Exhibit G – Draft Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments — Fresno City Council, December 14, 2023 (part 4 of 9)

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-A. Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 161 ▪ (F) – A case study on average trip lengths for pedal and electric bikeshare programs in San Francisco reported a one-way pedal bikeshare trip of 1.4 miles (Lazarus et al. 2019). ▪ (G) – A summary report of the 2017 National Household Travel Survey data found that the average person in the U.S. takes 2.7 vehicle trips per day (FHWA 2018). ▪ (H) – Ideally, the user will calculate auto trip length for a plan/community at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a plan-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the existing regional average one-way auto trip length for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-10.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017). Trip lengths are likely to be longer for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-10.1, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.02 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-18 through T-22-C ≤10%) This measure is in the Neighborhood Design subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-18 through T-22-C. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 10 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community VMT by deploying bikesharing throughout the area. In this example, the project is in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CBSA, and the oneway vehicle trip length would be 9.72 miles (H). Assuming 100 percent of residents in the plan/community would have bikeshare access (C) where there was no existing access (B), the user would reduce GHG emissions from plan/community VMT by 0.02 percent.

2.7 trips
day∙person × 9.72 miles
trip
= -0.02%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-A. Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 162 adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2018. Summary of Travel Trends 2017–National Household Travel Survey. July. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/documents/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Lazarus, J., J. Pourquier, F. Feng, H. Hammel, and S. Shaheen. 2019. Bikesharing Evolution and Expansion: Understanding How Docked and Dockless Models Complement and Compete – A Case Study of San Francisco. Paper No. 19-02761. Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board:

Washington, D.C. Available: https://trid.trb.org/view/1572878. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ McQueen, M., G. Abou-Zeid, J. MacArthur, and K. Clifton. 2020. Transportation Transformation: Is Micromobility Making a Macro Impact on Sustainability? Journal of Planning Literature. November.

Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220972696. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Supplemental Report–Travel Modeling Report. July. Available: http://2040.planbayarea.org/files/2020- 02/Travel_Modeling_PBA2040_Supplemental%20Report_7-2017.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 163
T-22-B. Implement Electric Bikeshare Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.06% of GHG
emissions vehicle travel in the
plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Bikeshare programs can incentivize more
bicycle use and decrease vehicle use, which
have health benefits and can thus improve
community resilience. This can also improve
connectivity between residents and resources
that may be needed in an extreme weather
event. However, they may decrease
resilience if they are the only option
available during a power outage.

Health and Equity Considerations
Provide inclusive mechanisms so people
without bank accounts, credit cards, or smart
phones can access the system.

Measure Description
This measure will establish an electric bikeshare program. Electric bikeshare programs provide users with on-demand access to electric pedal assist bikes for short-term rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to electric bicycles, displacing VMT and reducing GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are described in Measure T-22-A, Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-22-C, Implement Scootershare Program.

Subsector
Neighborhood Design
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The GHG mitigation potential is based, in part, on literature analyzing docked (i.e., station-based) bikeshare programs. This measure should be applied with caution if using dockless (freefloating) bikeshare.

Cost Considerations
The costs incurred by the service manager (e.g., municipality or bikeshare company) may include the capital costs for purchasing a bicycle fleet; installing accessible and secure charging stations; storing, maintaining, and replacing the fleet; and marketing and administration. Some of these costs may be offset by income generated through program use. Program participants will benefit from the cost savings from access to cheaper transportation alternatives (compared to private vehicles, private bicycles, or use of ride-hailing services). The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Best practice is to discount electric bikeshare membership and dedicate electric bikeshare parking to encourage use of the service. Consider also including space on the vehicle to store personal items while traveling, such as a basket.

0.06%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-B. Implement Electric Bikeshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 164 GHG Reduction Formula
The quantification methodology does not account for indirect GHG emissions from electricity used to charge the bicycles or direct GHG emissions from vehicle travel of program employees picking up and dropping off bikes.

A = -1 ×
(C − B) × D × E × F
G × H
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicle travel in plan/community
0–0.06 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of residences in plan/community
with access to electric bikeshare system
without measure
0–100 % user input
C Percent of residences in plan/community
with access to electric bikeshare system with
measure
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Daily electric bikeshare trips per person 0.021 trips per day per person
MTC 2017
E Vehicle to electric bikeshare substitution rate 35 percent Fitch et al. 2021 F Electric bikeshare average one-way trip length 2.1 miles per trip Fitch et al. 2021 G Daily vehicle trips per person 2.7 trips per day
per person
FHWA 2018
H Regional average one-way vehicle trip length Table
T-10.1
miles per trip FHWA 2017
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – Access to electric bikesharing is measured as the percent of residences in the plan/community within 0.25-mile of an electric bikeshare station. For dockless bikes, assume that all residences within 0.25 mile of the designated dockless service area would have access.
▪ (D) – An analysis of bike share service areas in the San Francisco Bay Area estimated that in locations with access to bikesharing, there were between 21 and 25 bikeshare trips per day per 1,000 residents (MTC 2017). To be conservative, the low end of this range is cited. Conventional bikeshare trip rate data was used due to lack of specific data for electric bikeshare.
▪ (E) – A study of dockless electric bike share in Sacramento found that the substitution rate of vehicles trips by electric bikeshare trips was 35 percent (Fitch et al. 2021).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-B. Implement Electric Bikeshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 165 ▪ (F) – A study of dockless electric bike share in Sacramento found that the average oneway bikeshare trip was 2.1 miles (Fitch et al. 2021). ▪ (G) – A summary report of the 2017 National Household Travel Survey data found that the average person in the U.S. takes 2.7 vehicle trips per day (FHWA 2018). ▪ (H) – Ideally, the user will calculate auto trip length for a plan/community at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a plan-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the existing regional average one-way auto trip length for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-10.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017). Trip lengths are likely to be longer for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-10.1, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.06 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community VMT by deploying electric bikesharing throughout the area. In this example, the project is in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CBSA, and the one-way vehicle trip length would be 9.72 miles (H). Assuming 100 percent of residents in the plan/community would have bikeshare access (C) where there was no existing access (B), the user would reduce GHG emissions from plan/community VMT by 0.06 percent.

2.7 trips
day∙person × 9.72 miles
trip
= -0.06%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-B. Implement Electric Bikeshare Program TRANSPORTATION | 166 adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A). This quantification methodology does not account for the increase in electricity used to charge the vehicles or the fuel consumption from vehicle travel of program employees picking up and dropping off bikes.

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A). This quantification methodology does not account for the miles traveled from vehicle travel of program employees picking up and dropping off bikes.

Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Fitch, D., H. Mohiuddin, and S. Handy. 2021. Examining the Effects of the Sacramento Dockless E-Bike Share on Bicycling and Driving. MDPI: Sustainability. January. Available:
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/1/368. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Supplemental Report–Travel Modeling Report. July. Available: http://2040.planbayarea.org/files/2020- 02/Travel_Modeling_PBA2040_Supplemental%20Report_7-2017.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 167
T-22-C. Implement Scootershare Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.07% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Scootershare programs can incentivize
more scooter use and decrease vehicle use,
which have health benefits and can thus
improve community resilience. This can also
improve connectivity between residents and
resources that may be needed in an
extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Provide inclusive mechanisms so people
without bank accounts, credit cards, or smart
phones can access the system.

Measure Description
This measure will establish a scootershare program. Scootershare programs provide users with on-demand access to electric scooters for short-term rentals. This encourages a mode shift from vehicles to scooters, displacing VMT and thus reducing GHG emissions. Variations of this measure are described in Measure T-22-A, Implement Pedal (Non-Electric) Bikeshare Program, and Measure T-22-B, Implement Electric Bikeshare Program.

Cost Considerations
The costs incurred by the service manager (e.g., municipality or scootershare company) may include the capital costs for purchasing a scooter fleet; installing accessible and secure docking stations; storing, maintaining, and replacing the fleet; and marketing and administration. Some of these costs may be offset by income generated through program use. Program participants will benefit from cost savings from access to cheaper
transportation alternatives (compared to private vehicles, private scooters, or use of ride-hailing services). The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Best practice is to discount scootershare membership and dedicate scootershare parking to encourage use of the service. Consider also including space on the vehicle to store personal items while traveling, such as a basket.

0.07%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-C. Implement Scootershare Program TRANSPORTATION | 168 GHG Reduction Formula
This measure methodology does not account for the indirect GHG emissions from electricity used to charge the scooters or direct GHG emissions from vehicle travel of program employees picking up and dropping off scooters.

A = -1 ×
(C − B) × D × E × F
G × H
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicle travel in plan/community
0–0.07 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of residences in plan/community with
access to scootershare system without measure
0–100 % user input
C Percent of residences in plan/community with
access to scootershare system with measure
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Daily scootershare trips per person 0.021 trips per day per person
MTC 2017
E Vehicle to scootershare substitution rate 38.5 % McQueen et al. 2020
F Scootershare average one-way trip length 2.14 miles per trip PBOT 2021 G Daily vehicle trips per person 2.7 trips per day
per person
FHWA 2018
H Regional average one-way vehicle trip length Table
T-10.1
miles per trip FHWA 2017
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – Access to scootersharing is measured as the percent of residences in the plan/community within 0.25-mile of a scootershare station. For dockless scooters, assume that all residences within 0.25-mile of the designated dockless service area would have access.
▪ (D) – An analysis of bike share service areas in the San Francisco Bay Area estimated that in locations with access to bikesharing, there were between 21 and 25 bikeshare trips per day per 1,000 residents (MTC 2017). To be conservative, the low end of this range is cited. Conventional bikeshare trip rate data was used due to lack of specific data for scootershare.
▪ (E) – A literature review of several academic and government reports found that the average car trip substitution rate by scootershare trips was 38.5 percent. This included scootershare programs in Santa Monica, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Portland (McQueen et al. 2020).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-C. Implement Scootershare Program TRANSPORTATION | 169 ▪ (F) – In Oregon, Portland’s scootershare pilot data dashboard reports that the average trip length of scootershare trips is 2.14 miles (PBOT 2021). ▪ (G) – A summary report of the 2017 National Household Travel Survey data found that the average person in the U.S. takes 2.7 vehicle trips per day (FHWA 2018). ▪ (H) – Ideally, the user will calculate auto trip length for a plan/community at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a plan-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the existing regional average one-way auto trip length for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-10.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017). Trip lengths are likely to be longer for areas not covered by the listed CBSAs, which represent the denser areas of the state.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-10.1, the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.07 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community VMT by deploying scootershare throughout the area. In this example, the project is in the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim CBSA, and the oneway vehicle trip length would be 9.72 miles (H). Assuming 100 percent of residents in the plan/community would have scootershare access (C) where there was no existing access (B), the user would reduce GHG emissions from plan/community VMT by 0.07 percent.

2.7 trips
day∙person × 9.72 miles
trip
= -0.07%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-22-C. Implement Scootershare Program TRANSPORTATION | 170 adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A). This quantification methodology does not account for the increase in electricity used to charge the scooters or the fuel consumption from vehicle travel of program employees picking up and dropping off scooters.

Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040 Final Supplemental Report–Travel Modeling Report. July. Available: http://2040.planbayarea.org/files/2020- 02/Travel_Modeling_PBA2040_Supplemental%20Report_7-2017.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ McQueen, M., G. Abou-Zeid, J. MacArthur, and K. Clifton. 2020. Transportation Transformation: Is Micromobility Making a Macro Impact on Sustainability? Journal of Planning Literature. November.

Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412220972696. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT). 2021. Portland Bureau of Transportation E-Scooter Dashboard. Available:
https://public.tableau.com/profile/portland.bureau.of.transportation#!/vizhome/PBOTEScooterTripsDashboard/ScooterDashboard. Accessed: March 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 171
T-23. Provide Community-Based Travel Planning
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 2.3% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
CBTP can decrease vehicle use and thus
improve air quality, resulting in health
impacts that may increase the resilience of
communities near freeways and roads. This
can also increase the adaptive capacity of
communities by informing them of travel
alternatives if certain modes become
disrupted due to extreme events.

Health and Equity Considerations
Outreach materials may need to be in
multiple languages to address diverse
linguistic communities.

Measure Description
This measure will target residences in the plan/community with community-based travel planning (CBTP). CBTP is a residentialbased approach to outreach that provides households with customized information, incentives, and support to encourage the use of transportation alternatives in place of single occupancy vehicles, thereby reducing household VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Trip Reduction Programs
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
CBTP involves teams of trained travel advisors visiting all households within a targeted geographic area, having tailored conversations about residents’ travel needs, and educating residents about the various transportation options available to them. Due to the personalized outreach method, communities are typically targeted in phases.

Cost Considerations
The main cost consideration for CBTP is labor costs for program managers and resident outreach staff plus material costs for development of educational material. The beneficiaries are the commuters who may be able to reduce vehicle usage or ownership.

The local municipality may achieve cost savings through a reduction of cars on the road leading to lower infrastructure and roadway maintenance costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with any of the Measures from T-17 through T-22-C to ensure that residents that are targeted by CBTP who want to use alternative transportation have the infrastructure and technology to do so.

2.3%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-23. Provide Community-Based Travel Planning TRANSPORTATION | 172 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
C
B
× D × -E × F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
household vehicle travel in plan/community
0–2.3 % calculated
User Inputs
B Residences in plan/community [ ] residences user input C Residences in plan/community targeted with CBTP [ ] residences user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Percent of targeted residences that participate 19 % MTC 2021 E Percent vehicle trip reduction by participating
residences
12 % MTC 2021
F Adjustment factor from vehicle trips to VMT 1 unitless assumed Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (D) – Results from program evaluations of CBTP in several counties in Washington and Oregon across multiple years indicate that an average of 19 percent of residences targeted will participate (MTC 2021).
▪ (E) – Results from program evaluations of CBTP in several counties in Washington and Oregon across multiple years indicate that a 12 percent vehicle trip reduction will occur among participating residences (MTC 2021).
▪ (F) – The adjustment factor from vehicle trips to VMT is 1. This assumes that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length (“assumes all trip lengths are equal”). Thus, it can be assumed that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in VMT.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 2.3 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
Same as (Amax). Measure T-23 is the only measure at the Plan/Community scale within the Trip Reduction Programs subsector.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-23. Provide Community-Based Travel Planning TRANSPORTATION | 173 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces household VMT by having residences in the plan/community participate in CBTP. In this example, all of the residences in a city of 5,000 are targeted (B and C), which would reduce GHG emissions from citywide household VMT by 2.3 percent.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in household VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). October 2021. Plan Bay Area 2050, Forecasting and Modeling Report. Available:
https://www.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Plan_Bay_Area_2050_Forecasting_Modeli ng_Report_October_2021.pdf. Accessed: November 2021.

A = (
5,000 residences
5,000 residences) × 19% × -12% × 1 = -2.3%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 174
T-24. Implement Market Price Public Parking
(On-Street)
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 30.0% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Implementing market price public parking
could incentivize increased use of public
transit and thus result in less traffic, potentially
reducing congestion or delays on major roads
during peak AM and PM traffic periods. In
addition, this reduces illegal loading/standing
in bus stops and travel lanes. When these
reductions occur during extreme weather
events, they better allow emergency
responders to access a hazard site.

Health and Equity Considerations
Pricing on-street parking at market rates
reduces illegal loading/standing in bus stops
and travel lanes, improving transit times.

Measure Description
This measure will price all on-street parking in a given community, with a focus on parking near central business districts, employment centers, and retail centers. Increasing the cost of parking increases the total cost of driving to a location, incentivizing shifts to other modes and thus decreasing total VMT to and from the priced areas. This VMT reduction results in a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions.

Subsector
Parking or Road Pricing/Management
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
When pricing on-street parking, best practice is to allow for dynamic adjustment of prices to ensure approximately 85 percent occupancy, which helps prevent induced VMT due to circling behaviors as individuals search for a vacant parking space. In addition, this method should primarily be implemented in areas with available alternatives to driving, such as transit availability within 0.5. mile or areas of high residential density nearby (allowing for increased walking/biking). If the measure is implemented in a small area, residential parking permit programs should be considered to prevent parking intrusion on nearby streets in residential areas without priced parking.

Cost Considerations
Municipalities may incur costs from installing the meter network, which may require meters at individual spaces or at more central terminals. There would also be staffing costs to monitor the metered spaces and collect payments. Residents also incur a cost by having to pay for on-street parking. A portion of costs to the municipality may be offset through revenue collected by the parking system.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pricing on-street parking also helps support individual projects with priced onsite parking by removing potential alternative parking locations.
30%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-24. Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) TRANSPORTATION | 175 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B
C
×
D − E
E
× F × G × H
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicle travel in plan/community
0–30.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B VMT in priced area without measure [ ] VMT per day user input C VMT in plan/community without measure [ ] VMT per day user input D Proposed parking price 1.00–5.00 $ per hour user input E Initial parking price 0.00–5.00 $ per hour user input F Default percentage of trips parking on street 5–75 % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
G Elasticity of parking demand with respect to
price
-0.4 unitless Pierce and
Shoup 2013
H Ratio of VMT to vehicle trips 1 unitless assumption
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – Total daily VMT in both the priced area and the plan/community area should represent the expected total VMT generated by all land use in that area, including office, residences, retail, schools, and other uses. The most appropriate source for this data is from a local travel demand forecasting model. An alternate method uses VMT per worker or VMT per resident as calculated for SB 743 compliance and screening purposes multiplied by the population in the area.
- These variables for VMT by area are used to ensure that the percent GHG reduction from the priced area is at the same geographic scale as the vehicle travel in the plan/community. If the area priced is a business district and the analysis is limited to the business district, then the VMT would be equal (B=C). ▪ (D) – The proposed parking price can be presented in cost per minute, hour, or day, provided that the same units are used for variable (E)
▪ (E) – Because this is used to calculate the percent change in parking price, if parking is free under existing conditions, (E) should be set to (1/2×D), resulting in a percentage change of 100 percent. In areas where metered parking is common, E may instead by set to equal the average metered parking price in nearby areas or districts. ▪ (F) – On-street parking represents only a portion of the total available parking supply.

An estimate will typically range from 5 percent (in locations with offsite parking garages available) to 75 percent (in locations where most parcels have little to no onsite parking for visitors). The user should provide a project-specific value within this range, by surveying the total on-street vs. off-street parking spaces within ¼ mile of the study area.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-24. Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) TRANSPORTATION | 176 ▪ (G) – An evaluation of the SFPark program in San Francisco found that a 0.4 percent decrease in parking demand occurs for every 1 percent increase in parking price (Pierce and Shoup 2013). Price elasticity of parking demand varies by location, day of the week, and time of day.
▪ (H) – The adjustment factor from vehicle trips to VMT is 1. This assumes that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length (“assumes all trip lengths are equal”). Thus, it can be assumed that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in VMT.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The total reduction in VMT due to on-street parking pricing is capped at 30 percent, which is based on the following assumptions:
▪ (
D−E
E
=100%) – Parking prices double (i.e., increase by 100 percent) or parking pricing is introduced in previously free areas.
▪ (F) – 75 percent of all vehicle trips utilize on-street parking. Note that only within a small-scale commercial district is 75 percent of parking likely to occur on street.

This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
Same as (Amax). Measure T-24 is the only measure at the Plan/Community scale within the Parking or Road Pricing/Management subsector.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by increasing hourly on-street parking costs. In this example, the hourly parking cost increases from $1.00 (E) to $2.00 (D) in a business district. The business district daily VMT is 1,000,000 (B), and the scale of implementation is the business district (B=C). If around 75 percent of the district’s parking supply is on street (F), the user would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 30 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an A =
1,000,000 VMT
day
1,000,000 VMT
day
×
$2.00 − $1.00
$1.00 × 75% × -0.4 × 1 = -30%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-24. Implement Market Price Public Parking (On-Street) TRANSPORTATION | 177 adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Pierce, G., and D. Shoup. 2013. Getting the Prices Right: An Evaluation of Pricing Parking by Demand in San Francisco. Journal of the American Planning Association 79(1)67–81. May. Available:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01944363.2013.787307?needAccess=true.

Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 178
T-25. Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 4.6% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increasing transit network coverage or hours
improves the reliability of the transportation
network and allows redundancy to exist even
if an extreme event disrupts part of the
system. They could also incentivize more
people to use transit, resulting in less traffic
and better allowing emergency responders
to access a hazard site during an extreme
weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
This measure increases access to social,
educational, and employment opportunities.

Expansion of transit networks need to ensure
equitable access by all communities to the
transit system.

Measure Description
This measure will expand the local transit network by either adding or modifying existing transit service or extending the operation hours to enhance the service near the project site. Starting services earlier in the morning and/or extending services to late-night hours can accommodate the commuting times of alternative-shift workers. This will encourage the use of transit and therefore reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Transit
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
There are two primary means of expanding the transit network: by increasing the frequency of service, thereby reducing average wait times and increasing convenience, or by extending service to cover new areas and times.

Cost Considerations
Infrastructure costs for extending the physical network coverage of a transit system can be significant. Costs to expand trackdependent transit, such as light rail and passenger rail, are high and can require resource- and time-intensive advanced planning.

Costs to expand vehicle-dependent transit, such as busses, are likewise high but may be limited to procurement of additional vehicles. Any expansion of transit, including just service hours, would increase staffing and potentially maintenance costs. A portion of these costs may be offset by increased transit usage and associated income. Commuters who may more easily be able to travel without a car may also observe cost savings from reduce vehicle usage or ownership.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure is focused on providing additional transit network coverage, with no changes to transit frequency. This measure can be paired with Measure T-26, Increase Transit Service Frequency, which is focused on increasing transit service frequency, for increased reductions.

4.6%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-25. Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours TRANSPORTATION | 179 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -1 ×
C − B
B
× D × E × F × G
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
plan/community VMT
0–4.6 % calculated
User Inputs
B Total transit service miles or service hours in
plan/community before expansion
[ ] miles user input
C Total transit service miles or service hours in
plan/community after expansion
[ ] miles user input
D Transit mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Elasticity of transit demand with respect to
service miles or service hours

0.7 unitless Handy et al.
2013
F Statewide mode shift factor 57.8 % FHWA 2017
G Ratio of vehicle trip reduction to VMT 1 unitless assumption Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – This formula does not reflect any increase in transit vehicle travel and emissions, which can at least partially offset the reduction in GHG emissions from passenger vehicle travel. Inclusion of this component in the percent GHG reduction formula would require inputs that would not be available to most users. ▪ (B and C) – Transit service miles are defined as the total service mileage. Service hours represent the hours of operation. Either metric can be used in the GHG reduction formula so long as both B and C use the same metric.
▪ (D) – The transit mode share for the six most populated CBSAs in California are provided in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C (FHWA 2017). If the project study area is not within the listed CBSAs or the user is able to provide a project-specific value, the user should replace these regional defaults in the GHG reduction formula. It is likely for areas outside of the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have transit mode shares lower than the values provided in the table. Ideally, the user will calculate existing transit mode share for work trips or all trips at a scale no larger than a census tract. Potential data sources include the U.S. Census, California Household Travel Survey (preferred), or local survey efforts. Care should be taken to not present the reported commute mode share as retrieved from the ACS, unless the land use is office or employment based and the ACS tables are based on work location (rather than home location). ▪ (E) – A policy brief summarizing the results of transit service strategies concluded that a

0.7 percent increase in transit ridership occurs for every 1 percent increase in service miles or hours (Handy et al. 2013).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-25. Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours TRANSPORTATION | 180 ▪ (F) – Mode shift factor is an adjustment to reflect the reduction in vehicle trips associated with a reduction in person trips, since some vehicles carry more than one person. It is calculated as (1/average vehicle occupancy).
▪ (G) – The adjustment factor from vehicle trips to VMT is 1. This assumes that all vehicle trips will average out to typical trip length (“assumes all trip lengths are equal”). Thus, it can be assumed that a percentage reduction in vehicle trips will equal the same percentage reduction in VMT.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The GHG reduction from expanding the transit network is capped at 4.6 percent, which is based on the following assumptions:
▪ (
C−B
B
≤100%) – The transit network increase is capped at a doubling in size, or 100 percent (twice as many revenue miles are provided, for a 100 percent increase). ▪ (D) – The CBSA is San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, which has a default transit mode share for all trips of 11.38 percent.

This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-25 through T-29 ≤15%) This measure is in the Transit subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-25 through T-29. The VMT reduction from the combined implementation of all measures within this subsector is capped at 15 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces VMT by extending an existing transit route or lengthening the service hours. In this example, the project in a neighborhood of the San Francisco-OaklandHayward CBSA and would increase transit coverage in the area from 20 miles (B) to 40 miles (C). If the existing transit mode share in the study area is 11.38 percent (D), the user would reduce GHG emissions from VMT by 4.6 percent.

