available at
https://localenergycodes.com/download/1240/file_path/fieldList/2022%20Single%20Family%2 0NewCon%20Cost-eff%20Study.pdf
California Energy Codes and Standard (CEC&S). 2025a. 2022 Cost-Effectiveness Study: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades (Revision 1.0). Available at https://localenergycodes.com/download/1222/file_path/fieldList/Single%20Family%20Retrofits %20CostEff%20Report.pdf
California Energy Codes and Standard (CEC&S). 2025b. Application of the 2022 Studies to the 2025 Energy Code: Existing Single Family Building Upgrades.

California Energy Commission. (2017). Results of Invitation to Participate: Irrigation Controllers (TN 220258). Presentation, Phase II Appliance Efficiency Pre-Rulemaking. Available at:
https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/GetDocument.aspx?tn=220258 California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LUCI). 2026. ICARP Grant Programs - Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program. Available at https://lci.ca.gov/climate/icarp/grants/extreme-heat-community-resilience.html California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2001. California Standard Practice Manual:

Economic Analysis of Demand-Side Programs and Projects. Available at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpucwebsite/files/uploadedfiles/cpuc_public_website/content/utilities_and_industries/energy_- _electricity_and_natural_gas/cpuc-standard-practice-manual.pdf California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2024. Avoided Cost Calculator (Version 1b).

Available at https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/demand-sidemanagement/energy-efficiency/der-cost-effectiveness California Transportation Department (CalTrans). 2021. Life Cycle Planning for Intelligent Transportation System Assets: Survey of Practice. Available at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/research-innovation-system-information/- /media/d96536f8c238435caee37c5b9eddb3bd.ashx
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCD). 2005. BMP Costs and Savings Study: A Guide to Data and Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Urban Water Conservation Best Management Practices (July 2016 Update). Available at https://calwep.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/Costs_Savings_Study_Final_042805.pdf California Urban Water Conservation Council. 2016. BMP Cost and Savings Study Update: A Guide to Data and Methods for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Urban Water Conservation Best Management Practices (July 2016 Update). Available at https://calwep.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/Cost-and-Savings-Study-Update-2016.pdf Cellife. 2026. Battery degradation rate. Available at https://www.cellife.fi/batteryclopedia 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 490 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 105
Chen Ryan, 2023. Encinitas Modal Alternative Project (MAP) ATP Implementation Plan, February 2023. Available at
https://www.encinitasca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6171/638119724634730000 City of Encinitas. 2023. City of Encinitas Electric Vehicle Charging Master Plan: Planning for an All-Electric Transportation Future. Available at
https://www.encinitasca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10271/638569069446000000 City of Encinitas. 2025a. Communications with staff about number of single-family homes triggered by the ordinance.

City of Encinitas. 2025b. Communications with staff about natural gas utility charges for Community Center.

City of Encinitas. 2025c. Communication with staff about the area of City property that is landscaped.

City of Encinitas. 2025d. Communications with staff regarding tree planting, maintenance, and removal costs.

City of Encinitas. 2025e. Communications with staff regarding number of fleet vehicles, useful life, miles driven, number of chargers, and estimated cost.

City of Encinitas. 2025f. Communication with staff regarding average lawn size.

City of Encinitas. 2026a. Climate Action Plan Update.

City of Encinitas. 2026b. Communication with staff regarding cost of organic waste collection.

City of Encinitas. 2026c. Communications with staff regarding cost of flexible fleet program cost estimate.

City of San Diego. 2016. San Diego Tree Canopy Assessment. Available at https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/san_diego_tree_canopy_assessment_05oct2016.p df
County of San Diego. 2020. Water Efficient Landscape Design Manual, Appendix A. Available at https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/docs/Landscape/WELDManualAppendix-A.pdf Edwards, K., et al. 2011. Defining Engine Efficiency Limits. U.S. Department of Energy (U.S.

DOE), Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f8/deer11_edwards.pdf Energy Policy Initiatives Center (EPIC). 2026. City of Encinitas Climate Action Plan. CAP Method Document, Appendix F: EPIC GHG reduction methods.

Engie. 2020. City of Encinitas PV and Battery Storage PPA. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 491 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 106
Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 2013. A Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety. Available at https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022- 06/fhwasa13037.pdf
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (FRB Dallas). 2017. Deflating Nominal Values to Real Values.

Available at https://www.dallasfed.org/research/basics/nominal.aspx Federal Reserve of St. Louis (FRED). 2026. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers: All Items in San Diego-Carlsbad, CA (CBSA) (CUUSA424SA0S). Available at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUSA424SA0S
Handoff. 2026. Cost to Install an EV Charging Station in San Diego, CA. Available at https://www.handoff.ai/construction-costs/install-an-ev-charging-station/san-diego-ca Home Depot, 2026a. Retail pricing of electric leaf blower.

Home Depot, 2026b. Retail pricing for law and garden equipment.

Kelley Blue Book. 2025. Available at https://www.hbb.com Kimley Horn. 2024. City of Encinitas Infrastructure Task Force: FINAL REPORT, February 2024.

See Attachment 4: Comprehensive List of Projects. Available at https://encinitas.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=3161&meta_id=165114 Kovacs, K., et al. 2022. Tree cover and property values in the United States: A national metaanalysis. Ecological Economics 197 (2022) 107424. Available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2022/nrs_2022_kovacs_001.pdf Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). 2025. U.S. Distributed Solar and Storage 2025 Data Update, October 2025. Available at https://eta-publications.lbl.gov/publications/usdistributed-solar-and-storage Lee, K. 2024. Autumn Essentials: Best Leaf Blowers for Home Use. Available at https://onevantool.com/blogs/news/autumn-essentials-best-leaf-blowers-for-home-use Lowe’s. 2026. Retail pricing for lawn and garden equipment.

Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2020. Zero-Emission Bus Fleet Transition Study, September 2020. Available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/SDMTS_ZEB_Fleet Transition StudyADA12072020.pdf
Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2025. Zero-Emission Bus Fleet Transition Study Update 2025, June 2025. Available at https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/attachments/zeb-transtionplan-update-2025.pdf Metropolitan Transit System (MTS). 2026. Fare Chart. Available at https://www.sdmts.com/fares/fare-chart
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 492 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 107
National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR). 2021. U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks: Q1 2021. Available at
https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/80694.pdf
National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR). 2023. U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System and Energy Storage Cost Benchmarks, With Minimum Sustainable Price Analysis: Q1 2023. Available at https://docs.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/87303.pdf
National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR). 2024. Annual Technology Baseline - 2024 Commercial PV. Available at https://atb.nrel.gov/electricity/2024/commercial_pv National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR). 2026a. Comstock Building Database. Available at https://comstock.nrel.gov/
National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR). 2026b. ResStock Building Database. Available at https://resstock.nrel.gov/
NewCars.Com. 2025.

Newson, Gavin. 2025. Based on Executive Order N-27-25. Available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CRA-Response-EO-N-27-25_-blformatted-GGN-Signed-6-11-954pmFinal.pdf North County Transit District (NCTD). 2026. Fares and Passes. Available at https://gonctd.com/fares/fares-passes/
Olivenhain Municipal Water District (OMWD). 2025. Monthly Water Rates and Charges (Effective January 2025). Available at https://www.olivenhain.com/wp-content/uploads/RR-Brochure2025-Final.pdf Parsons Brinkerhoff. 2014. Encinitas Transit Feasibility Study.

Pierce, L., and Slowik, P. 2024. The International Council on Clean Transportation. Assessment of U.S. electric vehicle charging needs and announced deployment through 2032. Available at https://theicct.org/publication/assessment-of-us-ev-charging-needs-and-announceddeployment-through-2032-mar24/ Pine, J. 2024. How Much Does a Ford Escape Cost? Available at https://www.corwinfordreno.com/how-much-does-a-ford-escape-cost/ Premium Autos, Inc. 2025. Electric vs Gas Cars: True Cost of Ownership Guide. Available at https://www.premiumautosinc.com/electric-vs-gas-cars-true-cost-of-ownershipguide?srsltid=AfmBOoqFJWdCMADTSrrbgRfVno_sAMu89Te28mlpkkS9o5wEfswNgovJ Reddit. 2025. Available at
https://www.reddit.com/r/EngineeringPorn/comments/halb28/comment/fv50g0d/?forcelegacy-sct=1 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 493 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 108
Roman, Lara A., et. al. 2014. Determinants of establishment survival for residential trees in Sacramento County, CA. Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 129, September 2014, Pages 22-31. Available at
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204614001273?via%3Dihub San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2023. Try Transit Program: Summary Report (Quarter 3 Fiscal Year 2022 - Quarter 4 Fiscal Year 2023).

San Diego Community Power and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E and SDCP). 2025. Joint Rate Comparison Feb 1, 2025. Available at
https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/SDCP_SDGE%20JRC%2010.01.2025_Final.pdf San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). 2025. Schedule AL-TOU. Available at https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/SDCP_SDGE JRC 10.01.2025_Final.pdf San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). 2026a. SCHEDULE GR RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS SERVICE (Effective Jan 10, 2026). Available at
https://tariffsprd.sdge.com/view/tariff/?utilId=SDGE&bookId=GAS&tarfKey=115 San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). 2026b. SCHEDULE GN-3 RESIDENTIAL NATURAL GAS SERVICE (Effective Jan 10, 2026). Available at
https://tariffsprd.sdge.com/view/tariff/?utilId=SDGE&bookId=GAS&tarfKey=123 San Dieguito School District (SDSD). 2025. Communications with staff about power purchase agreement rates.

San Dieguito Water District (SDWD). 2024. San Dieguito Water District Specific Plan. Appendix:

San Dieguito Water District Schedule of Water Rates and Service Charges. Available at https://ecode360.com/44491026#44491026
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). 2026. Graywater System Cost and Available Rebates.

Available at: https://www.valleywater.org/accordion/graywater-system-cost-and-availablerebates SDG&E. 2025. Available Rates for Small Commercial Customers (Effective 6/1/25). Available at https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/Summary%20Table%20for%20Large%20C omm%206-1-25.pdf
SDG&E. 2026. Home Chargers. Available at https://ev.sdge.com/home-chargers SoCal Water Smart. 2025. Available Rebates. Available at https://socalwatersmart.com/en/residential/rebates/available-rebates/available-rebatesoverview/ Southern Hardware. 2026. How Long Do Yard Machines Last? Available at https://southernhardwareinc.com/why-southern-hardware-is-your-trusted-source-for-yardequipment/ 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 494 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 109
St. John, A. 2015. San Diego Graywater Options Getting A Closer Look. KPBS. Available at https://www.kpbs.org/news/evening-edition/2015/07/15/san-diego-gray-water Tree People. 2021. Tree Planting Cost-Benefit Analysis: A Case Study for Urban Forest Equity in Los Angeles, July 2021. Available at https://www.treepeople.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/07/tree-planting-cost-benefit-analysis-a-case-study-for-urban-forestequity-in-los-angeles.pdf True Car. 2025. Build your new Hyundai Kona Electric. Available at https://www.truecar.com/hyundai/kona-electric/2025/build/ UC San Diego (UCSD). 2026. EV Charging Stations at UC San Diego. Available at https://transportation.ucsd.edu/commute/ev-stations.html U.S. Census Bureau. 2024. American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2009-2023). Available at https://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets/acs-5year.html U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2014. Continuous Energy Improvement in Motor Driven Systems: A Guidebook for Industry. Available at
https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/downloads/continuous-energy-improvement-motor-drivensystems-guidebook-industry U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2025. Vehicle Technologies Office. 2025 Incremental Purchase Cost Methodology and Results for Clean Vehicles. Available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2025-
01/2025.01.13_DOE_Incremental_Cost_Report_for_publication.pdf U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2026. Operation and Maintenance for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Available at https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity-infrastructuremaintenance-and-operation U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). 2025. 2024 Los Angeles All Grades All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon). Available at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPM0_PTE_Y05LA_DPG &f=M
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2010. Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses - Ch.6 Discounting Future Benefits and Costs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at https://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-