A = -1 ×
(40 miles − 20 miles)
20 miles × 11.38% × 0.7 × 57.8% × 1 = -4.6%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-25. Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours TRANSPORTATION | 181 Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 182
T-26. Increase Transit Service Frequency
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 11.3% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increasing transit service frequency improves
the reliability of the transportation network
and allows redundancy to exist even if an
extreme event disrupts part of the system. It
could also incentivize more people to use
transit, resulting in less traffic and better allow
emergency responders to access a hazard
site during an extreme weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
This measure increases access to social,
educational, and employment opportunities.

Expansion of transit service needs to ensure
equitable access by all communities to the
transit system.

Measure Description
This measure will increase transit frequency on one or more transit lines serving the plan/community. Increased transit frequency reduces waiting and overall travel times, which improves the user experience and increases the attractiveness of transit service. This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Transit
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Increasing transit service frequency may require capital investment to purchase additional vehicles. Staff and maintenance costs may also increase. A portion of these costs may be offset by increased transit usage and associated income. Commuters who may more easily be able to travel without a car may also observe cost savings from reduce vehicle usage or ownership.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure is focused on providing increased transit frequency, with no changes to transit network coverage. This measure can be paired with Measure T-25, Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours, which is focused on increasing transit network coverage, for increased reductions.

11.3%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-26. Increase Transit Service Frequency TRANSPORTATION | 183 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -C ×
B × E × D × G
F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
vehicle travel in plan/community
0–11.3 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent increase in transit frequency 0–300 % user input C Level of implementation 0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to
frequency of service

0.5 unitless Handy et al.
2013
E Transit mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a F Vehicle mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a G Statewide mode shift factor 57.8 % FHWA 2017b
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – This formula does not reflect any increase in transit vehicle travel and emissions, which can at least partially offset the reduction in GHG emissions from passenger vehicle travel. Inclusion of this component in the percent GHG reduction formula would require inputs that would not be available to most users. Users can calculate the absolute changes in passenger vehicle and bus VMT and emissions using the process described under Co-Benefits.
▪ (B) – Frequency is measured as the number of arrivals over a given time (e.g., buses per hour). Frequency is the inverse of transit headway, defined as the time between transit vehicle arrivals on a given route. This variable can be calculated as [transit frequency with measure minus existing transit frequency] divided by existing transit frequency. ▪ (C) – The level of implementation refers to the number of transit routes receiving the frequency improvement as a fraction of the total transit routes in the plan/community. ▪ (D) – A policy brief summarizing the results of transit service strategies concluded that a

0.5 percent increase in transit ridership occurs for every 1 percent increase in frequency (Handy et al. 2013).
▪ (E and F) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit and auto mode shares for a plan/community at the city scale (or larger). Potential data sources include the California Household Travel Survey (preferred) or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode shares for transit and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C. It is likely for areas outside of B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-26. Increase Transit Service Frequency TRANSPORTATION | 184 the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have vehicle mode shares higher and transit mode shares lower than the values provided in the table. ▪ (G) – Mode shift factor is an adjustment to reflect the reduction in vehicle trips associated with a reduction in person trips, since some vehicles carry more than one person. It is calculated as (1/average vehicle occupancy).

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure T-28, Provide Bus Rapid Transit, and converts all transit routes in the plan/community to BRT, then the user cannot also take credit for this measure or Measure T-27, Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments. This is because Measure T-28 accounts for the VMT reduction associated with increased transit frequency and decreased transit travel time as well as the additional BRT-specific bonus. To combine the GHG reductions from Measure T-28 with Measure T-27 and/or Measure T-26 would be considered double counting. However, where BRT is proposed on less than all of the existing bus routes in the plan/community area, this measure and/or Measure T-27 could be applied to the remaining bus routes, and the measure reductions could be combined with Measure T-28 to determine the emissions reduction at the larger plan/community scale.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community GHGs by increasing transit frequency, thereby encouraging a mode shift from vehicles to transit and reducing VMT. In this example, the project is in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA where the transit and vehicle mode shares would be 11.38 percent and 86.96 percent, respectively (E and F). Assuming the maximum increase in transit frequency of 300 percent (B) and implementation for all transit routes (100 percent) in the plan/community (C), the user would reduce plan/community GHG emissions from VMT by 11.3 percent.

A = -100% ×
300% × 11.38% × 0.5 × 57.8%

86.96% = -11.3%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-26. Increase Transit Service Frequency TRANSPORTATION | 185 Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

VMT Reductions
The decrease in passenger vehicle miles (H) and increase in bus miles (L) by the measure can be calculated as follows.

Passenger Vehicle VMT Reduction Formula
The percent reduction in passenger VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A). The absolute reduction in passenger VMT can be calculated using the following formula.

H = I × E × J × B × D × G × K
Passenger Vehicle VMT Reduction Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
H Reduction in passenger vehicle miles
in plan/community
[ ] miles per year calculated
User Inputs
I Total daily person trips in corridor(s) [ ] trips per day user input J Vehicle trip length [ ] miles per trip user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
K Days per year transit available 365 days per year assumed Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (I) – The total daily person trips in the corridor(s) represents the total daily trips by all modes between the bus route origin area and the bus route destination area.

This may be obtained through travel demand modeling. If the strategy involves frequency improvements for more than one transit route, then the total person trips should reflect the sum of all the routes being improved. ▪ (J) – If the strategy involves frequency improvements for more than one transit route, then the trip length should reflect the average of all the routes being improved.
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-26. Increase Transit Service Frequency TRANSPORTATION | 186 Bus VMT Increase Formula
The absolute increase in bus VMT can be calculated using the formula below. As noted above, the formula for the percent GHG reduction (A) does not reflect any increase in bus VMT and bus emissions. Users that wish to capture these impacts should calculate absolute changes.

L = P × (M2 − M1) × N × O × K
Bus VMT Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
L Increase in annual bus
miles in plan/community
[ ] miles per year calculated
User Inputs
M1 Bus frequency without
measure
[ ] transit vehicle
roundtrips per hour
user input
M2 Bus frequency with measure [ ] transit vehicle
roundtrips per hour
user input
N Bus hours of operation 0–24 hours per day user input
O Bus route one-way length [ ] miles per route user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
P One-way trips in a
roundtrip
2 one-way trips per
roundtrip
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (L) – If the strategy involves frequency improvements for more than one transit route, then the increase in bus miles should be calculated separately for each route.
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The decrease in passenger vehicle fuel consumption and increase in bus fuel consumption by the measure can be calculated as follows.

Passenger Vehicle Fuel Use Reduction Formula
Multiply the reduction in passenger vehicle miles (H) above by the fuel efficiency of the vehicle type (see Table T-30.2 in Appendix C) to output the change in fuel consumption.

Bus Fuel Use Increase Formula
The absolute increase in bus fuel consumption (Q) can be calculated using the formula below.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-26. Increase Transit Service Frequency TRANSPORTATION | 187 Q = L × R
Bus Fuel Use Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
Q Increase in annual bus fuel
consumption in
plan/community
[ ] gal per year calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
R Fuel economy of a transit
bus, by fuel type
Table
T-26.1
gal or kilowatt hour per
mile
CARB 2020;
U.S. DOE
2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (R) – The average fuel economy for gasoline, diesel, and natural gas transit buses was calculated using EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3). The model was run for a 2020 statewide average of UBUS vehicles, disaggregated by fuel type (CARB 2020). The efficiency of electric buses was calculated based on the gasoline equivalent value (U.S. DOE 2021). The user should reference Table T-26.1 for the fuel economy of the appropriate fuel type for their location’s transit system. If the user can provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year and project location), the user should run EMFAC to replace the default in the fuel use increase formula. ▪ Please refer to the Bus VMT Increase Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. EMFAC2017 v1.0.3. August. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer.

Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer.

Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Handy, S., K. Lovejoy, M. Boarnet, S. Spears. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Transit_Service_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Poli cy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool– Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tool-designdocument_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2021. Fuel Economy Datasets for All Model Years (1984- 2021). January. Available: https://www.fueleconomy.gov. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 188
T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway
Treatments
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.6% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Implementing transit-supportive roadway
treatments improves the reliability of the
transportation network and allows
redundancy to exist even if an extreme
event disrupts part of the system. It could
also incentivize more people to use transit,
resulting in less traffic and better allowing
emergency responders to access a hazard
site during an extreme weather event.

Furthermore, emergency responders can
use queue jumps and dedicated bus lanes
when needed.

Health and Equity Considerations
Transit facilities can have conflicts with
cyclists. Consider appropriate treatments to
minimize conflicts. Improved transit
investments should be equitably distributed
prioritizing areas with transit deficiencies in
underserved communities.

Measure Description
This measure will implement transit-supportive treatments on the transit routes serving the plan/community. Transit-supportive treatments incorporate a mix of roadway infrastructure
improvements and/or traffic signal modifications to improve transit travel times and reliability. This results in a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit, which reduces VMT and the associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Transit
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Treatments can include transit signal priority, bus-only signal phases, queue jumps, curb extensions to speed passenger loading, and dedicated bus lanes.

Cost Considerations
Costs and savings of transit-supportive roadway treatments vary depending on the strategy pursued, ranging from low-cost route optimization changes to high-cost infrastructure projects (e.g., busonly lanes). Reducing route cycle time without significantly increasing the number of transit vehicles can result in net cost savings for the transit system. Dedicated transit infrastructure will improve transit reliability and increase ridership. This supplements existing transit income streams for municipalities. Increased ridership similarly reduces vehicle use, which has cost benefits for both commuters and municipalities.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure could be paired with other Transit subsector strategies (Measure T-25 and Measure T-29) for increased reductions.

0.6%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments TRANSPORTATION | 189 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -1 ×
B × C × D × E × G
F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from vehicle
travel in plan/community
0–0.6 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of plan/community transit routes that
receive treatments
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent change in transit travel time due to
treatments
-10 % TRB 2007
D Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to transit travel time
-0.4 unitless TRB 2007
E Transit mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a F Vehicle mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a G Statewide mode shift factor 57.8 % FHWA 2017b
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – A literature review of studies from the U.S. and United Kingdom indicates that the travel time savings associated with one type of transit-supportive roadway treatment— transit signal prioritization—typically ranged from 8 to 12 percent (TRB 2007). To account for the likelihood that a user would implement multiple transit-supportive treatments, the midpoint of this range is used for the measure formula. Use of the midpoint is still conservative given the additional travel time savings associated with other transit-supportive treatments. If the user can provide a project-specific value based on the suite of their treatments, then the user should replace this default in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (E and F) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit and auto mode shares for a plan/community at the city scale (or larger). Potential data sources include the California Household Travel Survey (preferred) or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode shares for transit and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C. It is likely for areas outside of the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have vehicle mode shares higher and transit mode shares lower than the values provided in the table.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments TRANSPORTATION | 190 ▪ (G) – Mode shift factor is an adjustment to reflect the reduction in vehicle trips associated with a reduction in person trips as some vehicles carry more than one person. It is calculated as (1/average vehicle occupancy) (FHWA 2017b).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-3.1 and (Cmax), the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 0.6 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.
(Cmax) The percent reduction in transit travel time is capped at 20 percent, which is based on the values reported in a literature review of studies from the U.S. and United Kingdom (TRB 2007).

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure T-28, Provide Bus Rapid Transit, and converts all transit routes in the plan/community to BRT, then the user cannot also take credit for this measure or Measure T-26, Increase Transit Service Frequency. This is because Measure T-28 accounts for the VMT reduction associated with increased transit frequency and decreased transit travel time as well as the additional BRT-specific bonus. To combine the GHG reductions from Measure T-28 with Measure T-27 and/or Measure T-26 would be considered double counting. However, where BRT is proposed on less than all of the existing bus routes in the plan/community area, this measure and/or Measure T-26 could be applied to the remaining bus routes, and the measure reductions could be combined with Measure T-28 to determine the emissions reduction at the larger plan/community scale.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community GHGs by implementing transit-supportive roadway treatments that decrease transit travel time, thereby encouraging a mode shift from vehicles to transit and reducing VMT. In this example, the project is in San Francisco-OaklandHayward CBSA where the transit and vehicle mode shares would be 11.38 percent and

86.96 percent, respectively (E and G). Assuming the maximum decrease in transit travel time of 20 percent (Cmax) and implementation for all transit routes (100 percent) in the plan/community (B), the user would reduce plan/community GHG emissions from VMT by

0.6 percent.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-27. Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments TRANSPORTATION | 191 A = -1 ×
100% × -20% × -0.4 × 11.38% × 57.8%

86.96% = -0.6%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in passenger vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in passenger VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017b. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2007. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Available:
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 192
T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 13.8% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Providing BRT can incentivize more people to
use transit, resulting in less traffic and better
allowing emergency responders to access a
hazard site during an extreme weather
event. Furthermore, emergency responders
can use queue jumps and dedicated BRT
lanes when needed.

Health and Equity Considerations
Transit facilities can have conflicts with
cyclists. Consider appropriate BRT
components to minimize conflicts. Improved
transit investments should be equitably
distributed, prioritizing areas with transit
deficiencies in underserved communities.

Measure Description
This measure will convert an existing bus route to a bus rapid transit (BRT) system. BRT includes the following additional components, compared to traditional bus service: exclusive right-of-way (e.g., busways, queue jumping lanes) at congested intersections, increased limited-stop service (e.g., express service), intelligent transportation technology (e.g., transit signal priority, automatic vehicle location systems), advanced technology vehicles (e.g., articulated buses, low-floor buses), enhanced station design, efficient fare-payment smart cards or smartphone apps, branding of the system, and use of vehicle guidance systems. BRT can increase the transit mode share in a community due to improved travel times, service frequencies, and the unique components of the BRT system. This mode shift reduces VMT and the associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Transit
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The measure quantification methodology accounts for the increase in ridership from (1) improved travel times from transit signal prioritization, (2) increased service frequency, and (3) the unique ridership increase associated with a full-featured BRT service operating on a fully segregated running way with specialized (or stylized) vehicles, attractive stations, and efficient fare collection practices. To take credit for the estimated emissions reduction, the user should implement, at minimum, these components.

Cost Considerations
Providing BRT will require capital investment to purchase specialized vehicles, develop passenger information systems, and construct stations and busways. Total costs vary depending on the suite of BRT components pursued. Grade-separated busways are more expensive than at-grade busways and mixed flow lanes. Dedicated transit infrastructure will improve transit reliability and increase ridership. This supplements existing transit income streams for municipalities. Increased ridership similarly reduces vehicle use, which has cost benefits for both commuters and municipalities.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure could be paired with Measure T-25, Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours, and Measure T-29, Reduce Transit Fares, for increased reductions.

13.8%
Photo Credit: LA Metro, 2021
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit TRANSPORTATION | 193
GHG Reduction Formula
A = -C ×
D × F × ((B × I) + (H × J)+ G)
E
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from vehicle
travel in plan/community
0–13.8 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent increase in transit frequency due to BRT 0–300 % user input C Level of implementation 0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Transit mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a
E Vehicle mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a
F Statewide mode shift factor 57.8 % FHWA
2017b
G Percent change in transit ridership due to BRT 25 % TRB 2007 H Percent change in transit travel time due to BRT -10 to -20 % TRB 2007 I Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to
frequency of service

0.5 unitless Handy et
al. 2013
J Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to transit travel time
-0.4 unitless TRB 2007
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – This formula does not reflect any increase in transit vehicle travel and emissions, which can at least partially offset the reduction in GHG emissions from passenger vehicle travel.14 Inclusion of this component in the percent GHG reduction formula would require inputs that would not be available to most users. Users can calculate the absolute changes in passenger vehicle and bus VMT and emissions using the process described under Co-Benefits.
▪ (B) – Frequency is measured as the number of arrivals over a given time (e.g., buses per hour). Frequency is the inverse of transit headway, defined as the time between transit vehicle arrivals on a given route. This variable can be calculated as [transit frequency with measure minus existing transit frequency] divided by existing transit frequency. 14 As discussed in Chapter 2, Integrated and Resilient Planning, the ICT regulation requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to 100 percent zero-emission bus fleets by 2040. Accordingly, combustion emissions from transit operation will decline as vehicle fleets move to achieve the state’s zero-emission bus goals.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit TRANSPORTATION | 194
▪ (C) – The level of implementation refers to the number of transit routes receiving the frequency improvement as a fraction of the total transit routes in the plan/community. ▪ (D and E) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit and auto mode shares for a plan/community at the city scale (or larger). Potential data sources include the California Household Travel Survey (preferred) or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, the user has the option to input the mode shares for transit and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C. It is likely for areas outside of the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have vehicle mode shares higher and transit mode shares lower than the values provided in the table. ▪ (F) – Mode shift factor is an adjustment to reflect the reduction in vehicle trips associated with a reduction in person trips, since some vehicles carry more than one person. It is calculated as (1/average vehicle occupancy).
▪ (G) – A BRT practitioner’s guide summarizing the results of numerous BRT case studies concluded that, on top of the ridership gains from improved travel times and increased service frequency, an additional 25 percent increase in ridership would occur from a full-featured BRT service operating on a fully segregated running way with specialized (or stylized) vehicles, attractive stations, and efficient fare collection practices. ▪ (H) – A literature review of studies from the United States and United Kingdom indicates that the travel time savings associated with one type of BRT component—transit signal prioritization—typically average 10 percent (TRB 2007). If the user can provide a project-specific value based on the suite of BRT components, then the user should replace this default in the GHG reduction formula. Note that, as described below, (H) should not exceed 20 percent.
▪ (I) – A policy brief summarizing the results of transit service strategies concluded that a

0.5 percent increase in transit ridership occurs for every 1 percent increase in frequency (Handy et al. 2013).
▪ (J) – A BRT practitioner’s guide summarizing the results of numerous BRT case studies concluded that a -0.4 percent decrease in transit ridership occurs for every 1 percent increase in transit travel time (TRB 2007).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-3.1 and (Bmax), the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 13.8 percent. This maximum scenario is presented in the below example quantification.
(Bmax) The percent change in transit frequency is capped at 300 percent (SANDAG 2019). (Hmax) The percent reduction in transit travel time is capped at 20 percent, which is based on the values reported in a literature review of studies from the United States and United Kingdom (TRB 2007).

Subsector Maximum
( ∑ AmaxT-25 through T-29 ≤15%) This measure is in the Transit subsector. This subcategory includes Measures T-25 through T-29. The VMT reduction from the combined B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit TRANSPORTATION | 195
implementation of all the non–mutually-exclusive measures within this subsector is capped at 15 percent.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects this measure and converts all transit routes in the plan/community to BRT (B), then the user cannot also take credit for Measure T-26, Increase Transit Service Frequency, or Measure T-27, Implement Transit-Supportive Roadway Treatments. This is because Measure T-28 accounts for the VMT reduction associated with increased transit frequency and decreased transit travel time as well as the additional BRT-specific bonus. To combine the GHG reductions from Measure T-28 with Measure T-27 and/or Measure T-26 would be considered double counting. However, where BRT is proposed on less than all of the existing bus routes in the plan/community area, Measure T-26 and/or Measure T-27 could be applied to the remaining bus routes, and the measure reductions could be combined to determine the emissions reduction at the larger plan/community scale.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community GHGs by implementing a full-featured BRT system, thereby encouraging a mode shift from vehicles to transit and reducing VMT. In this example, the project is in the San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward CBSA where transit and vehicle mode shares would be 11.38 percent and 86.96 percent, respectively (D and E).

Assuming the maximum increase in transit frequency of 300 percent (Bmax), the maximum decrease in transit travel time of 20 percent (Hmax), and implementation for all transit routes (100 percent) in the plan/community (B), the user would reduce plan/community GHG emissions from VMT by 13.8 percent.

VMT Reductions
The decrease in passenger vehicle miles (K) and increase in BRT miles (O) by the measure can be calculated as follows.

A =-100% ×

11.38% × 57.8% × ((300%×0.5)+(-20%×-0.4)+25%)

86.96% = -13.8%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit TRANSPORTATION | 196
Passenger Vehicle VMT Reduction Formula
The percent reduction in passenger VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A). The absolute reduction in passenger VMT can be calculated using the following formula.

K = - (D × L × M × N × ((B × I) + (H × J) + G))
Passenger Vehicle VMT Reduction Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
K Reduction in passenger vehicle miles
in plan/community
[ ] miles per year calculated
User Inputs
L Total daily person trips in corridor(s) [ ] trips per day user input M Vehicle trip length [ ] miles per trip user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
N Days per year BRT available 365 days per year assumed Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (L) – The total daily person trips in the corridor(s) represents the total daily trips by all modes between the BRT origin area and the BRT destination area. This may be obtained through travel demand modeling. If the strategy involves BRT for more than one route, then the total person trips should reflect the sum of all the routes being improved.
▪ (M) – If the strategy involves BRT for more than one transit route, then the trip length should reflect the average of all the routes being converted. ▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

BRT VMT Increase Formula
The absolute increase in BRT VMT can be calculated using the formula below. As noted above, the formula for the percent GHG reduction (A) does not reflect any increase in BRT VMT or BRT emissions. Users that wish to capture these impacts should calculate absolute changes.

O = S × (P2 − P1) × Q × R × N
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit TRANSPORTATION | 197
BRT VMT Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
O Increase in annual BRT
miles in plan/community
[ ] miles per year calculated
User Inputs
P1 Bus frequency without
measure
[ ] transit vehicle
roundtrips per hour
user input
P2 BRT frequency with
measure
[ ] transit vehicle
roundtrips per hour
user input
Q BRT hours of operation 0–24 hours per day user input
R BRT route one-way length [ ] miles per route user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
S One-way trips in a
roundtrip
2 One-way trips per
roundtrip
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (O) – If the strategy involves frequency improvements for more than one transit route, then the increase in BRT miles should be calculated separately for each route.
▪ Please refer to the Passenger Vehicle VMT Reduction Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The decrease in passenger vehicle fuel consumption and increase in BRT fuel consumption by the measure can be calculated as follows.

Passenger Vehicle Fuel Use Reduction Formula
Multiply the reduction in passenger vehicle miles (K) above by the fuel efficiency of the vehicle type (see Table T-30.2 in Appendix C) to output the change in fuel consumption.

BRT Fuel Use Increase Formula
The absolute increase in BRT fuel consumption (T) can be calculated using the formula below.

T = O × U
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-28. Provide Bus Rapid Transit TRANSPORTATION | 198
BRT Fuel Use Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
T Increase in annual BRT fuel
consumption in
plan/community
[ ] gal per year calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
U Fuel economy of BRT, by
fuel type
Table
T-26.1
gal or kilowatt hour per
mile
CARB 2020;
U.S. DOE
2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (U) – The average fuel economy for gasoline, diesel, and natural gas transit buses was calculated using EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3). The model was run for a 2020 statewide average of UBUS vehicles, disaggregated by fuel type (CARB 2020). The efficiency of electric buses was calculated based on the gasoline equivalent value (U.S. DOE 2021). The user should reference Table T-26.1 for the fuel economy of the appropriate fuel type for their location’s transit system. If the user can provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year and project location), the user should run EMFAC to replace the default in the fuel use increase formula. Also, if the BRT vehicles are fueled by hydrogen, the user will need to calculate the increase in hydrogen fuel consumption using project-specific values, as hydrogen is currently not included as a fuel type in EMFAC.
▪ Please refer to the BRT VMT Increase Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Average Vehicle Occupancy by HHSTFIPS. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Handy, S., K. Lovejoy, M. Boarnet, and S. Spears. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Transit_Service_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Poli cy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool–Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/default-source/planning/tooldesign-document_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2007. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 118: Bus Rapid Transit Practitioner’s Guide. Available:
https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/tcrp118brt_practitioners_kittleson.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2021. Fuel Economy Datasets for All Model Years (1984- 2021). January. Available: https://www.fueleconomy.gov. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 199
T-29. Reduce Transit Fares
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 1.2% of GHG
emissions from vehicle travel
in the plan/community
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Reducing transit fares increases the capacity of
low-income populations to use transit to
evacuate or access resources during extreme
weather events. Reduced fares could also
incentivize more people to use transit, resulting in
less traffic and better allowing emergency
responders to access sites. This also reduces
transit system disruptions due to extreme weather
events. Lower transportation costs would also
increase community resilience by freeing up
resources for other purposes, such as increased
cooling costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Transit fare reduction programs should first
prioritize routes with higher-volume potential in
underserved communities and those most reliant
on transit for travel (e.g., students, persons with
disabilities, seniors).