06.pdf/$file/EE-0568-06.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (U.S. EPA). 2016. Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-
04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 495 of 514
City of Encinitas CAP Cost Analysis March 2026
Energy Policy Initiatives Center 110
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2025a. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Last updated on June 12, 2025. Available at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2025b. WaterSense. Product Market Reports and Savings Estimates.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2026. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. Available at https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gasemissions-typical-passenger-vehicle U.S. Office of Management and Budget (U.S. OMB). 2000. Guidelines to Standardize Measures of Costs and Benefits and the Format of Accounting Statements. United States Office of Management and Budget.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/fedreg/cbdraftrepor t2000.pdf
Verdant Associates. 2021. Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 Lookback Study. Available at:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/netenergy-metering-nem/nemrevisit/nem-2_lookback_study.pdf Yu, Z., et al. 2015. Cost–Benefit Analysis of Onsite Residential Graywater Recycling: A Case Study on the City of Los Angeles. Journal (American Water Works Association), September 2015, Vol. 107, No. 9, Sources and Supply (September 2015), pp. E436-E444. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jamewatworass.107.9.e436 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 496 of 514
Include? # Measure Description Policy Driver Funding Source Annual costs (to City) One-time cost (to City) Participant Cost Effectiveness ($/MTCO2e) Co-Benefits 2030 CAP GHG Reduction Potential 2045 CAP GHG Reduction Potential Cumulative BCA GHG Reduction Potential Yes 1 BD-1: Require Existing Residential Development Energy Efficiency Readopt an existing residential energy efficiency building code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle, if cost effective. 2018 CAP Fee Revenue $2,250 $0 Homeowners, renters $224 Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 46 183 3,563 Yes 2 BD-2: Require New Residential Development Decarbonization Readopt a high-performance building code requirement (“reach code”) that incentivizes all-electric construction via ordnance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle, if cost effective. 2018 CAP Fee Revenue $2,250 $0 Homebuyers, renters ($76) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 276 733 18,119 Yes 3 BD-3: Require Existing Nonresidential Development Energy Efficiency Readopt existing nonresidential energy efficiency building code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle, if cost effective. 2018 CAP Fee Revenue N/A N/A Nonresidential building owners, occupants N/A Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience Not Quantified Not Quantified 0 Yes 4 BD-4: Require New Nonresidential Development Decarbonization Adopt new nonresidential building code requirement (“reach code”) that incentivizes all-electric construction via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle, if cost effective. 2018 CAP Fee Revenue $2,250 $0 Nonresidential building owners, occupants ($351) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 591 2,540 50,706 Yes 5 BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings
Develop and implement a comprehensive set of studies, programs, regulations, and incentives to work towards decarbonizing the existing building stock. 2026 CAP
Update General Fund $20,000 $250,000
Homeowners,
renters,
nonresidnetial
building owners,
occupants
($76)
Air Quality, Public Health &
Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate
Resilience
7,001 38,085 752,374
Yes 6
MBD-1: Implement Energy Efficiency and
Decarbonization Projects at Existing
Municipal Facilities
Install energy efficiency measures and replace all gas appliances and equipment with efficient electric alternatives at all municipal facilities. 2018 CAP Contingent on Grant Funding $0 $1,000,000 City of Encinitas ($12) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 81 135 2,492 Yes 7 MBD-2: Require New Municipal Facilities be All-Electric Adopt a policy requiring the design and construction of new municipal facilities be all-electric. 2026 CAP Update General Fund N/A N/A City of Encinitas N/A Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience Not Quantified Not Quantified 0 Yes 8 RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power Continue to offer Power100 as the primary electricity rate for Encinitas customers and maintain participation rate through incentives, outreach and education. 2018 CAP General Fund $2,250 $0 Residents, businesses ($59) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 18,267 0 298,014 Yes 9
RE-2: Require Existing Nonresidential
Buildings to Install Solar Photovoltaic
Systems
Readopt existing nonresidential solar photovoltaic (PV) system building code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle. 2018 CAP Fee Revenue $2,250 $0
Nonresidential
building owners,
occupants
$469 Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 239 665 4,192 Yes 10
MRE-1: Install Microgrids with On-site
Renewable Generation and Battery
Storage at Existing Municipal Facilities
Complete a feasibility study and install on-site renewable microgrids at suitable municipal facilities. 2018 CAP Contingent on Grant Funding $0 $4,220,000 City of Encinitas $477 Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 0 341 5,939 Yes 11
MRE-2: Require New Municipal Facilities
to Install Microgrids with On-Site Solar
and Battery Storage
Adopt a policy requiring the design and construction of new municipal facilities to include microgrids. 2026 CAP
Update General Fund N/A N/A City of Encinitas N/A Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy Not Quantified Not Quantified 0 Yes 12 WE-1: Support Local Water Districts' Water Conservation Efforts Educate residents on the importance of water conservation and offer incentives to reduce water use. State Mandated Enterprise $64,000 $0 City of Encinitas $262 Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 955 879 11,403 Yes 13
WE-2: Require New Single-Family Homes
to be Pre-Plumbed for Graywater
Systems
Continue to implement the existing building code requiring graywater systems at new single-family homes and readopt the code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-year State Building Code cycle.

Other City
Plan/Policy Fee Revenue $2,250 $0 Developers ($17,674) Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 8 20 295 Yes 14 MWE-1: Convert City-Owned Landscape to Drought Tolerant or Native Species Identify locations within parks and the public right-of-way to convert landscaping to drought tolerant or native species. Other City Plan/Policy General Fund $231,111 $0 City of Encinitas ($22,188) Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 2 7 130 Yes 15 CET-1: Implement the Active Transportation Plan Continue to implement the citywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP) based on the Modal Alternatives Project (MAP) and incorporate any future updates to the ATP or MAP that may be adopted by Council. Other City Plan/Policy Contingent on Grant Funding $4,800,000 $0 City of Encinitas ($9,794) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 382 536 7,812 Yes 16 CET-2: Implement a Microtransit Program Conduct a Microtransit study to determine a recommended flexible fleet option for the City and implement the recommended system. 2018 CAP Contingent on Grant Funding $600,000 $222,000 City of Encinitas ($3,296) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 150 62 1,995 Attachment 3
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 497 of 514
Include? # Measure Description Policy Driver Funding Source Annual costs (to City) One-time cost (to City) Participant Cost Effectiveness ($/MTCO2e) Co-Benefits 2030 CAP GHG Reduction Potential 2045 CAP GHG Reduction Potential Cumulative BCA GHG Reduction Potential Yes 17
CET-3: Require Transportation Demand
Management Programs for New
Residential, Nonresidential and Major
Redevelopment Projects
Require new developments to create and implement transportation demand management (TDM) strategies to mitigate traffic impacts of project and reduce vehicle miles travelled. 2026 CAP
Update General Fund $0 $100,000 Residents ($433) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 1,556 3,430 38,352 Yes 18 CET-4: Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled Develop and implement a comprehensive set of studies, programs, regulations, and incentives to reduce citywide VMT. 2026 CAP Update Contingent on Grant Funding $50,000 $200,000 Residents, employees ($1,089) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 0 3,451 30,221 Yes 19 CET-5: Improve Traffic Flow Improve traffic flow by retiming traffic signals and installing roundabouts at key intersections in the City. Other City Plan/Policy Contingent on Grant Funding $700,000 $0 Residents, City of Encinitas ($1,785) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 1,902 1,136 72,674 Yes 20 CET-6: Require Residential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Readopt the existing residential electric vehicle charging building code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-yr State Building Code cycle, as applicable. 2018 CAP Fee Revenue $2,250 $0 Residents ($231) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 650 1,798 17,438 Yes 21 CET-7: Require Nonresidential Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Readopt the existing nonresidential electric vehicle charging building code requirement (“reach code”) via ordinance for each 3-yr State Building Code cycle, as applicable. 2018 CAP Fee Revenue $2,250 $0 Developer, building owners ($127) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 529 1,983 15,976 Yes 22
MCET-1: Transition to Zero-Emission
Vehicle (ZEV) Municipal Fleet
Continue to convert City-owned gasoline-fueled cars and light-duty vehicles to zero-emission vehicles and purchase renewable diesel for all diesel-fueled heavy-duty vehicles and equipment.

State
Mandated General Fund $0 $130,000 City of Encinitas ($732) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 265 288 1,319 Yes 23
MCET-2: Implement a Municipal
Employee Transportation Demand
Management Program
Consider adopting teleworking policy for City employees. Develop and implement a program to incentivize City employees commuting to work by alternative modes as a model for other local employers. 2026 CAP
Update General Fund $45,000 $0 City of Encinitas ($211) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 62 26 856 Yes 24
MCET-3: Install Public Electric Vehicle
Charging Stations
Install publicly available electric vehicle charging stations in municipally owned parking lots and encourage nonresidential property owners to install electric vehicle charging stations, in accordance with the EV Charging Station Master Plan. 2018 CAP Contingent on Grant Funding $0 $1,000,000 City of Encinitas, EV Owner ($137) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 2,035 2,427 28,814 Yes 25
ZE-1: Limit Use of Gas-Powered Leaf
Blowers
Enforce existing ordinance restricting the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. 2018 CAP General Fund $0 $0 Property owners,
Gardeners,
Landscapers
($409) Public Health & Safety, Air Quality 250 247 738
Yes 26
ZE-2: Limit Use of Gas-Powered
Landscape Equipment
Adopt an ordinance restricting the use of gas-powered landscape equipment. 2026 CAP
Update General Fund $0 $40,000
Property owners,
Gardeners,
Landscapers
$225 Public Health & Safety, Air Quality 0 1,043 18,628 Yes 27 ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program Implement a Zero Waste Program to reduce waste disposal from residents and businesses in the community. State Mandated Enterprise $142,439 $26,281 Residents, businesses ($70) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy 10,357 12,694 208,029 Yes 28 CS-1: Establish a Tree Canopy Goal for the City Evaluate the City’s current urban tree canopy and establish a goal for increasing the City’s urban tree canopy. 2026 CAP Update Contingent on Grant Funding $0 $50,000 City of Encinitas,
residential and
nonresidential
property owners
($574)
Air Quality, Public Health &
Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate
Resilience
4,096 4,811 7,498
Yes 29 CS-2: Enforce Landscape Tree Requirements at New Developments Continue to implement the City's current tree and landscape requirements. Other City Plan/Policy General Fund $0 $0 Residential and nonresidential property owners ($646) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 117 242 5,739 Yes 30 CS-3: Incentivize Tree Planting on Private
Property
Incentivize tree planting on private property through a free tree giveaway program. 2026 CAP
Update General Fund $23,500 $0
Residential and
nonresidential
property owners
($505)
Air Quality, Public Health &
Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate
Resilience
18 71 1,532
Yes 31 CS-4: Adopt and Implement a Mature Tree Ordinance Adopt and implement a Mature Tree Ordinance with new replacement ratio based on replacement tree locations and species for new multifamily developments, new nonresidential or mixed-use developments and redevelopment of existing nonresidential and multi-family properties. 2026 CAP
Update General Fund N/A N/A
Residential and
nonresidential
property owners
N/A
Air Quality, Public Health &
Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate
Resilience
Not Quantified Not Quantified 0
Yes 32 MCS-1: Plant and Maintain City Trees Plant and maintain City trees in accordance with the City's Urban Forest Management Plan. 2018 CAP General Fund $228,000 $0 City of Encinitas ($4,571) Air Quality, Public Health & Safety, Jobs & Economy, Climate Resilience 66 119 1,416 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 498 of 514
Target Summary 2030 2045
Target Reduction
Needed (MTCO₂e) 49,500 77,000
Included Reduction
Potential (MTCO₂e) 49,901 77,952
Surplus / Shortfall
(MTCO₂e) 401 952
Target Status
Exceeds
2030 target
by 401
MTCO₂e
Exceeds
2045
target by
952
MTCO₂e
Scenario Counts Count Count
Total Measures 32 32
Included Measures 32 32
Removed Measures 00
Measure 2045 Reduction
No measures removed
Measures Currently Removed in Scenario
CAP GHG Reduction Scenario Tool
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 499 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 1 Source Question/Comment Response
Mayor Ehlers How are greenhouse gas emissions measured? GHG emissions in the City’s CAP are modeled, consistent with regional best practices outlined in SANDAG’s Regional Climate Action Planning Framework for Local Governments. This method uses locally reliable activity data (such as electricity use, natural gas consumption, transportation activity modeling, and waste generation) and scientifically established emissions factors that convert those activities into metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e). Activity-based inventories follow internationally recognized standards (GHG Protocol, ICLEI, ISO 14064, etc.) and are considered the only feasible and accurate method for community-scale emissions accounting.

Atmospheric GHG sensors (ground or satellite) measure ambient concentrations, not emissions by source. Sensors cannot isolate how much emissions come from a particular jurisdiction or its activities.

Furthermore, atmospheric sensors cannot assign concentration proportions to sectors, making them unusable for the required structure of CAPs.

Mayor Ehlers For measure CET-1, how much grant funding is assumed in the cost analysis? Given that many
bicycle and pedestrian projects have historically
received substantial grant funding, what portion of
the projected cost is expected to be covered by
grants?
The CAP Update Cost Analysis assumes measure CET-1 would require $2.5 million of grant funding annually, consistent with what the City has historically received for active transportation projects.

Mayor Ehlers Can the cost analysis show the costs with and without anticipated grant funding, as well as the
portion of the cost that would be borne directly by
the City?
The CAP Update Cost Analysis identified that $600,000, on average, would need to be allocated annually to implement the measures in the 2018 and 2026 CAP. The analysis also determined that all CAP measures, including other City plans or projects that would happen regardless of the CAP, are contingent on $4.28 million in annual grant funding. This information has been pulled out of the Cost Analysis into the CAP Evaluation Tool in the “Annual costs (to City)” and “One-time cost (to City)” columns.

Mayor Ehlers What assumptions are being made regarding the percentage of vehicles that will be electric, plug-in
GHG emission reductions in the CAP account for increased zero emission vehicle adoption annually through 2045. Specifically, measure 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 500 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 2 Source Question/Comment Response
hybrid, or otherwise not produce emissions from
idling by 2045? How does increasing EV adoption
affect the projected GHG reductions from this
measure?
CET-5, which seeks to reduce vehicle idling, accounts for reduced idling emissions as more vehicles are electric over time.

Mayor Ehlers How are environmental benefits, quality-of-life benefits, and financial benefits to residents
considered in the analysis?
The CAP identifies co-benefits associated with measures, including air quality, public health and safety, jobs and the economy, and climate resilience. These benefits are considered qualitatively and are not all monetized in the cost-effectiveness analysis. This information has been pulled out into the CAP Evaluation Tool in the “Co-Benefits” column.

Mayor Ehlers What types of projects are included in the cost estimate for CET-1: Implement the Active
Transportation Plan? Does the estimate include
smaller projects, such as individual traffic-control
improvements, or only major capital projects?
This amount includes funding for all Mobility Improvements funding allocated by City Council pulled directly from the budget book. This could include smaller projects such as innovative bike lanes, general mobility improvements, curb ramp projects, and Safe Routes to School.

Deputy Mayor
O'Hara
Can staff provide whether the analysis considers
how the CAP affects residents' quality of life and
finances?
The inputs of the CAP Update Cost Analysis include financial information on incremental costs of required and voluntary participation in CAP measures. For example, the additional cost required for a homeowner to voluntarily install a heat pump water heater is accounted for in the analysis and can be found in the Benefit-Cost Analysis inputs for each measure. See Exhibit A at the end of this attachment for a summary of the participant costs that were derived from researchbased inputs for each GHG reduction measure. Quality of life impacts are considered qualitatively as part of the co-benefits cited for each measure in the CAP.