Measure Description
This measure will reduce transit fares on the transit lines serving the plan/community. A reduction in transit fares creates incentives to shift travel to transit from single-occupancy vehicles and other traveling modes, which reduces VMT and associated GHG emissions.

This measure differs from Measure T-8, Implement Subsidized or Discounted Transit Program, which can be offered through employer-based benefits programs in which the employer fully or partially pays the employee’s cost of transit.

Subsector
Transit
Locational Context
Urban, suburban
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Transit fare reductions can be implemented systemwide or in specific fare-free or reduced-fare zones.

Cost Considerations
Reducing transit fares will lower the per capita income of the transit service. This may be outweighed by increased ridership, and savings on infrastructure costs due to reduced car usage.

Reduced fares can be targeted to specific populations or groups, depending on need. Individuals receiving the reduced fare will obtain a cost savings.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure could be paired with other Transit subsector strategies (Measure T-25, Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours, and Measure T-26, Increase Transit Service Frequency) for increased reductions.

1.2%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-29. Reduce Transit Fares TRANSPORTATION | 200
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B × C × D × E × G
F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from vehicle
travel in plan/community
0–1.2 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent reduction in transit fare with measure 0–50 % user input C Percent of plan/community transit routes that
receive reduced fares
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Elasticity of transit ridership with respect to
transit fare
-0.3 unitless Handy et al.
2013
E Transit mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a F Vehicle mode share in plan/community Table T-3.1 % FHWA 2017a G Statewide mode shift factor 57.8 % FHWA 2017a
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The user can calculate the percent reduction in transit fare based on the percent difference between the existing fare price and the proposed fare price. ▪ (C) – The level of implementation refers to the fraction of transit routes that on which fare reductions are implemented. Typically, fare reductions are made system-wide, so this variable would be 100.
▪ (D) – A policy brief summarizing the results of transit service studies reported that a 0.3 to 1.0 percent increase in transit ridership occurs for every 1.0 percent decrease in transit fares (Handy et al. 2013). To be conservative, the low end of this range is cited. ▪ (E and F) – Ideally, the user will calculate transit and auto mode shares for a plan/community at the city scale (or larger). Potential data sources include the California Household Travel Survey (preferred) or local survey efforts. If the user is not able to provide a project-specific value using one of these data sources, they have the option to input the mode shares for transit and vehicles for one of the six most populated CBSAs in California, as presented in Table T-3.1 in Appendix C. It is likely for areas outside of the area covered by the listed CBSAs to have vehicle mode shares higher and transit mode shares lower than the values provided in the table. ▪ (G) – Mode shift factor is an adjustment to reflect the reduction in vehicle trips associated with a reduction in person trips as some vehicles carry more than one person. It is calculated as (1/average vehicle occupancy) (FHWA 2017b).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-29. Reduce Transit Fares TRANSPORTATION | 201
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) For projects that use default CBSA data from Table T-3.1 and (Bmax), the maximum percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is 1.2 percent.
(Bmax) The percent reduction in transit fare is capped at 50 percent (SANDAG 2019).

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces plan/community GHGs by reducing the costs associated with using transit, thereby encouraging a mode shift from single occupancy vehicles to transit and reducing VMT. In this example, the project is in the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara CBSA, where the transit and vehicle mode shares would be 6.69 percent and 91.32 percent, respectively (E and F). Assuming the maximum decrease in transit fares of 50 percent (B) and implementation for all transit routes (100 percent) in the plan/community (C), the user would reduce plan/community GHG emissions from VMT by 0.6 percent.

A =
50% × 100% × -0.3 × 6.69% × 57.8%

91.32% = -0.6%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) would be the same as the percent reduction in NOX, CO, NO2, SO2, and PM. Reductions in ROG emissions can be calculated by multiplying the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) by an adjustment factor of 87 percent. See Adjusting VMT Reductions to Emission Reductions above for further discussion.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in passenger VMT would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

VMT Reductions
The percent reduction in passenger vehicle fuel consumption would be the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-29. Reduce Transit Fares TRANSPORTATION | 202
Sources
▪ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017a. National Household Travel Survey–2017 Table Designer. Travel Day PMT by TRPTRANS by HH_CBSA. Available: https://nhts.ornl.gov/. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Handy, S., K. Lovejoy, M. Boarnet, and S. Spears. 2013. Impacts of Transit Service Strategies on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. October. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
06/Impacts_of_Transit_Service_Strategies_on_Passenger_Vehicle_Use_and_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissio ns_Policy_Brief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 2019. Mobility Management VMT Reduction Calculator Tool–Design Document. June. Available: https://www.icommutesd.com/docs/defaultsource/planning/tool-design-document_final_7-17-19.pdf?sfvrsn=ec39eb3b_2. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
TRANSPORTATION | 203
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 100% of GHG
emissions from on-road
vehicles
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using cleaner-fuel vehicles increases
transportation resilience by providing a
wider range of available vehicles if other
fuels (like gasoline) become unavailable.

Health and Equity Considerations
While most cleaner fuels reduce both GHG
and criteria air pollutants, a few may
increase criteria pollutant emissions. The
most prominent example of this is biodiesel,
which generally results in higher NOx
emissions, but lower PM emissions
compared to diesel.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of cleaner-fuel vehicles in lieu of similar vehicles powered by gasoline or diesel fuel. Cleaner-fuel vehicles addressed in this measure include electric vehicles, natural gas and propane vehicles, and vehicles powered by biofuels such as composite diesel (blend of renewable diesel, biodiesel, and conventional fossil diesel), ethanol, and renewable natural gas.

The full GHG emissions impact of cleaner fuels depends on the emissions from the vehicle’s tailpipe as well as the emissions associated with production of the fuel (sometimes termed “upstream” emissions). For example, tailpipe GHG emissions from renewable natural gas are identical to tailpipe GHG emissions from conventional natural gas; the GHG benefits of renewable natural gas come from the fact that it is produced from biomass.

Similarly, BEVs have zero tailpipe emissions, but properly accounting for their GHG impacts requires quantifying the emissions associated with the electricity generation needed to charge the vehicle’s batteries.

Subsector
Clean Vehicles and Fuels
Locational Context
Non-applicable
Scale of Application
Project/Site or Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Capital costs to purchase cleaner fuel vehicles are high. Fueling infrastructure may be required, which will add to the upfront cost of transitioning to cleaner fuel vehicles. Fuel costs and savings compared to gasoline and diesel will vary depending on the type of fuel and market conditions. It is feasible to expect reduced fuel costs from cleaner fuels with an increased market and overall fuel cost savings over the life of the vehicle fleet.

Expanded Mitigation Options
If using electric vehicles, pair with Measure T-14 to ensure that electric vehicles have sufficient access to charging infrastructure. 100%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles TRANSPORTATION | 204
GHG Reduction Formula
California has a well-defined process for quantifying the GHG emissions impacts of cleanerfuel vehicles by virtue of the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program. An emissions calculation that considers both vehicle tailpipe and upstream fuel production emissions is sometimes referred to as a “well-to-wheels” analysis (A3 below). An emissions calculation that considers only vehicle tailpipe emissions is referred to as a “tank-to-wheels” analysis (A1 and A2 below).

The convention for project analysis under CEQA typically employs a hybrid approach. For natural gas, propane, and biofuels vehicles, the CEQA analysis quantifies only tailpipe emissions and does not seek to capture differences in emission associated with fuel production. However, for electric vehicles, CEQA analyses typically account for emissions associated with electricity generation (A1 and A2 below).

A1 = B ×
(D × E × F × G ) − C
C
A2 = B ×
(D × E × F × G × H)+ (C ×
1 I
× (1 − H)) − C
C
A3 = B ×
J − K
K
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Percent reduction in GHG emissions from onroad vehicle emissions for BEVs 0–100 % calculated A2 Percent reduction in GHG emissions from onroad vehicle emissions for PHEVs 0–64 % calculated A3 Percent reduction in well-to-wheels GHG
emissions from cleaner fuels or vehicle
technologies
0–100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percent of vehicle fleet being converted to
cleaner fuels
1–100 % user input
C Emission factor for existing (conventional fuel)
vehicle
[ ] g CO2e per
mile
CARB 2020a
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D BEV efficiency Table
T-30.1
kWh per mile see note
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles TRANSPORTATION | 205
ID Variable Value Unit Source
E Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3
and
E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
F Conversion from lb to gram 454 g per lb conversion
G Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion H Percent of PHEV miles in electric mode 46 % CARB 2020a I Ratio of average hybrid vehicle mpg to
comparable gasoline vehicle mpg

1.5 unitless see below
J Well-to-wheels emission factor for cleaner
vehicle/fuel
Table
T-30.2
g CO2e per
mile
CARB
2020a,
2020b,
2020c; U.S.

DOE 2021
K Well-to-wheels emission factor for existing
(conventional fuel) vehicle
Table
T-30.2
g CO2e per
mile
CARB
2020a,
2020b,
2020c; U.S.

DOE 2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A1 or A2) – Use of these equations is appropriate for a typical CEQA project analysis, which considers tailpipe GHG emissions and, for electric vehicles, electricity generation emissions.
▪ (A3) – Use of this equation is appropriate for a user interested in a well-to-wheels analysis for all fuel types. The user should determine the appropriate emission factors for the conventional fuel and cleaner fuel.
▪ (C) – The user should run EMFAC to output GHG emission factors (CO2, CH4, and N2O) for the existing (conventional fuel) vehicles. The EMFAC run should be based on projectspecific values for the region, project year, season, vehicle category, model year, speed, and fuel type (gasoline, diesel, or a weighted average).15 To determine the CO2e emission factor of the conventional fuel vehicle, the emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O from EMFAC should be multiplied by the corresponding 100-year GWP values (1, 25, and 298, respectively) from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007) and then summed. ▪ (E) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4), the user should use that specific value in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, users may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.
▪ (H) – Based on the EMFAC2017 model (v1.0.3), 46 percent of miles traveled by PHEVs in California are in electric mode (eVMT), with 54 percent in gasoline mode (CARB 2020a). 15 There are many different combinations of input variables a user could specify in EMFAC to result in a unique emission factor output. This report does not attempt to consolidate a standardized group of emission factor output into a database table for the user to refer to. It is recommended the user run EMFAC to obtain project-specific results.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles TRANSPORTATION | 206
▪ (I) – Assumes that a PHEV operating in gasoline mode is similar to a gasoline hybrid (non-plug-in) vehicle. A typical gasoline hybrid vehicle has 50 percent higher fuel economy (mpg) than a comparable gasoline vehicle, based on a comparison of the gasoline and hybrid Toyota Camry and Corolla models (U.S. DOE 2021). ▪ (J and K) – The average California values for fuel efficiency, energy density, and carbon intensity of typical vehicle and fuel types are provided in Table T-30.2 (CARB 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; U.S. DOE 2021). Table T-30.2 also provides the well-to-wheels emission factor, which can be calculated based on the product of the fuel efficiency, energy density, and carbon intensity. If the user can provide a project-specific value, then the user should replace in the GHG calculation formula one or more of these values that produces the emission factor.
▪ (D) – BEV energy efficiency varies by vehicle type. The average California values are provided in Table T-30.1 in Appendix C. If the user can provide a project-specific value, they should replace the default in the GHG reduction formula. BEV energy efficiency can be calculated as:

BEV efficiency (kWh per mile) = L
M × N
Where,
- (L) – Gasoline to electricity conversion. Users can assume 33.7 kWh per gallon of gasoline, which is a standard conversion factor used by U.S. EPA and U.S DOE (U.S.

EPA 2021).
- (M) – Fuel economy (mpg) of a comparable gasoline vehicle. Users can obtain this from Table T-30.2.
- (N) –EER for an electric vehicle. Users can assume 3.4, which is the EER established by CARB for electric vehicles as stated in the LCFS regulation. (CARB 2020b).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(A1max) The GHG reduction from the use of BEVs is capped at 100 percent, which assumes that 100 percent of the fleet would be converted (B) and that the local electricity provider is powered 100 percent by renewables and thus has a carbon intensity of zero (E). (A2max) The GHG reduction from the use of PHEVs is capped at 64 percent, which assumes that 100 percent of the fleet would be converted (B) and that the local electricity provider is powered 100 percent by renewables and thus has a carbon intensity of zero (E). (A3max) For a well-to-wheels analysis, the GHG reduction from the use of electric vehicles is capped at 100 percent, which assumes that the local electricity provider is powered 100 percent by renewables and thus has a carbon intensity of zero (L). Note that the maximum percent reduction for all other cleaner vehicles and fuels presented in Table T-30.2 will not reach this maximum.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles TRANSPORTATION | 207
Subsector Maximum
Same as (Amax). Measure T-30 is the only measure at the Plan/Community scale within the Clean Vehicles and Fuels subsector.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces vehicle emissions by avoiding the use of conventional fuels in place of cleaner fuels or vehicle technologies. In this example, a municipality that sources their electricity from an electricity provider powered 100 percent by renewables (E) is converting half of their fleet of gasoline light duty automobiles to BEVs (B). The user has run EMFAC for their county, vehicle category, and project year, and determined the fleet emission factor to be 400 g CO2e (C). The user would reduce GHG emissions from the existing fleet by 50 percent.

A1 = 50% ×
(0.33 kWh
mi × 0 lb CO2e
MWh × 454 glb × 0.001 MWhkWh ) − 400 g CO2e
mi
400 g CO2e
mi
= -50%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Local Air Quality
(O1) – The use of BEVS in lieu of conventional vehicles would decrease local criteria pollutants. The percent reduction is equal to (B). Electricity supplied by statewide fossilfueled or bioenergy power plants will generate criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state or outside the state, electricity consumption from vehicles charging typically will not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions on the project site or roadways traveled by the electric vehicles. (O2) – The percent reduction in local criteria pollutants from use of PHEVs in lieu of conventional vehicles (A2) is equal to (B×A2max). See (A2max) above, which assumes (E) is set to zero to nullify eVMT activity and vehicle fleet conversion (Bmax) is set to 100 percent. (A2max) is multiplied by the actual conversion of the vehicle fleet (B) to adjust the percent reduction calculated from (A2max). Electricity supplied by statewide fossil-fueled or bioenergy power plants will generate criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state or outside the state, electricity consumption from vehicles charging typically will not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions.
(O3) – For a well-to-wheels analysis, the fuels produced by facilities within and outside of California will generate criteria pollutants. Because these facilities are dispersed, offsite of the project/site or plan/community, fuel production typically will not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, only the tank-towheels (i.e., tailpipe) portion of the vehicle criteria pollutant emissions should be quantified. For BEVs and PHEVs, this can be done using the methodologies described above (O1 and O2, respectively). For vehicles fueled by diesel, biodiesel, B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles TRANSPORTATION | 208
renewable diesel, and natural gas, the criteria pollutant emission factor can be outputted by EMFAC (see C). The criteria pollutant reductions from use of gasoline hybrid or flex fuel vehicles cannot be readily quantified within EMFAC as these fuel types are not inputs the user can specify.

Fuel Savings (Increased Electricity)
(P1 and Q1) – The use of BEVs in lieu of conventional vehicles would decrease vehicle fuel consumption and increase electricity use. The percent reduction in fuel use (P1) is equal to (B). The absolute increase in electricity use can be calculated using the below formula (Q1).
(P2 and Q2) – The use of PHEVs in lieu of conventional vehicles would decrease vehicle fuel consumption and increase electricity use. The percent reduction in fuel use (P2) is equal to (B×A2max). The absolute increase in electricity use (Q2) is equal to (H×Q1).
(P3 and Q3) – For gasoline, gasoline hybrid, flex fuel, diesel, biodiesel, renewable diesel, and natural gas, the percent reduction in fuel use of the existing (conventional fuel) vehicle is equal to (B). The absolute increase in the cleaner fuel/vehicle energy can be calculated using the below formula (P3).

BEV Electricity Use Increase Formula
Q1 = B × D × R
Electricity Use Increase Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
Q1 Increase in electricity from electric
vehicles
[ ] kWh per year calculated
User Inputs
R Average annual VMT of all vehicles
in fleet
[ ] miles per year user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Cleaner Vehicle Energy Use Increase Formula
P3 = B × R ×
S
T
B3 Attach #1 of 3
T-30. Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles TRANSPORTATION | 209
Cleaner Vehicle Energy Use Increase Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
P3 Increase in vehicle fuel use in fleet [ ] megajoules (MJ)
calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
S Energy density for cleaner fuel/vehicle Table
T-30.2
MJ per gal CARB
2019,
2020a,
2020b,
2020c;
U.S. DOE
2021
T Fuel efficiency for cleaner fuel/vehicle Table
T-30.2
mpg
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (S and T) – The average California values for fuel efficiency and energy density of typical vehicle and fuel types are provided in Table T-30.2 (CARB 2019, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c; U.S. DOE 2021). If the user can provide a projectspecific value, then the user should replace in the fuel use reduction formula one or more of these values that produces the energy consumption value (MJ). ▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019. LCFS Pathway Certified Carbon Intensities. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-pathway-certified-carbon-intensities. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. EMFAC2017 v1.0.3. August. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020b. Unofficial electronic version of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Regulation. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020- 07/2020_lcfs_fro_oal-approved_unofficial_06302020.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020c. California Climate Investments Quantification Methodology Emission Factor Database and Documentation. August. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-quantification-benefits-and-reporting-materials.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2021. Fuel Economy Datasets for All Model Years (1984- 2021). January. Available: https://www.fueleconomy.gov. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2021. Green Vehicle Guide. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/gvg/learn-more-technology.htm.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 210
Energy
The GHG emissions from energy use come from power
generation that provides the energy used to operate a building or source. Power is typically generated by either a remote, central electricity generating plant, onsite generation by fuel combustion, or onsite solar, wind, or other renewable power.

Because the emissions from central electricity generation are not emitted where the electricity is being used, these types of emissions are referred to as indirect emissions. As such, measures that reduce electricity consumption result in
reductions of criteria pollutants where the electricity is generated (i.e., power plants). Electricity-reducing measures are, therefore, not considered to result in local air quality cobenefits at the project site, although they could contribute to regional air quality improvements.

Because the emissions from onsite fuel combustion are emitted where the fuel is being consumed, these types of emissions are referred to as direct emission. Measures that reduce residential natural gas use (e.g., from cooktops and for space and water heating) reduce onsite fuel combustion and improve local air quality. Direct use of onsite solar or wind power generated electricity does not result in emissions.

Energy sector emissions can be reduced through energy efficiency improvements, renewable energy generation, building electrification, and CH4 recovery and reuse at industrial facilities (landfills and wastewater treatment plants). These types of measures are discussed below. This section also provides guidance for combining emission reductions from energy measures and accounting for statewide legislation that may reduce future emissions reductions achieved by energy measures. The measure factsheets and quantification methods for individual measures follow. Use the graphic on the following page to click on an individual measure to navigate directly to the measure’s factsheet.

Measures to Improve Efficiency
Energy sector emissions can be reduced by lowering the amount of electricity and natural gas required for building operations. This can be achieved by designing a more energy-efficient building structure and/or installing energy-efficient appliances.14 Emissions reductions from energy efficiency improvements are quantified based on the amount of expected energy savings that would be achieved over existing energy codes and regulations. Existing consumption values are determined using California-specific energy end use databases, such as the California Commercial End-Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS), and other literature sources 14 This Handbook does not account for potential “rebound effects” of energy efficiency measures. Rebound effect is the phenomenon that an increase in energy efficiency may lead to fewer energy savings because energy use will increase due to consumer and market responses. While rebound effects have been documented in literature, they are difficult to precisely and reliably quantify.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 211
(e.g., ENERGY STAR program). Quantified measures that target energy efficiency improvements described in this section include Measures E-1 through E-9.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 212
Measures to Increase Renewable Energy Generation
Different modes of electricity generation have different GHG emission intensities. Fossil fuelbased generation emits GHGs from fuel combustion, with the emissions quantity depending on the quantity and type of fuel used. Renewable energy generation, on the other hand, typically has significantly fewer emissions, and most types of renewable sources—such as solar photovoltaic (PV) systems—have zero associated GHG emissions. Renewable energy generation reduces emissions by avoiding an equivalent amount of grid energy. To calculate this, the amount of energy generated by the renewable system(s) must be quantified and then multiplied by the electricity provider-specific emission factor for the type of energy (e.g., electricity, natural gas) being replaced.15 Quantified measures that target renewable energy generation described in this section include Measures E-10-A through E-11.

Measures for Building Decarbonization
Building decarbonization, also termed beneficial electrification or building electrification, involves shifting from fossil fuels (e.g., natural gas) to electricity as the power source for heating, cooking, and appliances. In a fully electrified building, gas-powered water heaters, gas-powered ovens and cooktops, gas-powered clothes washers and dryers, and space heating that normally uses natural gas, propane, or heating oil are all replaced by electric alternatives, which are usually 2 to 3 times more efficient than traditional appliances. Displacing emissions-intensive fossil fuel energy with less emissions-intensive electricity results in a net emission reduction. Further, the emission reduction increases if the electricity for these end uses is generated by solar, wind, or other sources of zero-carbon electricity. These zero-carbon sources can be provided on a project site or integrated into the local electricity providers’ renewable energy mix. In future years, building decarbonization measures will become increasingly effective at reducing GHG emissions because electricity provided by retail sellers of electricity will be procured from increasing amounts of renewable energy sources.

Emissions reductions achieved through building electrification are quantified based on the direct emissions avoided by the displaced fuel plus the indirect emissions added by the increased use of electricity. To calculate this, the avoided energy (i.e., negative value) generated by the fossilfueled appliance(s) must be quantified and then multiplied by the appropriate fuel emission factor. The additional energy (i.e., positive value) generated by the electric alternative appliance(s) must be quantified and then multiplied by the electricity provider-specific emission factor.16 The sum of these two emissions represents the net emission reduction. Quantified 15 The quantification methods do not account for potential future renewable energy curtailment (i.e., the deliberate reduction in power output below what could have been generated to balance supply and demand), which could reduce expected emissions savings from certain renewable energy measures.
16 One method for determining energy consumption for an electric alternative appliance is to convert the natural gas consumption, typically measured in therms, into British thermal units, which can then be converted into the electricity energy consumption metric of kWh. However, this method does not account for the differing energy efficiencies of natural gas versus electricity or potential differences in the technical specifications of the associated appliances. Accordingly, the Handbook does not use this basic conversion method. Instead, the Handbook recommends using actual reported energy consumption for electric alternative appliances.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 213
measures that target building decarbonization described in this section include Measures E-12 through E-17.

Measures for Methane Recovery
Decomposition of waste and organic material in landfills and at wastewater treatment facilities generates CH4. Capturing CH4 through recovery systems directly reduces GHG emissions.

Additional reductions can be achieved if the captured CH4 is combusted to generate electricity for onsite energy needs, which displaces the associated indirect GHG emissions from electricity production. Emissions reductions from CH4 recovery systems that include electricity generation are quantified using similar methods as described above for measures to increase renewable energy generation. Quantified measures that target CH4 recovery described in this section include Measures E-18 and E-19.

Combining Emissions Reductions from Energy Measures
The total reductions claimed by a user for energy measures should not exceed 100 percent of project energy emissions, unless a measure would result in additional excess energy capacity that would be sold to an electricity provider or other project. This may include renewable energy generation systems tied into the grid. These additional emission reductions may be used to offset other categories of emissions, with approval of the agency reviewing the project. In these cases of excess capacity, the quantified excess emissions must be carefully verified to ensure that any credit allowed for these additional reductions is truly additional.17 Reduced Effectiveness of Energy Measures in Future Years Senate Bill 100 requires that 100 percent of electricity supplied to California end-use customers be from eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources by 2045. As retail sellers of electricity procure increasing amounts of renewable energy to displace fossil fuels in their energy generation mix, the emission factors of local electricity providers will decrease over time.