Deputy Mayor
O'Hara
How do power purchase agreements (PPAs) work,
and are they generally more expensive than the
City's current electricity costs?
A PPA is a contract under which a customer purchases electricity generated by a specified renewable-energy project, typically for a defined term. The City's use of a PPA would depend on the specific project, contract terms, and applicable procurement requirements. PPA pricing would need to be evaluated against the City's applicable electricity costs at the time of procurement. Typically, it is best practice that a customer only enter into a PPA if it reduces that customer’s energy costs.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 501 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 3 Source Question/Comment Response
Deputy Mayor
O'Hara
Is San Diego Community Power considered a power
purchase agreement?
No, San Diego Community Power is a community choice aggregator that procures electricity for participating customers. A PPA is a separate contractual arrangement for purchasing electricity generated by a specific energy project.

Councilmember
Lyndes
Can staff provide a broader summary of the cobenefits associated with each CAP strategy and measure?
The CAP identifies co-benefits that extend beyond GHG reductions, including Air Quality, Public Health and Safety, Jobs and Economy, and Climate Resilience. These benefits are identified for each measure in Chapter 3 of the CAP and were added to the CAP Evaluation Tool for quick reference.

Councilmember
Lyndes
Can the analysis more clearly identify how much
funding for each measure is expected to come from
grants versus the City's General Fund?
Chapter 6 of the Cost Analysis summarizes the implementation cost by measure. The anticipated funding source for every measure is identified, including grants, General Fund, fee revenue, and Enterprise Funds. Future grant awards are not guaranteed and therefore are not assumed as committed funding, as noted in the Cost Analysis. Funding source is also included for each measure in the CAP Evaluation Tool.

Councilmember
Lyndes
Can the analysis identify who actually bears the
cost of each measure—for example, the City,
residents, businesses, developers, or another
party—and whether costs are shared among
multiple participants?
Yes, Chapter 6 of the Cost Analysis specifies the “participants,” i.e. who bears the cost of each measure. The participants vary by measure and could be the City, residents, businesses or a combination of these types.

Councilmember
Lyndes
Can the City use the cost-benefit analysis together
with the co-benefits to better understand the overall
value of each measure rather than relying on the
single cost per metric ton figure?
Yes, the cost per MTCO₂e metric is one tool for comparing measures, but it should be considered together with GHG reduction potential, feasibility, co-benefits, funding availability, legal requirements, and other implementation considerations.

Councilmember
Lyndes
Could the CEQA documentation be streamlined by
amending the existing document rather than
preparing an entirely new document, if legally
appropriate?
The appropriate CEQA approach will be determined based on the final CAP, the City's prior environmental documentation, and applicable CEQA requirements. If the draft 2026 CAP were adopted by Council, as currently proposed, City staff anticipates that an addendum to the Negative Declaration for the 2018 CAP could be utilized as the appropriate CEQA mechanism. An addendum would be a streamlined approach, as compared to a new environmental analysis and determination.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 502 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 4 Source Question/Comment Response
Councilmember
Shaffer
How reliable are the greenhouse gas projections
and models, particularly given changes in the
scientific models and assumptions used since the
City's previous CAP?
GHG emissions in the City’s CAP are modeled, consistent with regional best practices outlined in SANDAG’s Regional Climate Action Planning Framework for Local Governments. This method uses locally reliable activity data (such as electricity use, natural gas consumption, transportation activity modeling, and waste generation) and scientifically established emissions factors that convert those activities into metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO₂e). Activity-based inventories follow internationally recognized standards (GHG Protocol, ICLEI, ISO 14064, etc.) and are considered the only feasible and accurate method for community-scale emissions accounting.

Atmospheric GHG sensors (ground or satellite) measure ambient concentrations, not emissions by source. Sensors cannot isolate how much emissions come from a particular jurisdiction or its activities.

Furthermore, atmospheric sensors cannot assign concentration proportions to sectors, making them unusable for the required structure of CAPs. Because future conditions cannot be known with certainty, the projections should be understood as planning estimates rather than precise forecasts.

Councilmember
Shaffer
What are the current capabilities for recycling or
disposing of solar panels, batteries, and other
equipment associated with electrification? Could
increase deployment of renewable technologies
create future waste-management issues?
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regulates Universal Waste (UW) Management of solar photovoltaic (PV) panels.

There are many UW haulers permitted to accept, disassemble, and process solar PV panels in California with three approved haulers in San Diego County. UW haulers must report recycling metrics to DTSC every calendar year to maintain their permit to handle solar PV panels.

Councilmember
Shaffer
Of the 32 proposed measures, which have the
greatest potential to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions relative to their cost?
The top three measures with highest GHG emission reduction potential are BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings, RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power, and ZW-1: Implement a Zero Waste Program.

Councilmember
Shaffer
Can the City develop an environmental plan that
goes beyond greenhouse gas reductions and
addresses issues such as habitat, biodiversity,
water quality, wetlands, stormwater, noise and light
The CAP focuses on climate mitigation and adaptation. Development of a broader environmental plan would be a separate policy and planning effort. The City currently has numerous environmental-related plans and policies including but not limited to:

1. Resource Management Element
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 503 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 5 Source Question/Comment Response
pollution, recycling, and environmental
stewardship?

2. Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan

3. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Master Plan

4. City Council Environmental Policy

5. Urban Forest Management Plan

6. Active Transportation Plan
Councilmember
San Antonio
Given that climate change is a global issue, how
significant are the City's investments likely to be in
terms of actual global greenhouse gas reductions?
How can the City be confident that its expenditures
will produce meaningful results?
Encinitas cannot independently determine global climate outcomes.

The purpose of the CAP is to establish the City's proportional contribution to regional and State GHG reduction goals while also advancing local benefits such as energy savings, improved air quality, transportation options, and climate resilience.

Councilmember
San Antonio
How should Council balance the City's investment
in the CAP with other competing community needs
and expenditures?
The CAP Cost Analysis is intended to inform Council's prioritization of GHG reduction measures alongside other City priorities. Individual measures vary substantially in cost, GHG reduction potential, funding source, legal requirements, and co-benefits. City Council may use the information provided in the CAP and Cost Analysis as a tool for future budgeting analysis and decisions.

Public Comment –
Cesar Javier
Consider additional water conservation measures,
including systems to collect and store rainwater for
future use.

The CAP includes three water conservation measures. Supporting Actions that directs the City to work with developers to implement Low Impact Development and other stormwater features on new and redevelopment projects. The City’s Jurisdictional Runoff Management Plan also encourages the use of systems to collect and store rainwater for future use.

Public Comment –
Cesar Javier
Consider the role of the Air Pollution Control District and other regional agencies in addressing air
pollution, environmental justice, and climate
change.

The City coordinates with regional and State agencies on issues that extend beyond municipal jurisdiction. The CAP recognizes the importance of regional coordination in addressing climate, air quality, transportation, and related issues.

Public Comment –
Cesar Javier
Ensure that implementation of the CAP includes the
entire community and considers public health and
safety.

The CAP includes measures intended to provide community-wide benefits and identifies public health, safety, air quality, and climate resilience among potential co-benefits.

Public Comment –
Jim Wong
The Benefit-Cost Analysis does not appear to
capture many co-benefits, including public health,
public safety, and social equity.

The CAP recognizes co-benefits beyond direct GHG reductions.

Because many of these benefits are difficult to monetize, they are considered qualitatively rather than included as dollar values in the CAP Update Cost Analysis.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 504 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 6 Source Question/Comment Response
Public Comment –
Jim Wong
The Benefit-Cost Analysis reduces each measure to
a single number, which may cause Council to
overemphasize cost effectiveness while overlooking
other important benefits. How should Council avoid
relying too heavily on the single cost-per-metric-ton
figure?
The cost effectiveness metric is intended to be utilized to prioritize implementation sequencing of CAP measures, not to determine what measures to keep or remove. The proposed GHG reduction measures are all recommended for adoption. The co-benefits of each measure should also be considered.

Public Comment –
Denis Lougeay
The City should consider whether the assumptions
underlying the CAP remain appropriate given newer
climate science and evidence concerning global
vegetation and atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change. The IPCC’s mission is to provide policymakers at all levels with regular, objective, and comprehensive scientific assessments on climate change, its impacts, and potential future risks. The IPCC does not conduct original research; instead, it synthesizes findings from thousands of scientific papers, compiling them into “Assessment Reports” and special reports that inform governments and the public about the state of climate science, impacts, and response options. The IPCC is widely regarded as the world’s leading authority on climate science. Its reports are drafted and reviewed by hundreds of volunteer scientists from around the globe, representing 195 member countries.

The IPCC’s review process is considered the largest peer review in the scientific community, ensuring objectivity, transparency, and credibility.

Its findings are used as the scientific foundation for international climate negotiations and national climate policies. The 2020 CAP and the proposed 2026 CAP reference research presented in the IPCC’s Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report and Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report, respectively, which are summaries for policymakers on the IPCC’s periodic Climate Assessment Reports.

Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report concluded that human influence has resulted in observed climate change. IPCC’s climate modeling scenarios use a range of plausible futures, not just a single “worst case.” Much of the IPCC’s work on climate modeling is to understand impacts, risks, and necessity of future climate adaptation under varying global greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. As a result of 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 505 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 7 Source Question/Comment Response
these findings, the IPCC recommended a worldwide goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius in order to avoid significant impacts from climate change. In the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, the “worst-case scenario”, which is referred to as RCP8.5, was retired.

Due to the global increase in renewables and climate action, international research concludes that this absolute worst-case scenario of climate change is no longer plausible. The retirement of the RCP8.5 pathway doesn’t mean that climate action is no longer required; rather, it signals that society is making positive progress towards achieving the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and that there is still work to be done. The IPCC continues to assess a range of plausible futures, and even moderate scenarios project significant impacts to communities like Encinitas. Maintaining a current Climate Action Plan ensures that the City contributes to the global climate solution and ensures that the City is prepared for anticipated risks, including increased risk of sea level rise, flooding, wildfires and intense storms.

Public Comment –
Denis Lougeay
Given the estimated $12–$20 million total cost of
the CAP, what is the justification for spending these
funds to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?
The cost estimate represents projected implementation costs over the CAP planning period, not necessarily a single City expenditure. The majority of this cost is for projects or programs that, irrespective of the CAP, are anticipated to be budgeted for by City Council in the future.

Examples include funding for bike lanes, traffic calming and roundabouts that are already in the City’s projected Capital Improvement Plan. The CAP Cost Analysis determined that the existing and newly proposed GHG reduction measures in the draft 2026 CAP would require, on average, an annual allocation of $600,000 from the General Fund, over the next 20 years.

Public Comment –
Katie Cramer
The Benefit-Cost Analysis was intentionally limited
to financial costs and benefits and does not include
the social and environmental costs of continued
greenhouse gas emissions or the co-benefits of
reducing emissions. Council should consider these
limitations when using the analysis.

It is accurate to state that the cost analysis has limitations. It is designed primarily to compare financial costs with quantified GHG reductions. Non-monetized co-benefits and other considerations should also inform Council's decision making.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 506 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 8 Source Question/Comment Response
Public Comment –
Katie Cramer
All of the measures included in the CAP are
necessary to achieve the City's stated GHG
reduction targets; therefore, the cost-benefit
analysis should be used to prioritize implementation
rather than to eliminate measures.

The CAP is designed as a package of measures to collectively achieve the City's GHG reduction targets.

Public Comment –
Katie Cramer
The City should move forward with implementation
of the CAP, including building decarbonization and
renewable-energy measures that provide significant
GHG reductions.

No response.

Public Comment –
JP Bruner
The benefit-cost analysis should be treated as an
implementation and prioritization tool rather than a
means of determining which CAP measures should
be retained or eliminated.

The cost-benefit analysis is intended to inform implementation and prioritization. It is not, by itself, intended to determine whether a measure should be retained or eliminated.

Public Comment –
JP Bruner
The analysis does not account for the cost of
inaction or delayed action, and those costs should
be considered when evaluating the CAP.

The cost analysis does not monetize the potential costs of delayed or avoided climate action. These considerations, including climate risks and adaptation needs, should be considered alongside the financial cost-effectiveness analysis.

Public Comment –
Ron Medak
New climate scenarios and scientific assumptions
should be incorporated into the CAP rather than
relying on older climate models and scenarios.

The CAP uses current climate science and methodology, as described in the CAP. Future updates can incorporate new climate scenarios and scientific information as they become available. Refer to response to Denis Lougeay’s first comment.

Public Comment –
Scott Campbell
Will the proposed measures produce a measurable
change in global climate, or are they primarily
symbolic/local actions?
The City's actions are intended to produce measurable reductions in local and community-wide GHG emissions. While Encinitas' contribution is small relative to global emissions, the CAP is designed to contribute to regional and statewide reduction goals.

Public Comment –
Scott Campbell
Given the cost of approximately $600,000 per year,
what is the long-term financial commitment
associated with implementing the CAP?
The CAP Cost Analysis determined that the existing and newly proposed GHG reduction measures in the draft 2026 CAP would require, on average, an annual allocation of $600,000 from the General Fund, over the next 20 years. To implement the CAP, it is recommended that City Council allocate these funds in the City’s budget, annually.

Public Comment –
Scott Campbell
The City should consider limiting its actions to the
minimum requirements imposed by State law until
According to the IPCC Assessment Reports, which synthesize findings from thousands of current scientific papers on global climate change, it is evident that action to reduce GHG emissions is a pragmatic practice 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 507 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 9 Source Question/Comment Response
there is greater certainty regarding the underlying
science and policy framework.
that local municipalities should consider. The proposed 2026 CAP includes a suite of GHG reduction measures which, if implemented collectively, would enable the City to meet GHG reduction targets for 2030 and 2045 that are aligned with state targets.