Because some energy measures reduce electricity consumption or displace grid energy, the annual GHG reduction from these measures will be less in future years. As noted above, however, the shift to a larger portfolio of renewable energy will make building decarbonization measures more effective. Further, if the local electricity provider for a project already has carbonfree electricity, then energy reduction measures would not reduce electricity emissions as they would already be zero or near zero.18 Users should take care to appropriately account for this possibility by using the electricity provider-specific, year-specific emission factors presented in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C, Emissions Factors and Data Tables. 19 Similarly, measures that reduce building energy consumption may become less effective over time because of increasingly stringent Title 24, California Building Standards Code, standards. 17 For more detailed information on offset verification protocols visit https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/future-protocoldevelopment/criteria/. 18 Senate Bill 100 requires 100 percent renewable for retail sales but not for all power generation/supply (e.g., grid balancing or infacility usage). Thus, emission factors may not be exactly zero by 2045. 19 The default electricity provider emission factors reflect the annual average emissions intensity of delivered electricity. Depending on the time of day and load, measures that reduce electricity consumption may offset emissions from marginal power sources, yielding greater emissions reductions than estimated when using average annual emission factors.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 214
Strengthening of Title 24 requirements, including provisions for zero net energy (ZNE) buildings (i.e., energy efficiency improvements and onsite renewable energy), will improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption in new construction. The quantification methods presented in this report include measures that exceed minimum regulatory requirements of the 2019 Title 24 standards. Some measures in this Handbook may become obsolete if they are made mandatory for all new buildings as part of future Title 24 standards. As such, users should take care to determine whether the measures in this Handbook still exceed the Title 24 requirements at the time of project implementation. If the user’s project exceeds the requirements of Title 24, then they can take credit for the resulting reductions.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 215
E-1. Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy
Efficiency Standards
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 99% of GHG emissions
from building electricity
and/or natural gas use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increased energy efficiency can reduce the
strain on the overall grid, particularly the risk
of power outages during peak loads.

Increased efficiency can also reduce energy
costs, particularly if extreme heat would
otherwise increase these costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
More energy efficient buildings can help
residents to save money on utility costs and
reduce exposure to extreme heat, supporting
greater resilience to climate health impacts.

This can be especially critical for low-income
and vulnerable residents.

Measure Description
This measure requires new buildings to exceed the energy efficiency requirements of the building energy standards of the 2019 version of Title 24. GHGs are emitted because of activities in residential and commercial buildings that use electricity and natural gas as energy sources. By committing to a percent improvement over Title 24, the building’s energy use is reduced, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Title 24 Part 6 regulates energy uses including space heating and cooling, hot water heating, ventilation, and integrated lighting. End use categories not subject to Title 24 requirements include appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous “plug-in” uses.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Reduce energy use from any of the following end uses: space heating and cooling, hot water heating, ventilation, and integrated lighting.

Cost Considerations
In order to make buildings even more energy efficient, developers will face greater upfront costs to purchase higher-quality materials, which may be passed on to the property owner. However, property owners will realize cost savings from reduced energy use. Property owners will also avoid potential retrofitting costs in the future if efficiency standards are made more stringent.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure E-2, Require Energy Efficient Appliances, to reduce energy use from both end use categories that are subject to Title 24 requirements and those that are not to yield increased GHG reductions.
99%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-1. Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards ENERGY | 216 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -C × E
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG
emissions from building electricity
and/or natural gas consumption
[ ] 0–99% calculated
User Inputs
B Building/housing type [ ] text user input
C Percent improvement beyond
2019 Title 24
0–100 % expressed as a
whole number
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity Demand Forecast Zone Figure E-1.1
Table E-1.1
integer CEC 2017
E Percent reduction in building
electricity or natural gas
consumption for 1% improvement
over 2019 Title 24 Standards
Tables E-1.2
through Table
E-1.5
% CEC 2020,
2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – The output provides the percent reduction in GHG emissions from either building electricity or natural gas consumption, depending on which energy source the user is interested in calculating (E). To determine the percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy (i.e., electricity plus natural gas), the user would need to know the percent of total GHG emissions from each energy source. For example, if 40 percent of building energy emissions come from electricity and 60 percent come from natural gas consumption, the percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy could be calculated as follows.

Aenergy = (40% × Aelectricity) + (60% × Anatural gas)
Further, to determine the percent reduction in GHG emissions for a project with multiple buildings, the user would need to know the percent of total building energy emissions from each building. For example, if 67 percent of building energy emissions come from Building 1 and 33 percent come from Building 2, the percent reduction in GHG emissions from all building energy could be calculated as follows.

Aenergy_total = (67% × Aenergy_1) `+ (33% × Aenergy_2)
▪ (B) – The building and housing types are needed to lookup the percent reduction in electricity or natural gas consumption over 2019 Title 24 Standards (E). ▪ (D) – The California Energy Commission (CEC) has specified 28 distinct Electricity Demand Forecast Zones (EDFZs) in California. Users should refer to Figure E-1.1 in B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-1. Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards ENERGY | 217 Appendix C to determine the EDFZ for their project. This measure relies on energy consumption data from the year 2019 tied to the CEC’s 2018-2030 Uncalibrated Commercial Sector Forecast (Commercial Forecast) and the 2019 RASS (CEC 2020, 2021). Because data from all 28 EDFZs are not included in the Commercial Forecast and RASS, representative data from similar EDFZs may need to be used. Users should refer to Table E-1.1 for the proxy EDFZ that corresponds with those listed in Tables E1.2 through E-1.5. ▪ (E) – See Tables E-1.2 through E-1.5 for the percent reduction in building electricity and natural consumption by EDFZ and land use type. There are two tables for residential land uses and two for non-residential land uses. This information is based on the percent of total building energy that comes from end use categories subject to Title 24 requirements (e.g., space heating and cooling, hot water heating, ventilation) (CEC 2020, 2021).20, 21 For example, for a general office building in EDFZ 1, 65 percent of electricity and 79 percent of natural gas consumption come from end use categories subject to Title 24 requirements. Thus, a 1 percent improvement in building energy efficiency standards results in a 0.65 percent reduction in electricity use and a 0.79 percent reduction in natural gas consumption.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Cmax) The percent improvement beyond 2019 Title 24 standards is capped at 100.

It is assumed that the energy demand of the user’s project is currently being met by grid electricity that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation and/or onsite natural gas, both of which emit GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per MWh) greater than zero and/or the project consumes natural gas onsite for building energy. For all-electric projects that are served by electricity providers already with a renewable portfolio of 100 percent, this measure could have no reduction in GHG emissions. If the electricity provider is using renewable energy credits (REC) to meet a 100 percent renewable portfolio goal, then some emissions reductions may be achieved. This measure would still result in the co-benefits of reduced electricity use and enhanced energy security.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, they may not also take credit for any natural gas–related efficiency gains under this measure. In other words, (Anatural gas) should be zeroed out in the above equation.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces building energy by exceeding energy efficiency standards. In this example, the user commits to a 10 percent improvement over 2019 Title 24 requirements (C) for 20 End use categories not subject to Title 24 requirements include appliances, electronics, and miscellaneous “plug-in” uses. 21 Hardwired lighting is part of Title 24 Part 6. However, it is not part of the building envelope energy and, therefore, not considered as part of this measure.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-1. Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards ENERGY | 218 their project located in EDFZ 3 (D). The project includes Building 1, a day-care center, and Building 2, apartments (mid-rise) (B). The user would reduce GHG emissions from the daycare center from electricity and natural gas by 8.1 percent and 9.9 percent, respectively.

GHG emissions from the apartment from electricity and natural gas would be reduced by

2.4 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively.

Aelectricity_1 = -10 × 0.81% = -8.1% day care electricity emissions Anatural gas_1 = -10 × 0.99% = -9.9% day care natural gas emissions Aelectricity_2 = -10 × 0.24% = -2.4% apartment electricity emissions Anatural gas_2 = -10 × 0.95% = -9.5% apartment natural gas emissions The percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy (i.e., electricity plus natural gas) per building can also be calculated if the user knows the percent of total GHG emissions from each energy source. In this example, 40 percent of the day-care building’s energy emissions come from electricity and 60 percent come from natural gas consumption, while 45 percent of the apartment building’s energy emissions come from electricity and 55 percent come from natural gas consumption. Energy sector GHG emissions from the day-care and apartment would be reduced by 9.2 percent and 6.3 percent, respectively.

Aenergy_1 = (40% × -8.1%) + (60% × -9.9%) = -9.2% day care energy emissions Aenergy_2 = (45% × -2.4%) + (55% × -9.5%) = -6.3% apartment energy emissions Further, the percent reduction in GHG emissions for the project can be calculated if the user knows the percent of total building energy emissions from each building. In this example, 33 percent of building energy emissions come from the day-care and 67 percent come from the apartment. The percent reduction in GHG emissions from all building energy would be 7.9 percent.

Aenergy_total = (33% × -9.2%) + (77% × -6.3%) = -7.9% building energy emissions Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
Electricity supplied by statewide fossil-fueled or bioenergy power plants generates criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state, the reduction in electricity use from this measure will not reduce localized criteria pollutant emissions at the project site.

The reduction in natural gas consumption from this measure would result in local improvements in air quality because the building natural gas combustion regulated under Title 24 Part 6 occurs on the project site (e.g., space heating, water heating).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-1. Exceed 2019 Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards ENERGY | 219 The percent reduction in criteria pollutants from natural gas (Anaturalgas) is the same as the percent reduction in building natural gas consumption achieved by the measure.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in electricity use achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions from electricity (Aelectricity). The percent reduction in natural gas consumption achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions from natural gas (Anaturalgas).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 220
E-2. Require Energy Efficient Appliances
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 15.0% of GHG
emissions from building
electricity
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increased energy efficiency can reduce the
strain on the overall grid, particularly the risk
of power outages during peak loads.

Increased efficiency can also reduce energy
costs, particularly if extreme heat would
otherwise increase these costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
The use of ENERGY STAR appliances can
increase upfront purchase costs; thus, it
should be clearly explained to occupants or
buyers that these costs can be offset by
reduced operational utility costs. This can
be particularly beneficial for low-income
residents.

Measure Description
This measure will require installation of ENERGY STAR-certified appliances that exceed the energy efficiency of conventional appliances. By committing to more efficient appliances, the building’s energy use is reduced, thereby reducing GHG emissions.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure can be used for commercial refrigerators. It can also be used for residential refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and ceiling fans. This measure will only result in reductions associated with electricity use and does not apply to natural gas as no ENERGY STAR appliances that use natural gas were evaluated.

Cost Considerations
More energy-efficient appliances are typically more expensive than less efficient ones, leading to greater upfront costs. However, the replacement of less efficient appliances with more efficient models reduces energy consumption and thereby reduces long-term energy costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure E-1, Exceed Title 24 Building Envelope Energy Efficiency Standards, to reduce energy use from both end use categories subject to Title 24 requirements and those that are not to yield increased GHG reductions.
15%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-2. Require Energy Efficient Appliances ENERGY | 221
GHG Reduction Formula
A = (E1 × F1) + (E2 × F2) + (E3 × F3) + (E4 × F4)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from building electricity
0–15.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Building/housing type [ ] text user input
C1,2,3… ENERGY STAR appliance(s) installed [ ] text user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity Demand Forecast Zone Figure E-1.1
Table E-1.1
integer CEC 2017
E1,2,3… Percent reduction in electricity for
ENERGY STAR appliance compared to
conventional appliance
Table E-2.1 % ENERGY STAR
2014; 2016; 2017;
2018a; 2018b
F1,2,3… Percent of total building electricity by
appliance
Table E-2.2
Table E-2.3
% CEC 2020, 2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – The output provides the percent reduction in GHG emissions from building electricity. To determine the percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy (i.e., electricity plus natural gas), the user would need to know the percent of total GHG emissions from electricity. For example, if 40 percent of building energy emissions come from electricity, the percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy could be calculated as follows.

Aenergy = (40% × Aelectricity)
Further, to determine the percent reduction in GHG emissions for a project with multiple buildings, the user would need to know the percent of total building energy emissions from each building. For example, if 67 percent of building energy emissions come from Building 1 and 33 percent come from Building 2, the percent reduction in GHG emissions from all building energy could be calculated as follows.

Aenergy_total = (67% × Aenergy_1) + (33% × Aenergy_2)
▪ (B) – The building and housing types are needed to lookup the percent of total building electricity by appliance (F). Commercial refrigerators were evaluated for the nonresidential building types of grocery stores, restaurants, and refrigerated warehouses.

Residential refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and ceiling fans were evaluated for all residential housing types.
▪ (D) – The CEC has specified 28 distinct EDFZs in California. Users should refer to Figure E-1.1 in Appendix C to determine the EDFZ for their project. This measure relies B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-2. Require Energy Efficient Appliances ENERGY | 222
on energy consumption data from the year 2019 tied to the CEC’s Commercial Forecast and the 2019 RASS (CEC 2020, 2021). Because data from all 28 EDFZs are not included in the Commercial Forecast and RASS, representative data from similar EDFZs may need to be used. Users should refer to Table E-1.1 for the proxy EDFZ that corresponds with those listed in Table E-2.2 and Table E-2.3. ▪ (E) – See Table E-2.1 for the percent reduction in ENERGY STAR appliance electricity use compared to conventional appliances that meet the minimum federal efficiency standards (ENERGY STAR 2014; 2016; 2017; 2018a; 2018b). ▪ (F) – See Table E-2.2 and Table E-2.3 for the percent of total building electricity by appliance. There is one table for residential land uses and another for non-residential land uses. This information, excluding ceiling fans, is primarily based on data from the CEC (2020, 2021). RASS does not specify a ceiling fan end-use; rather, electricity use from ceiling fans is accounted for in the Miscellaneous category, which includes interior lighting, attic fans, and other miscellaneous plug-in loads. Because the electricity usage of ceiling fans alone is not specified, a value from a National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study is used. The study reports that the average energy use per ceiling fan is 84.1 kWh per year (NREL 2008). In this measure, it is assumed that each multi-family, single-family, and townhome residence has one ceiling fan. The electricity savings shown here are based on installing an ENERGY STAR ceiling fan and do not account for an occupant’s decreased use of cooling devices such as air conditioners.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the electricity demand of the project’s appliances is currently being met by grid electricity that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation, which emits GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per MWh) greater than zero. For projects that are served by electricity providers already with a renewable portfolio of 100 percent, this measure could have no reduction in GHG emissions. If the electricity provider is using REC to meet a 100 percent renewable portfolio goal, then some emissions reductions may be achieved.

This measure would still result in the co-benefits of reduced electricity use and enhanced energy security.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces building energy by requiring the builder supply appliances that exceed the energy efficiency of conventional appliances. In this example, the user’s project includes Building 1, a supermarket, and Building 2, single-family home (B) located in EDFZ 1 (D).

The user would commit to ENERGY STAR commercial refrigerators in the grocery store and ENERGY STAR residential refrigerators, clothes washers, dishwashers, and ceiling fans in the single-family housing (C). GHG emissions from the supermarket and single-family home from electricity would be reduced by 4.6 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively.

Aelectricity_1 = -20% × 23% = -4.6% supermarket electricity emissions Aelectricity_2 = (-9% × 18%) + (-25% × 1.1%) + (-12% × 1.1%) + (-60% × 1.3%) = -2.8% housing electricity emissions
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-2. Require Energy Efficient Appliances ENERGY | 223
The percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy (i.e., electricity plus natural gas) per building can also be calculated if the user knows the percent of total GHG emissions from each energy source. In this example, 60 percent of the supermarket’s energy emissions come from electricity and 50 percent of the single-family home’s energy emissions come from electricity. GHG emissions from the supermarket and single-family home would be reduced by 2.8 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively.

Aenergy_1 = (60% × -4.6%) = -2.8% supermarket energy emissions Aenergy_2 = (50% × -2.8%) = -1.4% housing energy emissions Further, the percent reduction in GHG emissions for the project can be calculated if the user knows the percent of total building energy emissions from each building. In this example, 67 percent of building energy emissions come from the supermarket and 33 percent come from the single-family home. The percent reduction in GHG emissions from all building energy would be 2.3 percent.

Aenergy_total = (67% × -2.8%) + (33% × -1.4%) = -2.3% building energy emissions Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in electricity use achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions from electricity (Aelectricity).

Sources
▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2017. California Electricity Demand Forecast Zones. Available:
https://cecgis-caenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/86fef50f6f344fabbe545e58aec83edd_0/ data?geometry=-165.327%2C31.004%2C-72.427%2C43.220. Accessed: June 2021. ▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. Excel database with the 2019 Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS), provided to ICF. November 13, 2020. ▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Excel database with the 2018–2030 Uncalibrated Commercial Sector Forecast, provided to ICF. January 21, 2021. ▪ ENERGY STAR. 2014. Refrigerators – Overview. September. Available:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/refrigerators. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ ENERGY STAR. 2016. Dishwashers – Overview. January. Available:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/dishwashers. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ ENERGY STAR. 2017. Commercial Refrigerators & Freezers – Overview. March. Available:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/commercial_food_service_equipment/commercial_refrigerators_ freezers. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ ENERGY STAR. 2018a. Clothes Washers – Overview. February. Available:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/clothes_washers?qt-consumers_product_tab=2#qtconsumers_product_tab. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ ENERGY STAR. 2018b. Ceiling Fans – Overview. June. Available:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/lighting_fans/ceiling_fans. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2010. Building America Research Benchmark Definition. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47246.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 224
E-3-A. Require Energy Efficient Residential Boilers
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 14.0 % of GHG
emissions from boiler fuel
consumption
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
If the boilers are electric, increased energy
efficiency can reduce the strain on the
overall grid, particularly the risk of power
outages during peak loads. Increased
efficiency can also reduce energy costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
If the boilers use natural gas, propane, or
home heat oil, a more efficient model can
directly reduce fuel combustion in the home
and thus help reduce indoor air pollution,
supporting improvements to public health.

Measure Description
This measure requires installation of a residential boiler with a higher energy efficiency than what is required by regulation.

Improving boiler efficiency decreases fuel consumption for the same amount of energy output, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure is only appropriate for residential boilers. A residential boiler, as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), means a product that utilizes only single-phase electric current, or single-phase electric current or DC current in conjunction with natural gas, propane, or home heating oil and that (1) is designed to be the principal heating source for the living space of residence; and (2) has a heat input rate of less than 300,000 British Thermal Units (Btus) per hour.

Cost Considerations
More energy-efficient boilers are typically more expensive than less efficient ones, leading to greater upfront costs. However, the use of more efficient models reduces energy consumption and thereby reduces long-term energy costs. Boilers with improved insulation— a metric in improved energy efficiency—are also less likely to freeze and burst, potentially avoiding cold weather repair costs and water damage.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure E-12, Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences, to reduce energy use from both space heating and water heating to yield increased GHG reductions.
14%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-3-A. Require Energy Efficient Residential Boilers ENERGY | 225 GHG Reduction Formula
A = D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from boiler
fuel consumption

1.2–14.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Boiler type [ ] text user input
C Annual fuel utilization efficiency of boiler with
measure
83–96 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Boiler fuel savings with measure compared to
minimum requirement
Table E-3-A.1 % U.S. DOE 2015
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The U.S. Department of Energy’s (U.S. DOE) 2016 Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers (10 C.F.R. 430) set increased energy efficiency requirements for residential boilers, effective January 2021. The annual fuel utilization efficiency (AFUE) is a common metric for determining residential boiler efficiency as it represents the ratio of the total useful heat delivered to the heat value from the annual amount of fuel consumed. The project boiler AFUE must exceed the minimum AFUE required by the standards to result in GHG emission reductions. Boiler efficiency should be obtainable from manufacturer specifications.
▪ (D) – The U.S. DOE calculated the average annual fuel use and savings of boilers at various AFUEs above the minimum requirement of the standards based on historical consumption data. This information is summarized in Table E-3-A.1 in Appendix C.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Cmax) The annual fuel utilization efficiency of the proposed boiler is capped at the “Max Tech” percentage for each boiler type, which is presented in Table E-3-A.1 in Appendix C.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, the user cannot also select this measure, given that it calls for use of gas- and oil-fired boilers.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-3-A. Require Energy Efficient Residential Boilers ENERGY | 226 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces boiler fuel use by requiring installation of a boiler with a higher AFUE than what is required by the 2016 Conservation Standards for Residential Boilers. If the boiler is a gas-fired hot water boiler (B) with an AFUE of 96 percent (C), the user would reduce GHG emissions from boiler fuel consumption by 14 percent based on Table E-3- A.1 in Appendix C.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
The reduction in fuel consumption (i.e., natural gas or oil) from this measure would result in local improvements in air quality because pollutants from fuel consumption would be reduced at the project site. The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is the same as the percent reduction in criteria pollutant emissions achieved by the measure.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in fuel consumption achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2015. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Residential Boilers. March. Available:
https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=commentDueDate&po=0&dct= SR%2BO&D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0047. Accessed: January 2021.

A = -14%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 227
E-3-B. Require Energy Efficient Commercial
Packaged Boilers
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 16.0% of GHG
emissions from boiler fuel
consumption
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increased energy efficiency can reduce the
strain on the overall grid, particularly the risk
of power outages during peak loads.

Increased efficiency can also reduce
energy costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Reduction of fuel combustion in commercial
spaces can help reduce indoor pollution.

Measure Description
This measure requires installation of a commercial packaged boiler with a higher energy efficiency than what is required by regulation. Improving boiler efficiency decreases fuel consumption for the same amount of energy output, thereby reducing
associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure is only appropriate for a commercial packaged boiler, which, as defined in the C.F.R., means a type of packaged low pressure boiler that is industrial equipment with a capacity (rated maximum input) of 300,000 Btus per hour or more, which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce (1) for heating or space conditioning applications in buildings, or (2) for service water heating in buildings, but does not meet the definition of hot water supply boiler (as defined in 10 C.F.R. 431).

Cost Considerations
More energy-efficient boilers are typically more expensive than less efficient ones, leading to greater upfront costs. However, the replacement of less efficient boilers with more efficient models reduces energy consumption and thereby reduces long-term energy costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable.
16%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-3-B. Require Energy Efficient Commercial Packaged Boilers ENERGY | 228 GHG Reduction Formula
A = D
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from boiler fuel
consumption

1.1–16.0 % calculated
User Inputs
B Boiler type [ ] text user input
C Thermal or combustion efficiency of boiler with
measure
83–99 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Boiler fuel savings with measure compared to
minimum requirement
Table E-3-B.1
Table E-3-B.2
% U.S. DOE
2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) –U.S. DOE’s Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers (10 C.F.R. 431) were amended in July 2009 to set increased energy efficiency requirements for commercial packaged boilers installed after March 2012. In March 2020, U.S. DOE increased the standards, which will affect boilers installed after January 10, 2023.

The minimum thermal efficiency (TE) and combustion efficiency (CE) are the metrics for determining commercial packaged boiler efficiency. TE is the ratio of the heat energy absorbed by the water to the heat energy available in the fuel burned. CE is the ratio of heat energy released by the fuel to the heat energy available in the fuel burned. The project boiler TE or CE must exceed the minimum required by the standards to result in GHG emission reductions. Boiler efficiency should be obtainable from manufacturer specifications.
▪ (D) – U.S. DOE calculated the average annual fuel use and savings of boilers at various TEs and CEs above the minimum requirement of the 2009 and 2020 standards based on historical consumption data. If the proposed boiler would be installed before January 10, 2023, the user should reference the annual fuel savings relative to the 2009 standards, summarized in Table E-3-B.1 in Appendix C. If the proposed boiler would be installed after January 10, 2023, the user should reference the annual fuel savings relative to the 2020 standards, summarized in Table E-3-B.2 in Appendix C.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Cmax) The TE or CE of the proposed boiler is capped at the “Max Tech” percentage for each boiler type, which is presented in Tables E-3-B.1 and E-3-B.2 in Appendix C.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-3-B. Require Energy Efficient Commercial Packaged Boilers ENERGY | 229 Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, the user cannot also select this measure, given that it calls for use of gas- and oil-fired boilers.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces boiler fuel use by requiring installation of a boiler with a higher CE or TE than what is required by the 2009 or 2020 Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers. If the proposed boiler is a 350,000 Btu/hour gas-fired hot water boiler installed in 2022 (B) with a TE of 99 percent (C), the user would reduce GHG emissions from boiler fuel consumption by 16 percent based on Table E-3-B.1 in Appendix C.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
The reduction in fuel consumption (i.e., natural gas or oil) from this measure would result in local improvements in air quality, because pollutants from fuel consumption would be reduced at the project site. The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is the same as the percent reduction in criteria pollutant emissions achieved by the measure.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in fuel consumption achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2016. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Commercial Packaged Boilers.

December. Available: https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0030. Accessed:

January 2021.

A = -16%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 230
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction
in GHG from building
energy use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Cool roofs and walls absorb less heat and
keep buildings cool, increasing the building's
adaptive capacity to extreme heat. This also
reduces the strain on the electric grid,
particularly the risk of power outages during
peak loads, and can reduce energy costs. If
implemented across a development or
throughout a community, cool roofs and
walls can reduce the urban heat island effect,
building not just individual but also
communitywide resilience to extreme heat.

Health and Equity Considerations
Cool roofs and walls can protect the health
of vulnerable and low-income residents
during heat waves and extreme heat days. In
colder climate zones, cool roofs and walls
can potentially increase winter heating costs,
but the increase may be offset by reduced
electricity bills in summer.

Measure Description
This measure will install cool roofs and/or walls in place of dark roofs and/or conventional walls for residential development. Cool roofs have been designed to reflect more sunlight and absorb less heat than a standard roof, keeping buildings cooler in the summertime and thus reducing air-conditioning loads. Complementary to cool roofs, cool walls achieve a similar result through using more reflective paints or materials. This reduces the electricity needed to provide cooling but can potentially increase the energy needed to provide winter heating, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions depending on the project parameters (e.g., climate, level of implementation, carbon intensity of local electricity provider). However, the winter heating penalty may be small with lower levels of winter sunlight due to shorter daylight hours and more overcast skies.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Cool roofs can be made of tiles, shingles, coatings, membranes, or metal, among other materials, in a wide range of colors (not just white).

Similarly, cool wall paints and materials come in a range of colors, though light-colored paints have the greatest cooling effect. To apply the effectiveness reported by the literature, the albedo of the proposed surface must be at least 0.25 for walls and at least 0.4 for roofs.

Cost Considerations
Installing cool roofs and walls leads to substantial cost savings for relatively low additional input costs. Low-effort residential maintenance options, like painting walls with light-colored or more reflective paint, cost about the same as darker paint colors, and yet immediately reduce the cost of cooling the building. Cool roofs can have higher initial costs, depending on the material chosen, but these costs can be offset by lifetime energy savings.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure E-21, Install Cool Pavements, in Table 3-2 to adopt cool pavements. This measure could also be paired Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, to eliminate the implementation disbenefit of worsened air quality, further discussed below under Quantified Co-Benefits.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development ENERGY | 231 GHG Reduction Formula
HT = HN + HS + HE + HW
LT =∑ Lz ×
Hz
HT
A = [(( IR × GR × HR
) + (IT × LT × HT)) × M × O × Q × R]
−[((JR × GR × HR
) + (JT × LT × HT
)) × N × P × Q × R]
GHG Calculation Variables
Many of the values for the variables in this equation can be obtained from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Cool Surface Savings Explorer (Explorer) (Levinson et al. 2019). The Explorer is an Excel tool that parses a database containing the results of wholebuilding model simulations that calculate the building energy changes from the use of cool walls and cool roofs under various scenarios for different building types in California.

ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Reduction in GHG emissions from building
energy
[ ] MT CO2e
per year
calculated
LT Composite solar availability factor of non-roof
building sides to be cooled
[ ] unitless calculated
HT Total area of non-roof building sides to be
cooled (N+S+E+W)
[ ] KSF calculated
User Inputs
B Building type [ ] text user input
C Building climate zone 1–16 integer user input
D Building orientation [ ] text user input
E Building side(s) to be cooled (N, S, E, W & roof) [ ] text user input F Albedo of cool surface(s) 0.25–0.60 unitless user input GR Coverage of cool roof material 0–100 % user input
Hz Coverage of cool building side z
(N, S, E, W, R [roof])
[ ] KSF user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
IR Change in natural gas use of building (roof
only)
Savings
Explorer
therm per
year per m2
Levinson et
al. 2019
IT Change in natural gas use of non-roof building
sides (N+S+E+W)
Savings
Explorer
therm per
year per m2
Levinson et
al. 2019
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development ENERGY | 232 ID Variable Value Unit Source
JR Change in electricity use of building (roof only) Savings Explorer
kWh per
year per m2
Levinson et
al. 2019
JT Change in electricity use of non-roof building
sides (N+S+E+W)
Savings
Explorer
kWh per
year per m2
Levinson et
al. 2019
Kz Wall canyon aspect ratio of building side z (N,

S, E, W)
Table
E-4.1
unitless Levinson
2019
Lz Solar availability factor of building side z (N, S,
E, W)
Table
E-4.2
unitless Levinson
2019
M Carbon intensity of residential natural gas 117 lb CO2e per MMBtu
U.S. EPA
2020
N Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and
E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
O Conversion from therm to MMBtu 0.1 MMBtu per
therm
conversion
P Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per
kWh
conversion
Q Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion R Conversion from KSF to m2 92.9 m2 per KSF conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The building type is needed to run the Explorer, further discussed under (I). The Explorer provides two types of residential buildings and eight types of commercial buildings.
▪ (C) – Climate zones are specific geographic areas of similar climatic characteristics, including temperature, weather, and other factors that affect building energy use. The CEC has specified numerous EDFZs in California, which are referenced in CEC’s Commercial Forecast and RASS. Note that this measure references the 16 building climate zones (BCZs) that were developed for Title 24 Standards and differ from the EDFZs. Users should ensure that they are selecting the appropriate BCZ by referring to Figure E-4.1 in Appendix C (CEC 2020). Alternatively, users can search for the appropriate BCZ by looking up the project address or zip code in the CEC’s web-based interactive map (CEC 2018). The BCZ is needed to run the Explorer, further discussed under (I). ▪ (D) – The building orientation is needed to run the Explorer, further discussed under (I).

Building orientation refers to whether the building’s longer axis runs east-west or north south.
▪ (E) – The building side(s) to be cooled is needed to run the Explorer, further discussed under (I). The Explorer provides 16 combinations of sides for the user to choose from.

Note that the user cannot select roof at the same time as a wall, so the Explorer will need to be run twice for projects that include both cool walls and cool roofs. ▪ (F) – The albedo of the cool surface is needed to run the Explorer, further discussed under (I). The energy changes outputted by the Explorer are based on a scenario of a roof with an aged roof albedo of 0.10 and walls with an aged albedo of 0.25. The Explorer provides several options for modified albedo: walls = 0.4, 0.6; roofs = 0.25, B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development ENERGY | 233

0.4, and 0.6. Users should exercise caution in interpreting their results if the project would have different albedos than provided.
▪ (GR) – The coverage of the cool roof material represents the percent of the roof area that is a cool roof.
▪ (HZ) – The area of building side to be cooled represents the area of the building side minus any area that would not be covered in cool materials. ▪ (IR, IT, JR and JT) –The change in annual building electricity use and natural gas consumption per square meter of building surface modified can be obtained from the Explorer. Increased cool surfaces would result in a heating penalty (i.e., increase in gas consumption to heat the building and, for select commercial buildings, any electricity that provides auxiliary heat) and a cooling savings (i.e., decrease in electricity to cool and fan the building).22 Users can run the Explorer to output these values using the following instructions.23

1. Download the tool and database from the ZIP archive online at http://bit.ly/2Kwvtpu. To install, copy the two files to a local folder.

2. Open the Savings Explorer file. Click the “Launch Simulation Selector” button.

3. The following inputs should be the same for all projects: simulation region = California; building vintage = new,24 property = site energy; metric = savings intensity.

4. The first query of the Explorer should be done to output energy intensity values for roofs (IR and JR). The second query should be done for building sides (IT and JT). a. The following inputs should be specified based on project-specific information. i. Building type (class/category) = (B).
ii. Building climate zone (location) = (C).
iii. Building orientation = (D).
iv. Building side(s) to be cooled = (E). The first query should be roofs only, if applicable. The second should be the applicable building sides. v. Albedo of cool surface(s) = (F).
b. Once all inputs are specified from #3 and #4, the Explorer will update the variables and results in columns A and B of the workbook. c. Sum the results from Column B for cooling, electric heating, and fan. This represents the change in electricity use for cool roofs (JR). Take the gas heating results from Column B, which represents the change in natural gas use for cool roofs (IR).

5. Repeat #4 for the building sides to output (JT and IT). ▪ (Kz) – Table E-4.1 presents the four canyon aspect ratios used by Levinson (2019) to determine standard solar availability factors (SAF) for each wall direction. The canyon aspect ratio is the ratio of the project wall height to nearest building separation. The 22 As the effects of climate change become more severe, temperatures and solar radiation during the winter may continually increase. The heating penalty may therefore be lower in future years, making this measure more effective at reducing GHG emissions.
23 See additional instruction in Appendix P, Section 4 of Levinson et al. (2019). 24 New as termed in the Explorer refers to buildings compliant with the 2016 Title 24 Standards. The latest Title 24 Standards are from 2019 and are updated every 3 years. Users should exercise caution in interpreting their results for future years subject to more stringent Title 24 Standards.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development ENERGY | 234 user should select the canyon aspect ratio that best corresponds to each project’s cool wall to appropriately lookup the SAFs (Lz) in Table E-4.2. ▪ (Lz) – Table E-4.2 presents the average U.S. SAFs by cardinal direction and canyon aspect ratio. The SAFs are presented for two scenarios, one in which the neighboring building has cool walls and one in which it has conventional walls. The solar availability of the walls at the project building can be lowered by shadows cast by neighboring buildings and raised by sunlight reflected from neighboring buildings. The SAFs are used in the GHG reduction formula to adjust the values for energy use change from Levinson et al. (2019), which were based on model simulations with isolated buildings that were not surrounded by any buildings.
▪ (M) – The carbon intensity of residential natural gas was calculated in terms of CO2e by multiplying the U.S. natural gas combustion emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (U.S. EPA 2020) by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). See Table E-4.5 in Appendix C for more natural gas emission factors.
▪ (N) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Appendix C), the user should use that specific value in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, users may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the electricity demand of the user’s project is currently being met by grid energy that requires some amount of fossil fuel-based energy generation, which emits GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per MWh) greater than zero. For projects that are served by electricity providers already with a renewable portfolio of 100 percent, this measure could have no reduction on GHG emissions. If the electricity provider is using REC to meet a 100 percent renewable portfolio goal, then some emissions reductions may be achieved. In situations where the electricity from the electricity provider is already carbon free, this measure would increase GHG emissions by requiring additional natural gas consumption for building heating. This measure would still result in the co-benefit of reduced electricity use, enhanced energy security, and reduced urban heat island effect.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, they should exercise caution in quantifying the effect of this measure, given that it was developed assuming the residence would be supplied with natural gas (e.g., space heating).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development ENERGY | 235 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces building energy emissions by providing a cool roof and walls in place of dark roofs and walls. In this example, the measure would be implemented in BCZ 7 (C) for a single-family home (B) with a fully covered (i.e., 100%) 1 KSF cool roof (GR), and all building sides of 1 KSF covered in cool materials (Hz or HN, HS, HE, HW, and HR). The project is located on a residential street with conventional surrounding buildings and has a canyon aspect ratio of 0.2 for all walls (Kz). Using this information, the SAFs (Lz) can be looked up in Table E-4.2. The electricity and natural gas use changes for the roof (IR and JR) and walls (IT and JT) can be looked up using the Explorer. The project is in San Diego Gas and Electric’s service territory and would begin operation by 2022. It would, therefore, have an electricity carbon intensity of 542 lb CO2e per MWh (N). In this example, emissions would be reduced by 0.3 MT CO2e per year.

Quantified Co-Benefits
While the measure will achieve electricity savings, it can increase fuel consumption and potentially worsen ambient air quality. This measure also has direct climate resiliency benefits. Refer to Measure EH-3, Install Heat-Reducing Roof, in Chapter 4, Assessing Climate Exposures and Measures to Reduce Vulnerabilities.

Worsened Air Quality
While not quantified in this Handbook, lowered ambient air temperatures as a result of the reduced urban heat island effects (which can be significant if adoption is widespread) can decrease ozone formation, improving air quality.

If natural gas is used for heating, the increase in natural gas fuel consumption from this measure could result in local worsening of air quality. If electric heating is used at the project site, then there would not be an increase in criteria pollutants or worsened air quality. The increase in criteria pollutant emissions (U) resulting from the measure can be calculated as follows.

HT = 1 KSF + 1 KSF + 1 KSF + 1 KSF = 4 KSF
LT = (1.02 ×
1 KSF
4 KSF) + (0.95 ×
1 KSF
4 KSF) + (0.96 ×
1 KSF
4 KSF) + (0.95 ×
1 KSF
4 KSF) = 0.9
A =
[
((-0.003 therm
yr∙m2 × 100% × 1 KSF) + (
-0.005 therm
yr∙m2 × 0.97 × 4 KSF))
×
117 lb CO2e
MMBtu ×

0.1 MMBtu
therm ×

0.000454 MT
lb ×

92.9 m2
KSF ]
−
[

((2.383 kWh
yr∙m2 × 100% × 1 KSF) + (

2.242 kWh
yr∙m2 × 0.97 × 4 KSF))
×
542 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.001 MWh
kWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb ×

92.9 m2
KSF ]
=
-0.3 MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development ENERGY | 236 Energy Savings (Increased Fuel)
The increase in building natural gas consumption (S) and decrease in electricity use (T) achieved by the measure can be calculated as follows.

Natural Gas Increase Formula
S = ((IR × GR × HR) + (IT × LT × HT
)) × R
Electricity Reduction Formula
T = ((JR × GR × HR) + (JT × LT × HT)) × R
Criteria Pollutant Emission Increase Formula
U = O × V × S × W
Criteria Pollutant Emission Increase Calculation Variables ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
U Increase in criteria pollutant emissions from
building energy
[ ] ton per
year
calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
V Criteria pollutant emission factors of
natural gas
Table
E-4.5
lb per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA
1998
W Conversion from lb to ton 0.0005 tons per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (V) – Table E-4.5 presents the criteria pollutant emission factors of natural gas for residential and commercial uses (U.S. EPA 1998).
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Sources
▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. EZ Building Climate Zone Search. Available:
https://caenergy.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=4831772c00eb4f729924167244bbca2

2. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. Building Climate Zones. August. Available:
https://caenergy.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=eaf3158767674e6cb14f4407186d3607. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-4. Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls in Residential Development ENERGY | 237 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Levinson, R. 2019. Using Solar Availability Factors to Adjust Cool-Wall Energy Savings for Shading and Reflection by Neighboring Buildings. March. Available: https://escholarship.org/content/qt0hf5m90n/qt0hf5m90n.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Levinson, R., G. Ban-Weiss., P. Berdahl., C. Sharon., H. Destaillats., N. Dumas., H. Gilbert., H. Goudey., S.

Houzé de l’Aulnoit., J. Kleissl., K. Benjamin., Y. Li, Y. Long, A. Mohegh, N. Nazarian, M. Pizzicotti, P. Rosado, M.

Russell, J. Slack, X. Tang, J. Zhang, and W. Zhang. 2019. Solar-Reflective “Cool” Walls: Benefits, Technologies, and Implementation. Available: https://doi.org/10.20357/B7SP4H. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources. 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion. July. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

March. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factorshub.pdf. Accessed: March 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 238
E-5. Install Green Roofs in Place of Dark Roofs
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from building
energy use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Installing green roofs increases resilience by
absorbing less heat and keeping buildings
cool, increasing the building's adaptive
capacity to extreme heat. This also reduces
the strain on the overall grid, particularly the
risk of power outages during peak loads,
and can reduce energy costs. Green roofs
have a smaller heat island reduction effect
than certified cool roofs but nonetheless are
an improvement over conventional roofs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Green roofs provide additional insulation
that can keep buildings cooler in the
summer and warmer in the winter,
reducing energy costs year-round. This
can help protect health and increase
economic resilience for vulnerable and
low-income residents.

Measure Description
This measure will install green roofs in place of dark roofs. Green roofs consist of a layer of vegetation on top of buildings, which provides natural insulation and climate control benefits. This reduces the electricity and natural gas needed to provide cooling and heating, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Green roofs are usually more expensive to install than
conventional dark roofs; however, these costs can be quickly offset by reduced energy usage through better insulation, improved stormwater management, and, in some cases, an extended
lifespan. Green roof maintenance costs include irrigation, weed control, and fertilizer in order to maintain the vegetation; however, green roofs generally cost substantially less than conventional roofs or cool roofs over a 50-year lifecycle.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Use native plants on the roof for improved ecosystem health, drought-tolerant plants for water conservation, or plant an edible garden for enhanced food security.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-5. Install Green Roofs in Place of Dark Roofs ENERGY | 239 GHG Reduction Formula
A = D × [(-E × G × I × J) + (-F × H × K × J)]
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Reduction in GHG emissions from building
energy
[ ] MT CO2e per
year
calculated
User Inputs
B Building type [ ] text user input
C Project location (city) [ ] text user input
D Roof area [ ] KSF user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Natural gas savings with measure Table E-5.1 therm per year per KSF
Sailor et al.
2008
F Electricity savings with measure Table E-5.1 kWh per year per KSF
Sailor et al.
2008
G Carbon intensity of natural gas Table E-4.5 lb CO2e per MMBtu
U.S. EPA
2020
H Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
I Conversion from therm to MMBtu 0.1 MMBtu per
therm
conversion
J Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion K Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The housing and building types are needed to look up the energy savings for residential and office development (E and F). If the user’s building type of interest is not presented in Table E-5.1 in Appendix C, they should exercise caution in extrapolating the results from the listed building types.
▪ (C) – The project location (i.e., city) is used to look up the energy savings for residential and commercial development (E and F). If the user’s city of interest is not presented in Table E-5.1, they should use their judgment to select a listed city that has similar climate and precipitation.
▪ (E and F) – The Green Roof Energy Calculator is a free, web-based tool developed in 2008 by academic researchers on behalf of the U.S. Green Building Council. The purpose of the tool is to enable architects, developers, and others to obtain quick estimates of how green roof design decisions might affect building energy use. To provide the user with a range of energy savings, the tool was run for the two available building types and five California cities using conservative values for the remainder of the tool inputs. These results are summarized in Table E-5.1. If the user can provide B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-5. Install Green Roofs in Place of Dark Roofs ENERGY | 240 project-specific values for tool inputs (i.e., growing media depth, leaf area index, irrigation, percent of total roof coverage, roof material albedo), then they should run the tool themselves and use the outputted energy savings in place of the values in Table E-5.1 (Sailor et al. 2008). Additionally, the user can consider calculating their energy savings from this measure using U.S. DOE’s EnergyPlus, a more complex, robust model that requires more energy expertise and project inputs (U.S. DOE 2020). ▪ (G) – The carbon intensity of natural gas was calculated in terms of CO2e by multiplying the U.S. natural gas combustion emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (U.S. EPA 2020) by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). Table E-4.5 in Appendix C provides natural gas CO2e emission factors for residential and commercial uses.
▪ (H) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4), the user should use that specific value in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, the user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the energy demand of the user’s project is currently being met by grid electricity that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation and/or onsite natural gas, both of which emit GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per MWh) greater than zero and/or the project consumes natural gas onsite for building energy. For all-electric projects that are served by electricity providers already with a renewable portfolio of 100 percent, this measure could have no reduction in GHG emissions. If the electricity provider is using REC to meet a 100 percent renewable portfolio goal, then some emissions reductions may be achieved. This measure would still result in the co-benefits of reduced electricity use, enhanced energy security, and reduced urban heat island effect.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, they should exercise caution in quantifying the effect of this measure, given that some of the constants and available defaults were developed with the assumption that the building would be supplied with natural gas.

One option for including the quantified emissions reduction from this measure alongside those achieved by Measure E-15 would be to exclude all of the natural gas–related effects from this measure. In other words, (E) should be zeroed out in the above equation. Note that doing this may result in an underestimation of emissions reductions; green roofs provide additional insulation that can keep buildings warmer in the winter, as evidenced by Table E-5.1.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-5. Install Green Roofs in Place of Dark Roofs ENERGY | 241 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces building energy emissions by providing a green roof in place of a dark roof. In this example, the measure would be implemented in the city of Sacramento (C) for a mid-rise apartment complex (B) that has a roof area of 5 KSF. Therefore, the natural gas savings would be 8.2 therms per year per KSF (E), and the additional electricity savings would be 37.6 kilowatt-hours per year per KSF (F). The project is in Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD’s) service territory and would begin operation by 2022. It would therefore have an electricity carbon intensity of 344 lb CO2e per MWh (H). The mitigated emissions would be reduced by 0.32 MT CO2e per year.

Quantified Co-Benefits
This measure also has direct climate resiliency benefits. Refer to Measure EH-3, Install Heat-Reducing Roof, in Chapter 4, Assessing Climate Exposures and Measures to Reduce Vulnerabilities.

Energy and Fuel Savings
The user would decrease the building natural gas consumption (E X D X I) and, depending on the climate zone for the project area, either decrease or increase the electricity use (F X D X K).

Improved Air Quality
The reduction in natural gas fuel consumption from this measure would result in local improvements in air quality because the fuel consumption occurs on site of the project. The reduction in criteria pollutant emissions (L) achieved by the measure can be calculated as follows.

Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Formula
L = D × -E × M × I × N
A = 5 KSF × [(
-8.2 therm
yr∙KSF ×
117 lb CO2e
MMBtu ×

0.1 MMBtu
therm ×

0.000454 MT
lb ) +
(
-126.7 kWh
yr∙KSF ×
344 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.001 MWh
kWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb )] = -0.32
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-5. Install Green Roofs in Place of Dark Roofs ENERGY | 242 Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Calculation Variables ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
L Reduction in criteria pollutant emissions from
building energy
[ ] tons per
year
calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
M Criteria pollutant emission factors of natural
gas
Table E4.5 lb per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA
1998
N Conversion from lb to ton 0.0005 tons per
lb
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (M) – Table E-4.5 presents the criteria pollutant emission factors of natural gas for residential and commercial uses (U.S. EPA 1998).
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Sources
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Sailor, D., B. Brass, and S. Peck. 2008. Green Roof Energy Calculator. Available:
https://sustainability.asu.edu/urban-climate/green-roof-calculator/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Department of Energy. 2020. EnergyPlusTM. September. Available: https://energyplus.net/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 1:

External Combustion Sources. 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion. July. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. March. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/ghgemission-factors-hub.pdf. Accessed: March 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 243
E-6. Encourage Residential Participation in Existing
Demand Response Program(s)
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 0.02% reduction in
GHG emissions from
residential building electricity
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Strategic energy conservation during
demand response events reduces the strain
on the overall grid, particularly the risk of
power outages during peak loads. It can
also reduce energy costs, particularly if
extreme heat would otherwise increase
these costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Demand response programs can help
residents save money on utility costs and
reduce exposure to extreme heat, supporting
greater resilience to climate health impacts.

This can be especially critical for low-income
and vulnerable residents.

Measure Description
This measure will require marketing and promotion of the local utility’s manual (i.e., behavioral) demand response program(s) to encourage participation from residents in the project area.

Buildings contribute to GHG indirectly through electricity consumption. During demand response events, program users shift or conserve electricity, thereby reducing the associated indirect GHG emissions. Methods of engaging customers in demand response efforts include offering time-based rates, such as time-of-use pricing, critical peak pricing, variable peak pricing, real-time pricing, and critical peak rebates. Users are encouraged to respond to time-based rates or other forms of financial incentives with smart phone app, email, phone call, and/or text notifications.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site or Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
The cost of providing the demand response program is borne by the local utility. Property owners will realize cost savings from reduced electricity use.

Expanded Mitigation Options
The electricity reduction cited in the GHG emissions quantification methodology is based on a manual demand response program.

Residential participation in an automated program, which requires smart appliances for the relevant end uses and appliances (e.g., heating and cooling, dishwashers, washing machines), can reduce user fatigue while improving the electricity reduction rates, yielding improved GHG emissions reductions.

0.02%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-6. Encourage Residential Participation in Existing Demand Response Programs(s) ENERGY | 244 GHG Reduction Formula
A = - (B × C ×
D
E
)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
residential electricity
0–0.2 % calculated
User Inputs
B Level of participation 0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Electricity reduction during demand response
event
18 % CEC 2020
D Average number of demand response events 100 hours per year U.S. DOE 2010
E Hours in a year 8,760 hours per year conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – The output provides the percent reduction in GHG emissions from residential building electricity. To determine the percent reduction in GHG emissions from total residential building energy (i.e., electricity plus natural gas), the user would need to know the percent of total GHG emissions from electricity. For example, if 40 percent of building energy emissions come from electricity, the percent reduction in GHG emissions from total building energy could be calculated as follows.

Aenergy = (40% × Aelectricity)
Further, to determine the percent reduction in GHG emissions for a project with multiple residential buildings, the user would need to know the percent of total building energy emissions from each building. For example, if 67 percent of building energy emissions come from Building 1 and 33 percent come from Building 2, the percent reduction in GHG emissions from all building energy could be calculated as follows.