Public Comment –
Anne Feeney
The City should consider co-benefits that cannot
easily be assigned a monetary value, including
public health and environmental benefits, rather
than relying solely on the cost-benefit analysis.

The CAP identifies co-benefits including air quality, public health and safety, jobs and the economy, and climate resilience. These benefits should be considered along with cost effectiveness of each measure.

Co-benefits provide additional context for evaluating measures because not all benefits can be readily expressed in dollars or MTCO₂e.

Public Comment –
Anne Feeney
Much of the projected CAP cost represents activities
the City is already undertaking or expects to fund
through grants. The City should distinguish the
incremental cost attributable specifically to the
CAP.

The CAP Cost Analysis identified the policy driver for each GHG reduction measure as follows: State Mandated, 2018 CAP, 2026 CAP, or Other City or Policy. The CAP Cost Analysis also identified the anticipated funding source of each GHG reduction measure, including grant funding, general fund, fee revenue and enterprise funds. The incremental cost attributable to the proposed 2026 CAP to the general fund is anticipated to be $600,000 annually for the next 20 years.

Public Comment –
Anne Feeney
Building decarbonization and municipal/residential
solar provide substantial GHG reductions and
should be prioritized for implementation.

BD-5: Decarbonize Existing Buildings and RE-1: Maintain Membership in San Diego Community Power are among the measures with the greatest quantified GHG reduction potential.

Public Comment –
Judy Berlfein
The benefit-cost analysis can be useful for
prioritizing implementation, but it should not be
used to eliminate measures necessary to achieve
the City's GHG reduction targets.

The CAP Cost Analysis is intended to inform prioritization and implementation and should be considered alongside other factors. A measure's cost-effectiveness should not be the sole criterion for determining whether it should be included in the CAP.

Public Comment –
Judy Berlfein
The analysis does not account for the costs of doing
nothing or delaying action. How should those costs
be incorporated into the City's decision-making?
The cost analysis does not monetize all potential costs of inaction or delayed action. Climate risks and other long-term considerations should be considered alongside the financial analysis.

Public Comment –
Judy Berlfein
The analysis should consider broader benefits
associated with measures such as renewable
energy and other strategies that can affect the
region beyond Encinitas.

The CAP identifies broader co-benefits associated with its measures, including air quality, public health and safety, jobs and the economy, and climate resilience. These benefits are generally considered qualitatively rather than monetized.

Public Comment –
Dadla Ponizil
The cost-benefit analysis does not adequately
account for the benefits provided by trees and urban
tree canopy, including shade, stormwater
The CAP recognizes the broader benefits of trees and urban canopy, including shade, air quality, stormwater management, habitat, and 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 508 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 10 Source Question/Comment Response
interception, urban heat reduction, air quality,
habitat, and public health.
public health. Not all of the benefits were able to be monetized in the Cost Analysis due to lack of sufficient data.

Public Comment –
Dadla Ponizil
The analysis should consider the broader
ecosystem services provided by trees rather than
evaluating trees solely on the amount of carbon they
sequester.

The Cost Analysis focuses on quantified GHG reductions and financial costs. Broader ecosystem services are important co-benefits and can be considered qualitatively in evaluating measures, but this would have been a substantial work effort that was not part of the scope of work for the Cost Analysis.

Public Comment –
Dadla Ponizil
The analysis should account for climate impacts
such as extreme heat, wildfire, storms, flooding, and
drought when evaluating CAP measures.

Climate risks and resilience are addressed in Chapter 4 of the draft CAP.

The cost-effectiveness analysis is primarily a mitigation analysis and does not monetize every climate-related risk.

Public Comment –
Stephen Lord
The City should avoid imposing mandates that
require residents to replace existing gas appliances,
change vehicles, or otherwise alter their behavior.

The CAP includes a combination of regulatory, programmatic, incentivebased, and informational measures. Any regulatory requirements would remain subject to the City's authority and applicable State law. The CAP itself does not require residents to undertake every action identified in the plan. Future actions by Council would be required to authorize any development or building code requirements.

Public Comment –
Stephen Lord
The City should prioritize voluntary or economically
beneficial measures, such as PPAs, rather than
requiring residents and businesses to make costly
changes.

The CAP includes measures with different implementation approaches, including programs, incentives, regulations, and partnerships. In order to meet the proposed GHG reduction targets, a variety of measures would need to be implemented by the City. Voluntary and economically beneficial measures alone would not achieve the targets.

Public Comment –
Stephen Lord
The analysis should consider emissions associated
with manufacturing solar panels, batteries, and
other equipment, including emissions occurring
outside Encinitas.

The CAP's community GHG inventory accounts for emissions within the inventory framework established for the City. Lifecycle emissions outside the City's inventory boundary are not included in every measure's GHG calculation. This modeling methodology is consistent with regional best practices outlined in SANDAG’s Regional Climate Action Planning Framework for Local Governments.

Public Comment –
Stephen Lord
Given the City's relatively small contribution to
global emissions, what measurable climate benefit
would result from the City's proposed actions?
The City recognizes that its emissions are a small portion of global emissions. Local reductions are intended to contribute to broader regional and State goals, while many CAP measures also provide local benefits independent of their global climate impact.

Public Comment –
Julie Thunder
The CAP measures involving elimination of natural
gas and installation of graywater systems could
The CAP identifies building decarbonization as a strategy for reducing emissions from existing buildings. The CAP does not require existing 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 509 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 11 Source Question/Comment Response
increase housing costs. Can the City reconsider
these measures to avoid increasing the cost of
housing?
homes to replace its gas appliances. Gas appliance regulation is governed by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The City’s CAP recommends incentivizing electric appliances through local building code. Any local building energy code that goes beyond state code is required to be cost effective. Graywater system requirements are part of the Green Building Code and are not required to be cost-effective; however, water conservation and reuse can save residents money over time. Consistent with WE-2 in the CAP, the City’s graywater requirement—which requires new single-family homes to be preplumbed for a future outdoor graywater connection—was approved by the City Council in 2025 and became effective January 1, 2026.

Public Comment –
Julie Thunder
Graywater requirements should not be imposed on
homeowners who are remodeling or upgrading older
homes if they would substantially increase project
costs.

The WE-2 measure concerns graywater systems in new development; it does not propose a general requirement for existing homeowners to retrofit older homes with graywater systems.

Public Comment –
Russell Levan
The City should continue moving forward with the
CAP because delaying climate action will likely
increase future costs.

No response.

Public Comment –
Russell Levan
Water conservation measures appear to provide
significant benefits relative to their cost and should
be prioritized.

No response.

Public Comment –
Russell Levan
The City should consider using existing expenditures
for water-meter replacement to accelerate
deployment of electronic meters that can help
residents monitor water use and identify leaks.

Water-meter replacement and related utility investments are generally addressed through the City's water utility district.

Public Comment –
Elena Thompson
Given the scale of climate change and the City's
limited resources, should the City pause or reduce
additional CAP expenditures?
The City recognizes that its emissions are a small portion of global emissions. Local reductions are intended to contribute to broader regional and State goals, while many CAP measures also provide local benefits independent of their global climate impact.