Aenergy_total = (67% × Aenergy_1) + (33% × Aenergy_2)
▪ (B) – The level of participation refers to the percentage of households in the project area that enroll in the demand response program.
▪ (C) – OhmConnect is a demand response provider that challenges its users to reduce consumption during critical energy periods (i.e., events). OhmConnect measures the users’ actual consumption against a calculated historical baseline and rewards them for the difference. A study of California OhmConnect users found that, on average, users reduced their energy consumption by 0.15 kWh, or 18 percent, during an B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-6. Encourage Residential Participation in Existing Demand Response Programs(s) ENERGY | 245 OhmConnect demand response event relative to what they would have consumed without an event (CEC 2020).
▪ (D) – It was estimated that demand response for managing peak loads involves, at most, 100 hours a year (U.S. DOE 2010). The user should input a project-specific value in the GHG reduction formula, if available.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the project’s electricity demand is currently being met by grid electricity that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation, which emits GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per MWh) greater than zero. For projects that are served by electricity providers already with a renewable portfolio of 100 percent, this measure could have no reduction in GHG emissions. If the electricity provider is using REC to meet a 100 percent renewable portfolio goal, then some emissions reductions may be achieved. This measure would still result in the co-benefits of reduced electricity use and enhanced energy security.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces the residential electricity consumption by providing incentives for expanded participation in an existing demand response program. In this example, the expected level of participation is 100 percent of households in the study area (B). The user would reduce GHG emissions from residential electricity by 0.2 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in residential building electricity achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. Identifying Effective Demand Response Program Designs for Residential Customers. November. Available: https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/01/Identifying-Effective-Demand-Response-Program-Designs-for-ResidentialCustomers.pdf. Accessed: October 2021. ▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2010. The Smart Grid: An Estimation of the Energy and CO2 Benefits. January. Available: https://energyenvironment.pnnl.gov/news/pdf/PNNL19112_Revision_1_Final.pdf. Accessed: October 2021.

A = - (100% × 18% ×
100 hr
yr
8,760 hr
yr) = -0.2%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 246
E-7. Require Higher Efficacy Public Street and
Area Lighting
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially moderate
reduction in GHG emissions
from street lighting
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Installation of more efficient lights can
reduce the strain on the overall grid and
reduce energy costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Blue or full spectrum light may increase
perceptions of safety but inhibit sleep
patterns of nearby residents and reduce
night sky visibility. Work with communities to
determine appropriate color temperatures.

Measure Description
This measure will require the installation of higher efficacy public street and area lighting in place of typical or existing lamps.

Lighting sources contribute to GHG indirectly through the production of the electricity that powers the lights. Installing more efficacious lamps, such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs), will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, thereby reducing the associated indirect GHG emissions. In a 2012 survey of 212 California cities, 852,000 of the 1,100,000 streetlights (76 percent) were identified as high-pressure sodium lamps, while only 2 percent were LEDs (CLTC 2012).

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Users may take credit only if they are retrofitting existing street and area lights. This includes streetlights, pedestrian pathway lights, area lighting for parks and parking lots, and outdoor lighting around public buildings.

Cost Considerations
More energy-efficient lighting options are typically more expensive than less efficient ones, leading to greater installation costs.

However, the replacement of less efficient lighting with more efficient bulbs reduces energy consumption and thereby reduces energy costs. Additionally, the rated life of more efficient bulbs is typically longer than less efficient ones, which reduces the frequency of replacement costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Incorporation of solar fixtures onto the street and area traffic lights would further reduce grid-supplied electricity consumption and associated emissions.

Moderate
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-7. Require Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting ENERGY | 247 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B1 × C1 − B2 × C2
B1 × C1
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from outdoor
street and area lighting
[ ] % calculated
User Inputs
B1 Number of existing lighting heads to be replaced [ ] lighting heads user input B2 Number of proposed new lighting heads [ ] lighting heads user input C1 Average power rating of existing lamp type [ ] watts user input C2 Average power rating of proposed lamp type [ ] watts user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B1 and B2) – The number of existing and proposed lighting heads are required in the GHG reduction formula in case the new type of lamp results in less heads needing to be installed.
▪ (C1 and C2) – Lumens are the measure of the amount of light perceived by the human eye. Luminous efficacy is the amount of visible light emitted for a given amount of power. This measure assumes that the replacement lighting would provide the same number of lumens per area as the existing lighting and that only the power rating would change. See Table E-7.1 in Appendix C for a range of typical power ratings and efficacies of various outdoor lamp types (CLTC 2015). These values are for reference only for providing the user a list of existing and replacement lighting options. The user should input project-specific values in the GHG reduction formula, if available.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the electricity demand of the project’s lighting is currently being met by grid electricity that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation, which emits GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per MWh) greater than zero. For projects that are served by electricity providers already with a renewable portfolio of 100 percent, this measure could have no reduction in GHG emissions. If the electricity provider is using REC to meet a 100 percent renewable portfolio goal, then some emissions reductions may be achieved.

This measure would still result in the co-benefits of reduced electricity use and enhanced energy security.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-7. Require Higher Efficacy Public Street and Area Lighting ENERGY | 248 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces the energy consumption of outdoor lighting by installing higher efficacy lighting. If the number of existing and proposed lighting heads are both 100 (B1 and B2), the power rating of the existing high-pressure sodium lamps is 120 watts, and the power rating of the proposed LED lamps is 80 watts, the user would reduce GHG emissions from outdoor lighting by 33.3 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in electricity achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions (A).

Sources
▪ California Lighting Technology Center (CLTC). 2012. The State of Street Lighting in California, 2012.

University of California, Davis. February. Available: https://cltc.ucdavis.edu/publication/state-streetlighting-california-2012. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Lighting Technology Center (CLTC). 2015. 2013 Title 24, Part 6 Outdoor Lighting Guide.

University of California, Davis. March. Available:
https://cltc.ucdavis.edu/sites/default/files/files/publication/2013-title-24-outdoor-lighting-guidemar15.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

A =
100 heads × 120 watts − 100 heads × 80 watts
100 heads × 120 watts = -33.3%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 249
E-8. Replace Incandescent Traffic Lights with LED
Traffic Lights
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from traffic
light electricity use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Installation of more efficient lights can
reduce the strain on the overall grid and
reduce energy costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
LED signal lights last longer than their
incandescent counterparts, potentially
improving traffic safety as they burn out
less frequently.

Measure Description
This measure will replace incandescent traffic lights with more energy-efficient LED traffic lights. Installing LEDs reduces electricity demand and thus results in a reduction in indirect GHG emissions.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Plan/Community. Not applicable at the Project/Site-scale, unless the development project requires modification of existing roadway infrastructure, including traffic lights.

Implementation Requirements
New traffic lights are required to be LED and meet minimum federal efficiency standards. User may take credit only if they are retrofitting existing incandescent traffic lights. Also, this measure may not be suitable in areas that receive substantial snowfall, which may cover and block light, unless the traffic lights are outfitted with winter-ready designs that prevent snow accumulation Cost Considerations
LED lights are much more energy-efficient than incandescent lights, and greatly reduce energy consumption and increase cost savings. LED lights are typically more expensive than less efficient incandescent and incur greater costs from the initial purchase.

However, the rated life of LEDs is typically longer than that of less efficient bulbs, which reduces the frequency of replacement costs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Incorporation of solar fixtures onto the traffic lights would further reduce grid-supplied electricity consumption and associated emissions.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-8. Replace Incandescent Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights ENERGY | 250 GHG Reduction Formula
A = B × C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from traffic light electricity use
0–85 % calculated
User Inputs
B Percentage of incandescent traffic lights
in project study area to be retrofitted
0–100 % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Percent reduction in power
consumption from LED lights compared
to incandescent lights
85 % U.S. DOE 2004
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – This methodology assumes that all the existing traffic lights only use incandescent bulbs. If the existing traffic lights are a mix of incandescent and LED bulbs, the LEDs should be excluded from the total number of lights that is used to determine the percentage for this variable.
▪ (C) – The percent reduction of 85 percent in power consumption is based on an average incandescent bulb power of 109 watts and an average LED bulb power of 17 watts (U.S. DOE 2004). The user should replace this default with a project-specific percent reduction in power consumption if the user knows the average wattage of the existing incandescent bulbs and/or the proposed LED bulbs.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the electricity demand of the project’s traffic lights is currently being met by grid electricity that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation, which emits GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per MWh) greater than zero. For projects that are served by electricity providers already with a renewable portfolio of 100 percent, this measure could have no reduction in GHG emissions. If the electricity provider is using REC to meet a 100 percent renewable portfolio goal, then some emissions reductions may be achieved.

This measure would still result in the co-benefits of reduced electricity use and enhanced energy security.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-8. Replace Incandescent Traffic Lights with LED Traffic Lights ENERGY | 251 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
If the user’s project includes incandescent traffic lights, the user can reduce traffic light electricity by replacing the lights with LEDs. If all (i.e., 100 percent) of the incandescent lights are replaced with LED lights (B), the user would reduce GHG emissions from electricity used to power the incandescent traffic lights by 85 percent. The example measure emission reduction is calculated below.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
(C) represents the percent energy savings for this measure. The project’s electricity use from traffic lights in the study area would be reduced by up to 85 percent.

Sources
▪ U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE). 2004. State Energy Program Case Studies: California Says “Go” to Energy-Saving Traffic Lights. Available: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35551.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.

A=100% × 85% = 85%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 252
E-9. Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from CHP
energy generation
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
CHP systems reduce sensitivity to fuel price
shocks or scarcity and can contribute to
generation capacity, reducing energy costs
and the risk of outages. These systems can
also provide backup energy to a building if
the main grid fails during an extreme
weather event.

Health and Equity Considerations
Reduction of natural gas combustion would
help improve indoor air quality. However,
CHP systems still involve natural gas usage,
and thus localized effects of emissions on
communities should be reviewed closely.

Measure Description
This measure involves using combined heat and power (CHP) systems in place of separate heat and power (SHP) systems. For the same level of power output, CHP systems use less input energy than traditional SHP generation, resulting in lower CO2 emissions.

In traditional SHP systems, heat created as a by-product is wasted as it is released into the surrounding environment. CHP systems harvest the thermal energy and use it to heat onsite uses or for processes in proximity, which reduces the amount of natural gas or other fuel that would otherwise be combusted for heating or for use in those processes. CHP systems also result in a reduced demand for electricity from the grid, which displaces the CO2 emissions from the production of electricity from the grid.

Subsector
Energy Efficiency Improvements
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
It is possible that certain CHP systems may not be appropriate for certain locations, where the carbon intensity of the electricity provider is relatively low. In these instances, the emissions reduction will be negative, which indicates an emissions increase.

Cost Considerations
CHP systems are more efficient than systems where heat and power are produced separately. As long as the system is located near to where the power and heat are being used, CHP systems are quick and relatively inexpensive to install. Coupled with the energy savings associated with the improved efficiency, CHP systems represent a long-term potential cost savings.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-9. Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System ENERGY | 253 GHG Reduction Formula
This section describes how to estimate emissions reductions from utilizing a CHP system to supply energy demands that would otherwise have been provided by separate heat and power systems (e.g., electricity from the grid for uses requiring electricity and boilers for thermal demand). The user should quantify emissions reductions using the U.S. EPA’s (2020) CHP Energy and Emission Calculator (CHP Tool), which allows users to estimate the energy savings from displaced electricity and thermal production from 10 CHP technologies: reciprocating engine (rich burn, lean burn, and diesel) microturbine, fuel cell, combustion turbine, boiler/steam turbine, other prime mover, and waste-heat-to-power (power only, and power and thermal).

The user has the option to input project-specific data, such as fuels types, duct burner operation, cooling demand, and boiler efficiencies. The CHP Tool has the capabilities to calculate GHG emissions reduction directly from the use of CHP systems, and the user can choose to use the calculator for that purpose. To ensure consistency with the methods and factors used for other measures in this document, the user can also use the calculator to determine the energy savings and calculate the GHG reductions separately, using the methodology provided in this section.

A1 = [(B × C × D) + (E × F) − (G × F)] × H
A2 =
(D + G) − B
(D + G)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Reduction in GHG emissions from use
of CHP System
[ ] MT CO2e calculated by user
or in CHP Tool
A2 Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from use of CHP System
[ ] % calculated by user
or in CHP Tool
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
G Fuel consumption of CHP system [ ] MMBtu per
year
calculated in CHP
Tool
F Carbon intensity of commercial
natural gas
119 lb CO2e per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA 2020
B Displaced electricity production from
CHP use
[ ] MMBtu per
year
calculated in CHP
Tool
C Conversion from MMBtu to kWh 0.2931 MWh per
MMBtu
conversion
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-9. Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System ENERGY | 254 ID Variable Value Unit Source
D Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities 2021
E Displaced thermal production from
CHP use
[ ] MMBtu per
year
calculated in CHP
Tool
H Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A1) – The methodology shown for (A1) involves the use of the fuel consumption results provided by the CHP Tool (Table 1 of the Results tab in the CHP Tool). However, the user can also use the CHP Tool to calculate GHG reductions directly (Table 2 of the Results tab in the CHP Tool). The CHP Tool allows the user to choose an electricity emissions factor (the “displaced electricity generation profile”) from a pre-determined list, or it allows the user to enter a custom emission factor. If calculating GHG emissions directly in the CHP Tool, the user should enter a custom emission factor that corresponds to the applicable electricity provider for only CO2 emissions. The CHP Tool does not allow the user to enter a CO2e factor.
▪ (B, D, G) – Standard assumptions to calculate these energy quantities are from EPA’s CHP Tool, which can be inputted by the user, are included below. The user should enter project-specific values if available.
- Operation of 8,760 hours per year.
- Provides heat only (no cooling).
- Combusts natural gas fuel (1,028 Btu/ft3 heat content). - No supplementary duct burner.
- Assumes 4.8 percent transmission loss for displaced electricity (based on Western Interconnect assumptions from the CHP Tool).
- Assumes thermal demand for a boiler with 80 percent efficiency.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
▪ All caps and maximums are indicated in the EPA’s CHP Tool. ▪ Because the electric power sector is progressively becoming a zero-carbon source, this measure may not achieve GHG reductions for some combinations of CHP system types, sizes, and other variables inputted into the CHP Tool. In those cases, the CHP Tool will return negative energy savings or emissions reductions, meaning that using a CHP system would result in an increase in energy consumption and emissions relative to using SHP generation. If considering a CHP system to reduce GHG emissions and save energy, the user should ensure that the CHP set-up actually results in reductions.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user’s project includes a single unit 600 kW microturbine CHP system fueled by natural gas and used for heating-only with no duct burners. The CHP system is assumed to operate for 8,760 hours per year and is displacing a new gas boiler. Parameters for both the microturbine CHP system and the displaced new gas boiler are assumed from the CHP B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-9. Utilize a Combined Heat and Power System ENERGY | 255 Tool. The electricity that is displaced by the CHP system is derived entirely from a natural gas-based powerplant. The electricity provider for the project area is Imperial Irrigation District and the analysis year is 2025. The carbon intensity of electricity is, therefore, 225 lb CO2e per megawatt-hour (D). The energy quantities calculated from the CHP Tool are displaced electricity production (40,252 MMBtu), displaced thermal production (25,258 MMBtu), and a CHP system consumption of (59,831MMBtu). The example scenario results in a 662 MT CO2e reduction.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
The CHP Tool can calculate reductions in two criteria air pollutants (NOx and SO2).

To quantify this co-benefit, the user should use the CHP Tool.

Energy and Fuel Savings
To calculate the energy savings for this measure (H), the user should add the displaced electricity production (D) and displaced thermal production (G) from the CHP Tool and then subtract the CHP system energy consumption (B) from the CHP Tool.

Energy Savings Formula
H = (D + G) − B
Sources
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Combined Heat and Power Energy and Emissions Savings Calculator. Available: https://www.epa.gov/chp/chp-energy-and-emissions-savingscalculator. Accessed: January 2021.

A1 = [ (40,252 MMBtu × 0.2931
MWh
MMBtu × 225
lb CO2e
MWh
) + (25,258 MMBtu × 119
lb CO2e
MMBtu )
− (59,831 MMBtu × 119
lb CO2e
MMBtu )] × 0.000454 MT
lb = -662 MT CO2e
A2 =
(40,252 MMBtu + 25,258 MMBtu) − 59,831 MMBtu
(40,252 MMBtu + 25,258 MMBtu)
= 9%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 256
E-10-A. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy
Systems–Generic
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from building
energy use depending on
renewable electricity generation compared
to building energy consumption
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Installing onsite renewable energy systems
provides backup generation sources that can
contribute to generation capacity and reduce
the risk of outages, particularly if an extreme
event disrupts the grid. Onsite renewable
energy can also reduce energy costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Onsite renewable energy can provide
protection against grid disruptions, which
can be critical to protect the health of
vulnerable people, such as seniors and those
who use electric medical equipment.

Measure Description
This measure requires electricity to be generated from an onsite renewable or zero-emission power system. This displaces the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied by the local electricity provider. Electricity generation provided by local electricity providers have varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of energy sources. Some renewable energy systems, such as fuel cells, may not be completely GHG emissions-free, but may still have lower emissions than the electricity provided by the local electricity provider (unless the electricity provider has a relatively high renewable portfolio), thereby reducing GHG emissions. Zero-emissions power systems, such as PV panels, result in the greatest magnitude of emissions reductions. Onsite renewable systems can also provide back-up power as an alternative to diesel generators in the event of grid power outages or demand response events.

Subsector
Renewable Energy Generation
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Renewable energy systems powered by solar and/or wind should be quantified under Measures E-10-B or E-10-C, respectively.

Cost Considerations
Installation costs for onsite renewable energy generation vary greatly depending on the type of energy system and the size of the installation, but overall, installation costs can be high. These costs are recouped by large cost savings as the property owner can use electricity produced on site instead of purchased from the grid, or even a net profit if excess energy is sold to an electricity provider.

Additionally, initial installation costs can be partially offset by credits and rebates meant to encourage renewable energy generation.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure E-23, Use Microgrids and Energy Storage, in Table 3-2 to store and then deploy surplus electricity generated from the renewable energy system. This would improve the capacity of the system to displace more grid-supplied electricity, further reducing associated emissions.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-10-A. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–Generic ENERGY | 257 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
-B
C
×
E − D
E
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from electricity use
0–100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Electricity provided by onsite power
system with measure
[ ] kWh per year user input
C Total electricity demand [ ] kWh per year user input
D Carbon intensity of onsite power system [ ] lb CO2e per MWh user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per MWh CA Utilities
2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (D) – If the onsite power system is a zero-emission source, then the GHG emission reduction (A) is effectively equivalent to the ratio of electricity from the zero-emission system (B) to the total electricity demand (C). If the onsite power system is not a zeroemission source, then the GHG emission reduction calculation needs to consider the GHG intensity factor of the onsite power system (D) and the local electricity provider (E). ▪ (E) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4), the user should use that specific value in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, users may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the electricity demand of the project is currently being met by grid energy that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation, which emits GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per kWh) greater than zero. For projects that are served by electricity providers with a renewable portfolio standard of 100 percent, this measure would effectively have no reduction in GHG emissions, although it would still result in the co-benefit of enhanced energy security.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-10-A. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–Generic ENERGY | 258 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
If the user’s project consumes electricity from a local electricity provider with a non-zero carbon intensity, the user can reduce the project’s emissions from electricity consumption by displacing the electricity demand met by the local electricity provider with an onsite power system. In this example, the onsite power system would provide 2,000 kWh per year (B) at a carbon intensity of 50 lb CO2e per megawatt-hour (D). The proposed project would have a total electricity demand of 10,000 kWh per year (C). It would be constructed in Southern California Edison’s service territory and would begin operation by 2022. Without this measure, the project would, therefore, have an electricity carbon intensity of 351 lb CO2e per MWh (E). The user would reduce GHG emissions from electricity use by 17 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Successful implementation of this measure would reduce grid electricity, and a portion of this electricity is supplied by statewide fossil-fueled power plants, which generates criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state, the reduction in electricity use from this measure will not reduce localized criteria pollutant emissions and are, therefore, not discussed.

A =
-2,000 kWh
yr
10,000 kWh
yr
×
351 lb CO2e
MWh −
50 lb CO2e
MWh
351 lb CO2e
MWh
= -17%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 259
E-10-B. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–
Solar Power
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from building
energy use depending on
renewable electricity generation compared
to building energy consumption
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Installing onsite renewable energy systems
provides backup generation sources that can
contribute to generation capacity and reduce
the risk of outages, particularly if an extreme
event disrupts the grid. Onsite renewable
energy can also reduce energy costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Solar panels may conflict with tree canopies,
which reduces temperatures and improves
public health; projects should be carefully
designed to minimize these conflicts.

Measure Description
This measure requires electricity to be generated from onsite PV systems, displacing the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied by the local electricity provider. Electricity generation provided by local electricity providers have varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of energy sources. Because PV systems generate zero GHG emissions, this measure displaces the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local electricity provider, and thus results in a reduction in GHG emissions. Onsite renewable systems can also provide back-up power as an alternative to diesel generators in the event of grid power outages.

Subsector
Renewable Energy Generation
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Installation costs for solar power vary on the type and size of the generator; however, initial costs are still considered high. These costs are recouped by large cost savings as the property owner can use electricity produced on site, or even a net profit if excess energy is sold to an electricity provider. Additionally, initial installation costs can be at least partially offset by credits and rebates meant to encourage renewable energy use. Solar power may require the purchase of additional property large enough to host the generators.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-10-B. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–Solar Power ENERGY | 260 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
-B
C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
electricity use
0–100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Electricity provided by PV system with measure [ ] kWh per year user input C Total electricity demand [ ] kWh per year user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The amount of electricity generated by a PV system depends on the size and type of the PV system and the location of the project. The user can use a publicly available solar calculator, such as the NREL PVWatts® Calculator, to estimate the size of the PV system needed to generate the desired amount of electricity. The only input required for this calculator is the location (i.e., zip code). Estimates of the amount of electricity that can be generated from 3, 5, and 10 kilowatt PV systems in cities around California are shown in Table E-10-B.1 in Appendix C (NREL 2017). Other calculators include Google’s Project Sunroof (Google n.d.) and solar-estimate.org (2021).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
It is assumed that the electricity demand of the user’s project is currently being met by grid energy that requires some amount of fossil fuel–based energy generation, which emits GHGs from fuel combustion. In other words, the local electricity provider has an energy intensity factor (lb of CO2e per kWh) greater than zero. For projects that are served by electricity providers with a renewable portfolio standard of 100 percent, this measure would effectively have no reduction in GHG emissions, although it would still result in the cobenefit of enhanced energy security.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
If the user’s project consumes electricity from a local electricity provider with a non-zero carbon intensity, the user can reduce the project’s emissions from electricity consumption by displacing the electricity demand met by the local electricity provider with an onsite solar photovoltaic system. If the total electricity demand is 10,000 kWh per year (C), and the solar power system provides 5,000 kWh per year (B), the user would reduce GHG B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-10-B. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–Solar Power ENERGY | 261 emissions from electricity use by 50 percent. The example measure emission reduction is calculated below.

Sources
▪ Google. no date. Project Sunroof. Available: https://www.google.com/get/sunroof. ▪ National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2017. NREL’s PVWatts® Calculator. August. Available:
https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/index.php. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Solar-Estimate. 2021. Solar Calculator. Available: https://www.solar-estimate.org/residentialsolar/solar-panel-calculators. Accessed: January 2021.

A =
-5,000 kWh
yr
10,000 kWh
yr
= -50%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 262
E-10-C. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–
Wind Power
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from building
energy, depending on
renewable electricity generation compared
to building energy consumption
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Installing onsite renewable energy systems
provides backup generation sources that can
contribute to generation capacity and reduce
the risk of outages, particularly if an extreme
event disrupts the grid. Onsite renewable
energy can also reduce energy costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Consider noise impacts in places with
nearby sensitive receptors.

Measure Description
This measure requires electricity to be generated from onsite wind power systems, displacing the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied by the local electricity provider. Electricity generation provided by local electricity providers have varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of energy sources. Since wind turbines generate zero GHG emissions, this measure displaces the emissions that would have been produced had electricity been supplied by the local electricity provider and thus results in a reduction in GHG emissions. Onsite renewable systems can also provide back-up power as an alternative to diesel generators in the event of grid power outages.

Subsector
Renewable Energy Generation
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Installation costs for wind power generation vary based on the type and size of the turbine, however, initial costs are still considered high. These costs are recouped by large cost savings as the property owner can use electricity produced on site instead of purchased from the grid, or even at a net profit if excess energy is sold to an electricity provider. Additionally, initial installation costs can be at least partially offset by credits and rebates meant to encourage renewable energy generation.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-10-C. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–Wind Power ENERGY | 263 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
-B
C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
electricity use
0–100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Electricity provided by wind power system
with measure
[ ] kWh per year user input
C Total electricity demand [ ] kWh per year user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The amount of electricity that can be supplied by wind power is highly dependent on location. To implement this measure, users should consider their project’s location and other factors that may determine onsite wind power feasibility, such as cost, neighboring land uses, and local ordinances. The U.S. DOE has resources available for wind energy in California, such as wind speed maps (U.S. DOE n.d.). Additionally, the NREL’s Wind Prospector is an interactive mapping tool, where users can determine if their project’s location is likely to have suitable wind capacity factors (NREL n.d.).

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
If the user’s project consumes electricity from a local electricity provider with a non-zero carbon intensity, the user can reduce the project’s emissions from electricity consumption by displacing the electricity demand met by the local electricity provider with an onsite wind power system. If the total electricity demand is 10,000 kWh per year (C), and the wind power system provides 1,000 kWh per year (B), the user would reduce GHG emissions from electricity use by 10 percent. The example measure emission reduction is calculated below.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-10-C. Establish Onsite Renewable Energy Systems–Wind Power ENERGY | 264 Quantified Co-Benefits
Successful implementation of this measure would reduce grid electricity, and a portion of this electricity is supplied by statewide fossil-fueled power plants, which generates criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state, the reduction in electricity use from this measure will not reduce localized criteria pollutant emissions and are, therefore, not discussed.

Sources
▪ National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). No date. Wind Prospector. Available:
https://maps.nrel.gov/windprospector/?aL=MlB4Hk%255Bv%255D%3Dt%26VMGtY3%255Bv%255D%3Dt%26VMGtY3%255Bd%255D %3D1&bL=clight&cE=0&lR=0&mC=40.21244%2C-91.625976&zL=4. Accessed: March 4, 2021. ▪ U.S. Department of Energy – Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (U.S. DOE). No date. Wind Energy in California. Available: https://windexchange.energy.gov/states/ca#maps. Accessed: March 4, 2021.

A =
-1,000 kWh
yr
10,000 kWh
yr
= -10%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 265
E-11. Procure Electricity from Lower Carbon Intensity
Power Supply
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 100% of GHG
emissions from electricity use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Procuring electricity from lower carbon
intensity power supplies can reduce
sensitivity to fuel price shocks or scarcity.

Health and Equity Considerations
Reducing demand for electricity from fossilfuel sources will help to improve air quality at electrical plants currently using fossil fuels.

Measure Description
This measure will commit the project to procuring electricity with a lower carbon intensity than the primary product offered by the local provider (often an investor-owned utility). This would displace the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied by the local electricity provider’s energy mix. Electricity provided by local electricity providers have varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of energy sources. Procurement of electricity of a lower carbon intensity would displace the emissions that would have been produced had the electricity been supplied by the default energy mix and thus results in a reduction in GHG emissions.

Green power supply options include utility green power products, community choice aggregation, shared renewables (e.g.,
community solar), and power purchase agreements.

Subsector
Renewable Energy Generation
Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Purchase electricity from a green power supplier, including utility green power products, community choice aggregation, shared renewables (e.g., community solar), and power purchase
agreements.

Cost Considerations
The least carbon-intensive fuels are renewable fuels; however, even switching from high carbon-intensity fossil fuels, like coal and petroleum, to lower intensity fossil fuels, like natural gas, represents a cost savings. The costs associated with building renewable energy generating capacity up to a utility scale are high and require constructing large-scale renewable energy plants and power storage facilities. However, the cost of building new carbon intensive power generation plants is similar, if not higher.

Renewable energy plants can usually be completed more quickly than a fossil-fueled energy plant, saving construction costs.

Renewable energy facilities may also have a significant operational cost savings, as many, like solar and wind, do not require fuel inputs.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Procure electricity from a zero-carbon power supply to eliminate all emissions from building electricity.
100%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-11. Procure Electricity from Lower Carbon Intensity Power Supply ENERGY | 266 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B
C
− 1
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
electricity
0–100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Average carbon intensity of power supply
with green power
[ ] lb CO2e
per MWh
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Carbon intensity of local electricity provider
without measure
Tables E-4.3 and
E-4.4
lb CO2e
per MWh
CA Utilities
2021
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The carbon intensity of the green power supply may be available online directly from the power provider and/or indirectly from the relevant state agencies (e.g., CEC, CARB). If publicly unavailable, the user should request this information from the power provider for the year(s) of interest.
▪ (C) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4), the user should use that specific value in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, users may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user displaces indirect emissions from electricity by committing the project to procuring power with a lower carbon intensity than the primary local provider. In this example, the green power supply has a carbon intensity of zero (B) because 100 percent of the electricity is from zero-emission energy sources. The project is in the SMUD service territory and B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-11. Procure Electricity from Lower Carbon Intensity Power Supply ENERGY | 267 would be operational in 2030. The electricity provider’s carbon intensity factor is 224 lb CO2e per MWh (C). The user would reduce GHG emissions from electricity by 100 percent.

A =
0 lb CO2e
MWh
224 lb CO2e
MWh
− 1 = -100%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 268
E-12. Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially moderate
reduction in GHG emissions
from building natural gas
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using alternative types of water heaters that
use less fuel can reduce sensitivity to fuel
price shocks or scarcity; however, they may
decrease resilience if they are the only
option available during a power outage.

This measure may also power the appliance
from the grid rather than from fuel, offering
more reliability if the grid has been adapted
to climate change or less reliability if the grid
has not been adapted.

Health and Equity Considerations
Reduction of natural gas combustion in
homes can help reduce indoor pollution.

Measure Description
This measure requires installation of a water heater that is less emissions intensive than a natural gas conventional storage tank water heater in residential developments. Alternatives analyzed in this measure are electric conventional storage tanks, solar water heaters with natural gas backup, and solar water heaters with electric backup. Each alternative reduces GHG emissions in a slightly different way. An electric storage tank heater displaces natural gas consumption with electricity use, replacing more emissions-intensive natural gas with less emissions-intensive electricity. A solar water heater with electric backup reduces GHG emissions by displacing natural gas with zero-emission solar energy when water is heated by the system’s solar collectors and grid electricity when the back-up function is utilized. A solar water heater with natural gas backup reduces emissions by displacing natural gas with solar energy when water is heated by the solar collectors.

Subsector
Building Decarbonization
Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Alternative water heaters analyzed in this measure include electric conventional storage tanks, solar water heaters with natural gas backup, and solar water heaters with electric backup.

Cost Considerations
Non-conventional heaters can have high initial and construction costs (e.g., upgrading the electric panel). However, alternatives to natural gas storage tank heaters are more energy efficient and cost less to operate once they are installed. Common alternatives also require less fuel, maintenance, and upkeep than natural gas heaters, leading to additional long-term cost savings.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure E-3-A, Require Energy Efficiency Residential Boilers, to reduce energy use from both space heating and water heating, yielding increased GHG reductions. Also, a heat pump is another option for an alternative water heater that is highly efficient, though the associated energy reductions were not quantified as part of this measure (see Measure E-25, Install Electric Heat Pumps, in Table 3-2).

Moderate
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 269
E-12. Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences
GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = (-E × C × G × I × J) + (F1 × C × H × K × J)
A2 = (F2 − E) × C × G × I × J
GHG Calculation Variables
Based on 2019 survey data, approximately 73 percent of California residences use conventional storage tank heaters fueled by natural gas for primary water heating (CEC 2020). Therefore, for the purposes of this measure, natural gas storage tanks are the type of water heater that the user would be displacing.

ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Reduction in GHG emissions from building
energy for electric storage tank heater or
solar water heater with electric backup
[ ] MT CO2e
per year
calculated
A2 Reduction in GHG emissions from building
energy for solar water heater with natural
gas backup
[ ] MT CO2e
per year
calculated
User Inputs
B Housing type [ ] text user input
C Number of dwelling units [ ] du user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity Demand Forecast Zone Figure E-1.1
Table E-1.1
integer CEC 2017
E Fuel consumption for storage tank heater Table E-12.1 therm per year per du
CEC 2020
F1 Electricity use for electric storage tank heater
or solar water heater with electric backup
Table E-12.1 kWh per
year per du
CEC 2020
F2 Fuel consumption for solar water heater with
natural gas backup
Table E-12.1 therm per
year per du
CEC 2020
G Carbon intensity of residential natural gas 117 lb CO2e per MMBtu
U.S. EPA
2020
H Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Table E-4.3 Table E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
I Conversion from therm to 1 million Btu
(MMBtu)

0.1 MMBtu per
therm
conversion
J Conversion from lb to metric ton (MT) 0.000454 MT per lb conversion K Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per
kWh
conversion
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 270
E-12. Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The housing types are needed to look up the energy use by type of heater (F1 and F2) in Table E-12.1.
▪ (D) – The CEC has specified 28 distinct EDFZs in California. Users should refer to Figure E-1.1 in Appendix C to determine the EDFZ for their project. This measure relies on energy consumption data from the year 2019 tied to the CEC’s (2020) 2019 RASS.

Because data from all 28 EDFZs are not included in the RASS, representative data from similar EDFZs may need to be used. Users should refer to Table E-1.1 for the proxy EDFZ that corresponds with those listed in Table E-12-1. ▪ (E, F1, and F2) – The CEC administered the statewide RASS in 2019. The study yielded energy consumption estimates for 27 electric and 10 natural gas residential end uses, including hot water heaters. Based on this data for the year 2019, the average natural gas and electricity consumption by heater type for each EDFZ and housing type is provided in Table E-12.1 in Appendix C. If the data is unavailable for a specific EDFZ, users may elect to use the statewide averages. If the user is able to provide a projectspecific value, then the user should replace the defaults in the GHG calculation formula. CEC’s 2019 Building Energy Standards provide detailed equations for this calculation (CEC 2019).
▪ (G) – The carbon intensity of residential natural gas was calculated in terms of CO2e by multiplying the U.S. natural gas combustion emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (U.S. EPA 2020) by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). See Table E-4.5 in Appendix C for more natural gas emission factors.
▪ (H) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4), the user should use that specific value in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, users may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, they may not also take credit for this measure (Measure E-12) or Measure E-13, Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges, which electrify select appliances. Measure E-15 accounts for the combined GHG reductions achieved by each of these measures, as well as the electrification of other end uses. To combine the GHG reductions from Measure E-15 with Measure E-12 or Measure E-13 would be considered double counting.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces building energy emissions by installing in a proposed residential development an alternative type of water heater in place of a natural gas storage tank heater. In this example, 10 single-family homes (B and C) would be constructed in EDFZ 7 (D) with a solar water heater with electric backup. Therefore, the fuel consumption for each B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 271
E-12. Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences
home’s storage tank heater would be 260 therms per year (E), and the electricity consumption for a solar water heater with electric backup would be 483 kilowatt-hours per year (F1), based on Table E-12.1. The homes are in Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s service territory and would be constructed by 2022. It would, therefore, have an electricity carbon intensity of 694 lb CO2e per MWh (H). The mitigated emissions would be reduced by 12.3 MT CO2e per year.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy use conversion from major natural gas appliances to their equivalent electric replacements tends not to be straightforward given that most significant gas appliances (e.g., water heaters, space heaters, ovens and cooktops) have varying input-to-output efficiencies and losses from product to product. Equivalent electric appliances also have differing efficiencies, and usage patterns for these equivalent appliances may differ in some way. If installing an electric storage tank heater or solar water heater with electric backup (A1), the user would decrease the building natural gas consumption (E) and increase the electricity use (F1). If installing a solar water heater with natural gas backup (B2), the user would decrease the building natural gas consumption (F2-E).

Improved Air Quality
The reduction in natural gas fuel consumption from this measure would result in local improvements in air quality because the fuel consumption occurs on site of the project. The reduction in criteria pollutant emissions (L1 and L2) achieved by the measure can be calculated as follows.

Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Formula
Use (L1) if installing an electric storage tank heater or solar water heater with electric backup. Use (L2) if installing a solar water heater with natural gas backup.

L1 = -E × C × M × I × N
L2 = (F2 − E) × C × M × I × N
A1 = (
-260 therm
yr∙du × 10 du ×
117 lb CO2e
MMBtu ×

0.1 MMBtu
therm ×

0.000454 MT
lb ) +
(
483 kWh
yr∙du × 10 du ×
694 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.001 MWh
kWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb ) = -12.3
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 272
E-12. Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences
Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Calculation Variables ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
L1 Reduction in criteria pollutant emissions from
building energy for electric storage tank heater or
solar water heater with electric backup
[ ] tons per
year
calculated
L2 Reduction in criteria pollutant emissions from
building energy for solar water heater with natural
gas backup
[ ] tons per
year
calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
M Criteria pollutant emission factors of natural gas Table E-4.5
lb per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA
1998
N Conversion from lb to ton 0.0005 tons per
lb
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (M) – Table E-4.5 presents the criteria pollutant emission factors of natural gas for residential and commercial uses (U.S. EPA 1998). For projects in Bay Area Air Quality Management District or South Coast Air Quality Management territory, see the footnote in Table E-4.5 about a regionally specific NOx emission factor.
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

March. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/ghg-emission-factorshub.pdf. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 1: External Combustion Sources. 1.4, Natural Gas Combustion. July. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 273
E-13. Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from building
natural gas
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Installing electric ranges that use electricity
rather than fuel can reduce sensitivity to fuel
price shocks or scarcity. Electric ranges also
offer more reliability if the grid has been
adapted to climate change or less reliability
if the grid has not been adapted.

Health and Equity Considerations
Natural gas ranges are a primary sources of
residential indoor air pollution (e.g., NOx,
CO, and formaldehyde), with the impacts
being greater in smaller living spaces and
kitchens with inefficient or no vent hoods—
disproportionately affecting low-income
residents and renters. Replacing natural gas
ranges with electric ones thus vastly
improves indoor air quality.

Measure Description
This measure requires that residential or commercial
developments install an electric range (i.e., cooktop plus oven) in place of a gas range. An electric range displaces natural gas consumption with electricity use, replacing a more emissionsintensive fossil fuel-based source of energy with electricity from the grid that is increasingly transitioning to renewable sources.

Subsector
Building Decarbonization
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
The electric range must have an electric or induction cooktop and an electric oven. Because induction cooktops are superior in performance to traditional electric cooktops and comparable to gas, the use of induction cooktops is strongly recommended to help overcome any user hesitancy or preference for gas.

Cost Considerations
Electric cooktops are twice as energy efficient as gas ranges, representing a large cost savings from reduced energy
consumption. Electric stoves have similar costs as natural gas stoves and are relatively inexpensive to install. Induction cooktops have higher upfront costs compared to gas ranges but similar cost savings (induction cooktops do not radiate heat, which translates into reduced home cooling costs during warm days).

Buyer costs include the purchase of magnetic-based pots and pans (e.g., stainless steel or cast iron) specialized for use on induction cooktops.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Limit gas barbecue grills, which would provide additional GHG mitigation and improved localized air quality.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-13. Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges ENERGY | 274 GHG Reduction Formula
A = (-E × C × G × I × J) + (F × C × H × K × J)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Reduction in GHG emissions from
building energy
[ ] MT CO2e per
year
calculated
User Inputs
B Housing or building type [ ] text user input
C Number of du or size of commercial
building
[ ] du or 1,000
gross square feet
(KSF)
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity Demand Forecast Zone Figure E-1.1
Table E-1.1
integer CEC 2017
E Fuel consumption for natural gas
range
Table E-15.1 or
Table E-15.2
therm per year
per du or therm
per year per KSF
CEC 2020,
2021
F Electricity use for electric cooktop Table E-15.1 or
Table E-15.2
kWh per year
per du or kWh
per year per KSF
CEC 2020,
2021
G Carbon intensity of natural gas
(commercial/residential)
119/117 lb CO2e per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA
2020
H Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
I Conversion from therm to MMBtu 0.1 MMBtu per
therm
conversion
J Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion K Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The housing and building types are needed to look up the energy use by type of cooking appliance (E).
▪ (D) – The CEC has specified 28 distinct EDFZs in California. Users should refer to Figure E-1.1 in Appendix C to determine the EDFZ for their project. This measure relies on energy consumption data from the year 2019 tied to the CEC’s Commercial Forecast and the 2019 RASS (2020, 2021). Because data from all 28 EDFZs are not included in the Commercial Forecast or RASS, representative data from similar EDFZs may need to be used. Users should refer to Table E-1.1 for the proxy EDFZ that corresponds with those listed in Tables E-15.1 and E-15.2.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-13. Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges ENERGY | 275 ▪ (E and F) – The CEC administered the statewide RASS in 2019. The study yielded energy consumption estimates for 27 electric and 10 natural gas residential end uses, including cooking appliances. Based on this data for the year 2019, the average natural gas and electricity consumption by cooking appliance type for each EDFZ and housing type is provided in Table E-15.1 in Appendix C. If the data is missing for the EDFZ, users may elect to use the statewide averages. If the user is able to provide a project-specific value, then the user should replace the defaults in the GHG calculation formula. CEC’s 2019 Building Energy Standards provide detailed equations for this calculation (CEC 2019).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development, they may not also take credit for Measure E-12, Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences, or this measure (Measure E-13), which electrify select appliances. Measure E-15 accounts for the combined GHG reductions achieved by each of these measures, as well as the electrification of other end uses. To combine the GHG reductions from Measure E-15 with Measure E-12 or Measure E-13 would be considered double counting.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces building energy emissions by installing in the proposed residential development an electric range in place of a natural gas range. In this example, the measure would be implemented for 20 low-rise apartments (C) to be constructed in EDFZ 3 (D).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-13. Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges ENERGY | 276 Therefore, the fuel consumption for a natural gas range would be 21 therms per year per du (E), and the electricity consumption for an electric cooktop per du would be 115 kilowatthours per year (F1). The project is in Pacific Gas & Electric’s service territory and would begin operation by 2022. It would, therefore, have an electricity carbon intensity of 206 lb CO2e per MWh (G). The mitigated emissions would be reduced by 2.0 MT CO2e per year.

Quantified Co-Benefits
While the measure will achieve fuel savings, it will also increase electricity consumption. For more information on the public health effects of gas cooking appliances, refer to the resources available from the Rocky Mountain Institute (Rocky Mountain Institute 2020).

Fuel Savings (Increased Electricity)
Energy use conversion from major natural gas appliances to their equivalent electric replacements tends not to be straightforward given that most significant gas appliances (e.g., water heaters, space heaters, ovens, and cooktops) have varying input-to-output efficiencies and losses from product to product. Equivalent electric appliances also have differing efficiencies, and usage patterns for these equivalent appliances may differ in some way. If installing an electric cooktop, the user would decrease the building natural gas consumption (E) and increase the electricity use (F).

0.1 MMBtu
therm ×

0.000454 MT
lb ) +
(
115 kWh
yr∙du × 20 du ×
206 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.001 MWh
kWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb ) = -2.0
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-13. Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges ENERGY | 277 Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
M Criteria pollutant emission factors of natural gas Table E-4.5
lb per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA
1998
N Conversion from lb to ton 0.0005 tons per
lb
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (M) – Table E-4.5 presents the criteria pollutant emission factors of natural gas for residential and commercial uses (U.S. EPA 1998).
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

Sources
▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2017. California Electricity Demand Forecast Zones. Available:
https://cecgis-caenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/86fef50f6f344fabbe545e58aec83edd_0/ data?geometry=-165.327%2C31.004%2C-72.427%2C43.220. Accessed: June 2021. ▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2019. Residential Alternative Calculation Method Reference Manual for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. May. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
10/2019%20Residential%20ACM%20Reference%20Manual_ada.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2020. Excel database with the 2019 Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS), provided to ICF. November 13, 2020. ▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2021. Excel database with the 2018-2030 Uncalibrated Commercial Sector Forecast, provided to ICF. January 21, 2021. ▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Rocky Mountain Institute. 2020. Health Effects from Gas Stove Pollution. May. Available:
https://rmi.org/insight/gas-stoves-pollution-health/. Accessed: March 4, 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 1:

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 278
E-14. Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural
Gas/Propane Fireplaces in Residential Development
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from wood
burning devices
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Limiting wood burning and natural
gas/propane fireplaces and replacing them
with electric appliances can reduce sensitivity
to fuel price shocks or scarcity; however, they
may decrease resilience if they are the only
option available during a power outage. This
also offers more reliability if the grid has
been adapted to climate change or less
reliability if the grid has not been adapted.

Health and Equity Considerations
This may increase winter heating costs for
some residents in colder climate zones.

Eliminating wood burning and combustion
of natural gas and propane in homes can
help reduce indoor pollution and greatly
reduce outdoor air pollution.

Measure Description
This measure requires committing to not installing any wood burning devices (i.e., woodstoves and fireplaces) or natural gas or propane fireplaces in proposed residential developments. This avoids the combustion of biomass, natural gas, and propane, thereby reducing associated biogenic and non-biogenic GHG emissions. The most efficient alternatives to wood burning devices or gas fireplaces are electric fireplace inserts and electric heat pumps.

Subsector
Building Decarbonization
Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
This measure may not be applicable in areas where wood burning devices in new development are already prohibited. In such areas, this measure could be applied for informational purposes, to determine the GHG and air quality benefits in new development achieved by restrictions on wood burning devices. However, users should exercise caution in taking credit for any emissions benefit from this measure in areas where the existing baseline already prohibits wood burning devices.

Cost Considerations
Wood, natural gas, and propane fireplaces use more energy and fuel to heat an area than centralized heating systems and have additional costs to purchase fuel for the fireplace. Electric imitation fireplaces meant for cosmetic purposes are less expensive to install and much more energy efficient. For heat production purposes, portable space heaters that run on electricity have the same benefits in cost reduction and allow the owner to use the same device in multiple locations, saving the cost of installing more units.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Consider electrifying all end uses (e.g., space heating, water heating) by implementing Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 279
E-14. Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural Gas/Propane Fireplaces in Residential Development
GHG Reduction Formula
A = -D × [((((E1 × K1 + E2 × K2 + E3 × K3 + E4 × K4
) × G) + F1 ×
L1 × H) × N) + ((F2 × L2 + F3 × L3
) × I × J × M)] × O
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Reduction in GHG emissions from
wood burning devices
[ ] MT CO2e per year calculated
User Inputs
B Project location [ ] air basin, air
district, county
user input
C Housing type [ ] multi-family or
single-family
user input
D Number of du [ ] du user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E1 Percent of du with conventional
woodstoves
Table
E-14.1
% CA Air Districts
2021
E2 Percent of du with catalytic woodstoves Table
E-14.1
% CA Air Districts
2021
E3 Percent of du with non-catalytic
woodstoves
Table
E-14.1
% CA Air Districts
2021
E4 Percent of du with pellet woodstoves Table
E-14.1
% CA Air Districts
2021
F1 Percent of du with wood fireplaces Table
E-14.1
% CA Air Districts
2021
F2 Percent of du with natural gas
fireplaces
Table
E-14.1
% CA Air Districts
2021
F3 Percent of du with propane fireplaces Table
E-14.1
% CA Air Districts
2021
G Wood mass for stove Table
E-14.1
lb per year CA Air Districts
2021
H Wood mass for fireplace Table
E-14.1
lb per year CA Air Districts
2021
I Daily usage of fireplace Table
E-14.1
hour per day CA Air Districts
2021
J Annual usage of fireplace Table
E-14.1
day per year CA Air Districts
2021
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 280
E-14. Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural Gas/Propane Fireplaces in Residential Development
ID Variable Value Unit Source
K1 Carbon intensity of conventional
woodstove
Table
E-14.2
lb biogenic CO2e
per ton wood
burned
U.S. EPA
1996a
K2 Carbon intensity of catalytic woodstove Table
E-14.2
lb biogenic CO2e
per ton wood
burned
U.S. EPA
1996a
K3 Carbon intensity of non-catalytic
woodstove
Table
E-14.2
lb biogenic CO2e
per ton wood
burned
U.S. EPA
1996a
K4 Carbon intensity of pellet woodstove Table
E-14.2
lb biogenic CO2e
per ton wood
burned
U.S. EPA
1996a
L1 Carbon intensity of wood fireplace Table
E-14.2
lb biogenic CO2e
per ton wood
burned
U.S. EPA
1996b
L2 Carbon intensity of natural gas Table
E-14.2
lb non-biogenic
CO2e per MMBtu
U.S. EPA 2020
L3 Carbon intensity of propane Table
E-14.2
lb non-biogenic
CO2e per MMBtu
U.S. EPA 2020
M Heating rate of natural gas and
propane

0.06 MMBtu per hour SCAQMD
2008
N Conversion from lb to ton 0.0005 ton per lb conversion O Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – The project location and housing type are needed to lookup the percent of du with various types of woodstoves and fireplaces (E1 through E4 and F1 through F3). ▪ (E1 through J) – The percent of du with various types of woodstoves and fireplaces, amount of wood burned by woodstoves and fireplaces, and fireplace usage is based on data supplied by local air districts and state defaults (CA Air Districts 2021). Table E14.1 in Appendix C presents this information by housing type for each county, air basin, and air district.
▪ (K1 through L3) – The carbon intensity of the various woodstoves and fireplace fuels were calculated in terms of CO2e by multiplying the emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (U.S. EPA 1996a, 1996b, 2020) by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). See Table E-14.2 in Appendix C for these emission factors.
▪ (K1 through L1) – GHG emissions from the combustion of wood or biomass are considered biogenic emissions, meaning they are derived from living cells, as opposed to fossil fuels that have been transformed by geological processes. Some protocols do not consider these emissions to be part of an emission inventory. In these instances, users should take care to keep them distinct from non-biogenic emissions caused by natural gas and propane fireplaces (L2 and L3).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 281
E-14. Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural Gas/Propane Fireplaces in Residential Development
▪ (M) – The heating rate of natural gas and propane is based on the upper range provided in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s environmental assessment for Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices (SCAQMD 2008).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user avoids emission from wood burning devices by eliminating woodstoves and fireplaces from the proposed residential development. In this example, the proposed project would be a 100-unit (D) multi-family housing development (C) located in the Great Basin Valley Air Basin (B). Based on this information, Table E-14.1 can be used to determine the percent of du with various types of woodstoves and fireplaces, the amount of wood burned by woodstoves and fireplaces, and the fireplace usage (E1 through J). The mitigated emissions would be reduced by -151 MT CO2e per year.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
The reduction in wood, natural gas, and propane combustion from this measure would result in local improvements in air quality because the combustion occurs on site of the project. The reduction in criteria pollutant emissions (Q) achieved by the measure would be calculated the same way as the GHG reduction equation, except for the following differences.
▪ (K1 through L3) – Use the criteria pollutant emission factors in Table E-14.2 in Appendix C instead of the GHG emission factors (U.S. EPA 1996a, 1996b, 2015; CARB 2011).
▪ (N) – Replace (O) with (N) because criteria pollutant emissions are reported as tons of pollutant per year, whereas GHG emissions are reported in units of metric tons.