Public Comment –
Elena Thompson
The City should consider whether continued CAP
investments would place an excessive financial
burden on future City Councils.

The CAP Cost Analysis outlines how the City could fund implementation of the CAP through a mix of funding sources, including grants, partnerships, and General Fund monies. Proposed costs to the General 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 510 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 12 Source Question/Comment Response
Fund amount to just four percent (4%) of the total implementation cost for an average annual increase in spending of $330,000.

Public Comment –
Elena Thompson
The City should avoid additional mandates that
increase costs for businesses, housing, and
residents and instead allow individuals to determine
how they can most effectively reduce their
environmental impact.

In order to meet the GHG reduction targets proposed in the draft 2026 CAP, a range of regulatory and non-regulatory measures are included.

Many of the regulatory measures involve the implementation of energy efficiency measures in residential and non-residential buildings that would lower energy costs and save businesses and residents money over time.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 511 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 13 EXHIBIT A
Participant Cost by GHG Reduction Measure
Excerpted from the Climate Action Plan Update Cost Analysis Exhibit A summarizes participant-level costs for each CAP measure, such as incremental appliance costs and per-unit installation expenses. While this information is useful for understanding what residents, businesses, and other participants may be required to pay, Exhibit A does not include any of the financial benefits that are captured in the CAP Update Cost Analysis. The full CAP Update Cost Analysis incorporates a broader set of direct financial benefits that participants may experience, including but not limited to:
• Energy-bill savings from efficiency upgrades, electrification, or renewable-energy installations. • Reduced operating and maintenance costs for equipment over its lifetime. • Available incentives, rebates, tax credits, or avoided infrastructure costs (e.g., fuel savings, avoided gas-line extensions). • Net present value and benefit-cost ratios, which reflect long-term financial gains relative to upfront costs.

Because Exhibit A presents only the cost side, without any of these offsetting financial benefits, it is not intended to represent the full economic picture of any CAP measure. A measure that appears costly in Exhibit A may, in reality, produce significant net financial savings when lifetime benefits are accounted for. For accurate interpretation and decision-making, Exhibit A should be reviewed together with the CAP Update Cost Analysis, which evaluates direct financial benefits comprehensively and provides a more complete understanding of the economic value of each CAP measure.

Measure Participant Cost Unit Notes
BD-1: Existing
Residential Energy
Efficiency
$125.68 $/water heater blanket
BD-2: New Residential
Building
Decarbonization*
($7,453)
$780 Incremental Cost Single-Family
($/home)
Incremental Cost Multi-Family ($/unit)
The associated costs included the relative costs between natural gas and electric appliances, differences between in-house electricity and natural gas infrastructure, and the associated infrastructure costs for providing natural gas to the building. So, these are incremental costs.

BD-4: New
Nonresidential Building
Decarbonization
$2.72 Incremental Cost $/per square foot Based on data inputs, we are unable to provide a cost per commercial building.

BD-5: Existing Building
Decarbonization
Residential $28
Commercial $20
Incremental Cost $/per therm savings
Incremental Cost $/per therm savings
Based on data inputs, we are unable to provide a cost per home or commercial building.
2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 512 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 14 Measure Participant Cost Unit Notes
CET-1: Active
Transportation Projects
Reduces fuel use for
residents
City is main participant and incurs costs, residents receive benefits.

CET-2: Flexible Fleet
Program
$2.50 $/per person per trip For those using microtransit CET-3: TDM Programs in
Redevelopment Projects
$72 Regional Adult Month Pass ($/month) For those using transit CET-4: Reduce Vehicle
Miles Traveled
$72
$750
Regional Adult Month Pass ($/month)
Home office set up cost
($/telecommuter)
For those using transit
For those telecommuting
CET-5: Roundabouts and
Traffic Signal Retiming
Reduces fuel use for
residents
City is main participant and incurs costs, residents receive benefits.

CET-6: Residential
Electric Vehicle Charging
$2,714 $/Level 2 charger for installation and
maintenance
CET-7: Nonresidential
Electric Vehicle Charging
$6,417 $/Level 2 charger for installation and
maintenance
CS-1: Tree Canopy $28 $/per medium tree/year This is an annualized cost of tree ownership. It represents total cost of purchasing, maintaining, and removing tree divided by the useful life of the tree.

CS-2: Tree Requirement
at New Developments
Residential $28
Nonresidential $41
$/per medium tree/year
$/per medium tree/year
This is an annualized cost of tree ownership. It represents total cost of purchasing, maintaining, and removing tree divided by the useful life of the tree.

CS-3: Tree Planting on
Private Property
Residential $10
Nonresidential $23
$/per tree/year
$/per tree/year
This includes maintenance and removal. Tree was
provided free to participants.

RE-1: Membership in
San Diego Community
Power
$0.005 Incremental Cost $/per kWh Difference between SDCP Power 100 and SDG&E default rate
RE-2: Nonresidential
Solar Systems
$658,822 Total upfront cost for installation and
maintenance in year 1
Cost for example building used in analysis, based on City of Encinitas solar analysis by Engie
WE-1: Water
Conservation
$225
$75
$200
$10
High-Efficiency Clothes Washers
($/device)
High-Efficiency Toilets ($/device)
Weather Based “Smart” Controllers
Not all homes would purchase all of these.

Note some of these are incremental costs NOT full cost. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 513 of 514
Response to Questions/Comments from the City Council CAP Update Workshop (May 27, 2026) Attachment 4 15 Measure Participant Cost Unit Notes
($/device)
Turf Replacement Program ($/square
foot)
WE-2: Pre-Plumb for
Greywater Systems
$15,000 Installation cost for Whole Home
Graywater System ($)
ZE-1: Gas-Powered Leaf
Blowers
$300 Incremental cost of electric leaf
blower ($)
Average incremental cost of replacing all leaf blowers.

Note these are incremental costs NOT full cost.

Draft analysis for another jurisdiction showed a net benefit per MT CO2e reduced when avoided maintenance for gaspowered leaf blower was considered.

ZE-2: Gas-Powered
Landscape Equipment*
($42)
$750
($250)
($261)
$850
($261)
($100)
($1,275)
Electric Chainsaw ($)
Chippers/Stump Grinders ($)
Lawn Mowers ($)
Other ($)
Rear Engine Riding Mowers ($)
Tillers ($)
Trimmers/Edgers/Brush Cutters ($)
Wood Splitters ($)
Not all residents/businesses would purchase all of these.

Note these are incremental costs NOT full cost.

ZW-1: Implement a Zero
Waste Program
$4.44 Incremental Cost of Organic Service -
Single Family ($/month)
Note this is incremental costs NOT full cost.
*Negative value in red parentheses represents an incremental savings compared to the gasoline version. 2026-09-23 Item #01 Page 514 of 514

Encinitas City CouncilSeptember 23, 2026

Encinitas City Council
September 23, 2026