A = -100 units × [((((0% ×
3,792 lb CO2e
ton wood + 5% ×
3,277 lb CO2e
ton wood + 5% ×
3,400 lb CO2e
ton wood + 0% ×
3,400 lb CO2e
ton wood ) ×
3,019.2 lb wood
yr ) + 35% ×
3,480 lb CO2e
ton wood ×
3,078.4 lb wood
yr ) ×

0.005 ton
lb ) +
((55% ×
117 lb CO2e
MMBtu + 0% ×
141.3 lb CO2e
MMBtu ) ×
3 hours
day ×

82.0 days
yr
×

0.06 MMBtu
hour )] ×

0.000454 MT
lb =
-151 MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 282
E-14. Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural Gas/Propane Fireplaces in Residential Development
Energy and Fuel Savings
The reduction in natural gas and propane fuel consumption (P) achieved by this measure, in units of MMBtu per year, can be calculated as follows.

Fuel Reduction Formula
P = -D × (F2 + F3
) × I × J × M
Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Section 7.1, Residential Wood Combustion. Revised October 2015. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-1_2011.pdf. Accessed:

March 2021
▪ California Air Districts. 2021. Excel database of hearth usage and inventory statistics, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. April 1, 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Final Environmental Assessment:

Proposed Rule 445 – Wood Burning Devices. February. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/documents/aqmd-projects/2008/final-environmental-assessment-for-proposed-rule445.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996a. Report on Revisions to 5th Edition AP-42.

Section 1.10, Residential Wood Stoves. July. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/bgdocs/b01s10.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1996b. Report on Revisions to 5th Edition AP-42.

Section 1.9, Residential Fireplaces. July. Available:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/bgdocs/b01s09.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2015. Standards of Performance for New Residential Wood Heaters, New Residential Hydronic Heaters and Forced-Air Furnaces. March. Available:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-03-16/pdf/2015-03733.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. March. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/ghgemission-factors-hub.pdf. Accessed: March 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 283
E-15. Require All-Electric Development
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from building
energy use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Requiring all-electric development can reduce
sensitivity to fuel price shocks or scarcity and
offer more reliability if electricity providers
have been adapted to climate change.

However, this may decrease resilience if the
grid has not been adapted to climate change
and if there are no non-electric backup
options during a power outage.

Health and Equity Considerations
Elimination of natural gas combustion in
homes will improve indoor air quality, as
natural gas appliances produce pollutants
such as NOx, formaldehyde, and CO. Plans,
backups, and contingencies should be in
place in the event of extended power failure
(consider implementing with Measure E-23,
Use Microgrids and Energy Storage, in
Table 3-2).

Measure Description
This measure requires that residential or commercial
developments use all-electric appliances and end uses. Using electric instead of natural gas-powered appliances and end uses replaces a more emissions-intensive fossil fuel source of energy with a less emissions-intensive source of energy, electricity from the grid that is increasingly transitioning to renewable sources.

Subsector
Building Decarbonization
Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
It is expected that user’s building would electrify the most common natural gas end uses—space heating, water heating, and range (i.e., cooktop plus oven). Additional natural gas end uses include dryer, auxiliary heat, pool heat, spa heat, solar water heater with natural gas backup, and miscellaneous, as discussed below under GHG Calculation Variables.

Cost Considerations
Although electric appliances for residential and commercial properties sometimes cost more to purchase and install, they are more energy efficient than conventional natural gas appliances.

This can lead to long-term cost savings through reduced energy consumption. Electric appliances also usually require less maintenance than conventional appliances.

Expanded Mitigation Options
One of the most efficient ways to provide space heating with electricity is to use heat pumps, which provides increased efficiency relative to traditional electric resistance heating (see Measure E25, Install Electric Heat Pumps, in Table 3-2). The associated energy reduction from heat pumps was not quantified as part of this measure.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-15. Require All-Electric Development ENERGY | 284
GHG Reduction Formula
A = (-E × C × G × I × J) + (F × C × H × K × J)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Reduction in GHG emissions from
building energy
[ ] MT CO2e per
year
calculated
User Inputs
B Housing or building type [ ] text user input
C Number of du or size of commercial
building
[ ] du or KSF user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity Demand Forecast Zone Figure E-1.1
Table E-1.1
integer CEC 2017
E Existing fuel consumption for
natural gas end uses without
measure
Table E-15.1
Table E-15.2
therm per year
per du or therm
per year per
KSF
CEC 2020, 2021
F Additional electricity use for
equivalent electrified end uses with
measure
Table E-15.1
Table E-15.2
kWh per year
per du or kWh
per year per
KSF
CEC 2020, 2021
G Carbon intensity of natural gas
(commercial/residential)
119/117 lb CO2e per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA 2020
H Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities 2021
I Conversion from therm to MMBtu 0.1 MMBtu per
therm
conversion
J Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion K Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The housing and building types are needed to look up the energy use for electric and natural gas end uses for residential and commercial development (E and F). ▪ (D) – The CEC has specified 28 distinct EDFZs in California. Users should refer to Figure E-1.1 in Appendix C to determine the EDFZ for their project. This measure relies on energy consumption data from the year 2019 tied to the CEC’s Commercial Forecast and the 2019 RASS (CEC 2020, 2021). Because data from all 28 EDFZs are not included in the Commercial Forecast and RASS, representative data from similar EDFZs may need to be used. Users should refer to Table E-1.1 for the proxy EDFZ that corresponds with those listed in Tables E-15.1 and E-15.2.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-15. Require All-Electric Development ENERGY | 285
▪ (E and F) – The CEC administered the statewide RASS in 2019. The study yielded energy consumption estimates for 27 electric and 10 natural gas residential end uses. Based on this data for the year 2019, the average natural gas and electricity consumption by end use for each EDFZ and housing type is provided in Table E-15.1. The natural gas end uses included in the RASS and reflected in this measure include space heating, water heating, range/oven, dryer, auxiliary heat, pool heat, spa heat, solar water heater with natural gas backup,25 and miscellaneous.26 There are electric equivalent end uses for each of these end uses, with the addition of heat pumps as an option for space heating and the exception of pool heat, which requires a manual user input.

Users should only evaluate the end uses applicable to their project. For example, most residences will not be built with spas, and only single-family housing has solar water heaters. A minimum recommendation is that the primary natural gas end uses that are commonly electrified be included—space heating, water heating, and range/oven. If the data is missing for the EDFZ or end use, users may elect to use the statewide averages. If users are able to provide a project-specific value, then they should replace the defaults in the GHG calculation formula.

The CEC prepared the Commercial Forecast in October 2019. The Commercial Forecast is generated by a computer model developed by the CEC to forecast electricity and natural gas consumption for commercial building types in California. The data that informs the model includes previous commercial end use surveys, floor space and vacancy estimates (based on econometric and demographic data), adopted building and appliances standards, weather data (cooling and heating degree days), and electricity and natural gas rates. The Commercial Forecast provides energy consumption estimates for 13 electric and 6 natural gas commercial end uses. Based on this data for 2019, the average statewide natural gas and electricity consumption by end use for each building type is provided in Table E-15.2. The natural gas end uses included in the Commercial Forecast and reflected in this measure include space heating, cooling, water heating, range/oven, refrigeration, and miscellaneous.27 Users should only evaluate the end uses applicable to their project. A minimum recommendation is that the primary natural gas end uses that are commonly electrified be included—space heating, water heating, and range/oven. If the data is missing for the EDFZ or end use, users may elect to use the statewide averages. If users are able to provide a project-specific value, then they should replace the defaults in the GHG calculation formula.
▪ (G) – The carbon intensity of natural gas was calculated in terms of CO2e by multiplying the U.S. natural gas combustion emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (U.S. EPA 2020) by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). See Table E-4.5 in Appendix C for more natural gas emission factors.
▪ (H) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4), the user should use that specific value in the 25 Only allowed for single-family housing.
26 The RASS “miscellaneous” end use category includes approximately 20 appliances, ranging from portable fans to wine coolers to aquariums. Users should exercise caution in applying the average energy consumption data for this category to their project.
27 The commercial energy forecast “miscellaneous” end use category includes over 50 equipment types, ranging from specialized medical equipment for hospital buildings to ATM machines for retail buildings to shop tools for warehouses. Users should exercise caution in applying the average energy consumption data for this category to their project.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-15. Require All-Electric Development ENERGY | 286
GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, the user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Mutually Exclusive Measures
If users select this measure (Measure E-15), they may not also take credit for Measure E-12, Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater in Residences, or Measure E-13, Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas Ranges, which electrify select appliances. This measure (Measure E-15) accounts for the combined GHG reductions achieved by each of these measures, as well as the electrification of other end uses. To combine the GHG reductions from this measure (Measure E-15) with Measure E-12 or Measure E-13 would be considered double counting.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces building energy emissions by electrifying the proposed development with electric end uses in place of natural gas end uses. In this example, the measure would be implemented at 20 apartments in a high-rise building (C) to be constructed in EDFZ 11 (D).

Natural gas end uses without the measure include water heater, primary heat, range/oven, and dryer resulting in 261 therms per year per du (E). The electricity consumption to electrify these end uses would be 2,611 kilowatt-hours per year per du (F1). The project is in City of Riverside’s service territory and would begin operation by 2022. It would therefore have an electricity carbon intensity of 791 lb CO2e per megawatt-hour (G). The mitigated emissions would be reduced by 9 MT CO2e per year.

0.1 MMBtu
therm ×

0.000454 MT
lb ) +
(
2,611 kWh
yr∙du × 20 du ×
791 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.001 MWh
kWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb ) = -9
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-15. Require All-Electric Development ENERGY | 287
appliances may differ in some way. If electrifying a building, the user would decrease the building natural gas consumption (E) and increase the electricity use (F).

Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Formula
L = -E × C × M × I × N
Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Calculation Variables ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
L Reduction in criteria pollutant emissions from
building energy
[ ] tons per
year
calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
M Criteria pollutant emission factors of natural
gas
Table
E-4.5
lb per
MMBtu
U.S. EPA
1998
N Conversion from lb to ton 0.0005 tons per
lb
conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (M) – Table E-4.5 presents the criteria pollutant emission factors of natural gas for residential and commercial uses (U.S. EPA 1998).
▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-15. Require All-Electric Development ENERGY | 288
▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1998. AP 42, Fifth Edition, Volume I. Chapter 1:

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 289
E-16. Require Zero Net Energy Buildings
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from building
energy use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Requiring ZNE buildings can reduce sensitivity
to fuel price shocks or scarcity and offer more
reliability if electricity providers have been
adapted to climate change or less reliability if
the grid has not been adapted. If the
development produces and exports emissionfree energy, this increases energy resilience and adds generation capacity to the overall
grid, reducing risk of outages.

Health and Equity Considerations
As a ZNE building is likely to exclude or limit
natural gas combustion, it would likely
improve indoor and regional air quality.

Measure Description
This measure requires the user to operate their building at ZNE. A ZNE building foremost reduces GHG emissions by reducing energy use through more efficient design. Further, the building avoids GHG emissions either by using no emissions-generating energy sources or offsetting the building energy emissions by exporting emission-free energy (typically from onsite renewables). For residential buildings, the user can determine achievement of ZNE performance by entering the project details into the CEC’s CBECC-Res 2019 executable file (Wilcox 2020). CBECC-Res 2019 uses the energy design rating, represented by the Time Dependent Valuation (TDV), as a way to express the energy consumption of a building as a rating score index (CEC 2018).

Subsector
Building Decarbonization
Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
CEC defines a ZNE Code Building as one where the net energy produced by onsite renewables is equal to the building energy consumption, measured using the CEC’s TDV metric. The California Department of General Services defines ZNE more broadly, including not only buildings but campuses, portfolios, and communities (BluePoint Planning 2018).

Cost Considerations
ZNE buildings would have highly variable costs, including building onsite renewable energy, more expensive building materials to improve energy efficiency, and carbon offsets and/or renewable energy credits (RECs).

While purchasing RECs may be less costly than building onsite generation, the project would not gain the co-benefits of greater energy resilience and contribution to grid capacity. And while all these costs may be high, the cost savings from reduced energy usage are also substantial.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Instead implement Measure E-17, Require Renewable Surplus Buildings, which results in a surplus of renewable energy and therefore increased GHG reductions and co-benefits.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-16. Require Zero Net Energy Buildings ENERGY | 290
GHG Reduction Formula
A = -100%
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy 100 % calculated User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
No further explanation of variables.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(Amax) The maximum, and, in fact, only percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy for this measure is 100 percent. This assumes that the net amount of emissions displaced by onsite renewable energy resources is equal to the number of the emissions generated annually by the building electricity use and onsite fuel consumption.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects this measure, they may not also select Measure E-17, Require Renewable Surplus Buildings, which represents a unique scenario in which the project produces more renewable energy than what is required to offset the emissions generated from energy consumed by the building and would be considered carbon-negative.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user avoids building energy emissions by committing their project building to be ZNE.

The user would reduce GHG emissions from building energy by 100 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
The percent reduction in electricity from an electricity provider and fuel consumption achieved by the measure is the same as the percent reduction in GHG emissions B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-16. Require Zero Net Energy Buildings ENERGY | 291
(A). This measure, while not resulting in a net reduction in electricity consumption per se, would displace the building electricity from the grid.

Improved Air Quality
Electricity supplied by statewide fossil-fueled or bioenergy power plants generates criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state and not typically in close proximity to the ZNE building site, the reduction in electricity use from this measure will not reduce localized criteria pollutant emissions.

For projects that are all electric or replace sources of fossil fuel combustion with electric infrastructure, the reduction in onsite fuel consumption from this measure would result in local improvements in air quality because the building fuel combustion occurs on site of the project (e.g., natural gas for space heating or water heating). The percent reduction in GHG emissions (A) is the same as the percent reduction in localized criteria pollutants from building energy achieved by the measure. In other cases, projects may achieve ZNE by offsetting emissions from onsite fuel combustion sources through the export of renewable energy generated to the electric grid. If the project would retain sources of fossil fuel combustion, there would not be a 100 percent reduction in local criteria pollutant emissions. The reduction in criteria pollutant emissions (B) achieved by the measure can be calculated as follows.

Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Formula
B = -C
Criteria Pollutant Emission Reduction Calculation Variables ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
B Percent reduction in criteria pollutant
emissions from onsite fossil fuel use
[ ] % calculated
User Inputs
C Percent reduction in onsite fossil fuel use 0–100% % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B and C) – The reduction in criteria pollutant emissions may be less than 100 percent or even 0 percent if the project retains onsite fossil fuel sources (i.e., natural gas, propane) In this situation, the percent reduction in criteria pollutant emissions is equal to the percent reduction in onsite fossil fuel use. ▪ Please refer to the GHG Calculation Variables table above for definitions of variables that have been previously defined.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-16. Require Zero Net Energy Buildings ENERGY | 292
Sources
▪ Bluepoint Planning. 2018. Commercial & District Zero Net Energy Framework. April. Available: https://4eae5a23- 44d0-418e-8d77-0e5a216d92ea.filesusr.com/ugd/cc790b_01490cf012b64cf7b369aab39a3750a9.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2014. 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report. January. Available:
https://www.adaptationclearinghouse.org/resources/california-energy-commission-integrated-energy-policyreport.html. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings for the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Title 24, Part 6. December. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-400-2018-020/CEC-400-2018-020-CMF.pdfCEC.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Wilcox, B. 2020. CBECC-Res 2019.1.3. September. Available: http://www.bwilcox.com/BEES/cbecc2019.html.

Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 293
E-17. Require Renewable Surplus Buildings
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from building
energy use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Requiring renewable surplus buildings can
add generation capacity to the overall grid,
reducing energy costs and risk of outages.

Health and Equity Considerations
Providing surplus energy back into the grid
can reduce the risk of power outages, which
underserved communities are more
vulnerable to because of disinvestment and
historical redlining.

Measure Description
This measure will require that proposed development install onsite renewable energy in an amount that offsets more emissions than the amount generated from the development’s electricity use and onsite fuel consumption. Installing zero-emission renewable energy displaces emissions from grid electricity that would otherwise be used, thereby reducing GHG emissions. Implementation of this measure would result in buildings that reduce more GHG emissions than they generate through surplus generation of energy from renewables, sometimes known as carbon-negative buildings. The amount of renewable energy required for a building to have net negative GHG emissions is largely determined by the number of emissions from onsite fuel consumption and the carbon intensity of the local electricity provider.

Subsector
Building Decarbonization
Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Onsite renewable energy should be installed in an amount that offsets more emissions than the amount generated from the development’s electricity and onsite fuel consumption. The excess renewably energy must be sold to displace non-zero emission grid electricity.

Cost Considerations
The costs associated with building only renewable-surplus structures are very high, as each building will need to be maximally energy efficient and generate renewable energy on site. However, by definition, energy costs would be entirely eliminated, and surplus energy would be sold back to the electricity provider. This is not only a cost savings, but also an additional revenue stream for each building.

Expanded Mitigation Options
When requiring development with surplus renewable generation, a best practice is to also electrify the building (see Measure E-15, Require All-Electric Development) so that emissions from onsite fuel consumption, such as natural gas, are eliminated.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-17. Require Renewable Surplus Buildings ENERGY | 294
GHG Reduction Formula
A = B + [(C − D) × E × F × G]
A% =
A − (B + C × E × F × G)
(B + C × E × F × G)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG emissions from building energy [ ] MT CO2e per year calculated A% Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from building energy
>100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Emissions from building onsite fuel
consumption
[ ] MT CO2e per year user input
C Building electricity use [ ] kWh per year user input
D Onsite renewable energy production [ ] kWh per year user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per MWh CA Utilities
2021
F Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion G Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – Emissions from building onsite fuel combustion may come from natural gas, propane, or other fuels. The user should take care to properly quantify these emissions using accepted methodologies (such as CalEEMod). If the project would be an allelectric development (see Measure E-15), then there would be no onsite fuel consumption, and the value for this variable would be zero. ▪ (C) – It is assumed that the building electricity comes from a non–zero-emission source (e.g., grid electricity with fossil fuel mix). However, if a project would be all-electric, and the local electricity provider supplying the project’s electricity sources 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy sources, then this measure would not reduce building energy emissions, as they would already be zero. The measure would still result in the co-benefit of enhanced energy supply because it adds its energy surplus as additional capacity back to the grid.
▪ (D) – It is assumed that the onsite renewable energy comes from a zero-emission source (e.g., solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, eligible hydroelectric). See Measures E-10-A through E-10-C for discussion of how to calculate the energy generated from various renewable energy systems. This value should be greater than the value for (C) because the renewable energy generated will need to more than offset the electricity consumed and onsite fuel consumption.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-17. Require Renewable Surplus Buildings ENERGY | 295
▪ (E) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4), the user should use that specific value in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, a user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.

Note that the GHG intensity factor of electricity providers will decrease in future years as the electricity providers continue to improve their energy mix to meet the requirements of SB 100 for 50 percent carbon-free electricity by 2025, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Accordingly, this measure will reduce fewer and fewer emissions in future years as the energy it displaces becomes cleaner.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
Measure Maximum
(A%) The percent reduction in GHG emissions from building energy for this measure should be greater than 100 percent. This is based on the requirement that the displaced electricity emissions from the onsite renewable sources must exceed the combined building energy emissions from electricity and onsite fuel consumption.

Mutually Exclusive Measures
If the user selects this measure, they may not also select Measure E-16, Require Zero Net Energy Buildings, which represents a unique scenario in which the project produces an amount of renewable energy that displaces an equal number of emissions from building electricity and onsite fuel consumption (i.e., ZNE).

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user constructs onsite renewable energy infrastructure that displaces more emissions than the amount generated from electricity and onsite fuel consumption. In this example, a single-family home would be constructed in Roseville Electric’s service territory and would begin operation by 2022. It would therefore have an electricity carbon intensity of 473 lb CO2e per megawatt-hour (E). If the emissions from building onsite fuel consumption are

0.1 MT CO2e per year (B), the building electricity use is 9,000 KWh per year (C), and the onsite renewable energy production is 16,000 KWh per year (D), the mitigated emissions would be -1.4 MT CO2e per year, or a reduction of 169 percent.

A =

0.1 MT CO2e
yr
+ [(9,000 kWh
yr
−
16,000 kWh
yr ) ×
473 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb ×

0.001 MWh
kWh ] =
-1.4 MTCO2e
yr
A% =
-1.4 MT CO2e
yr − (0.1 MT CO2eyr
+ 9,000 kWh
yr
×
473 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb ×

0.001 MWh
kWh )

0.1 MT CO2e
yr
+ 9,000 kWh
yr
×
473 lb CO2e
MWh ×

0.000454 MT
lb ×

0.001 MWh
kWh
= -169%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-17. Require Renewable Surplus Buildings ENERGY | 296
Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
This measure, while not resulting in a net reduction in electricity consumption per se, would completely displace the building electricity from the grid (C) and provide surplus generation capacity from onsite renewable sources (D).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 297
E-18. Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from landfill waste
decomposition depending on
the capture program and system size
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Establishing CH4 recovery provides backup
fuels if extreme weather events disrupt main
sources of fuel.

Health and Equity Considerations
Combustion of CH4 may increase local air
pollution. Potential effects of combustion
emissions on adjacent sensitive receptors
needs to be evaluated during project design.

Measure Description
This measure involves the capture and treatment of landfill gas (LFG) emitted from decomposition of organic waste in landfills.

Landfill gas contains about 50 percent CH4 by volume, which has a GWP 25 times that of CO2. This measure addresses emissions savings from LFG that is captured and either flared or combusted for energy. Flaring LFG will reduce the amount of CH4 emitted into the atmosphere. Combusting LFG to generate electricity for onsite energy needs reduces GHG emissions in two ways: it reduces direct CH4 emissions, and it displaces electricity demand and the associated indirect GHG emissions from electricity production.

Municipal solid waste management teams should calculate the GHG savings from both flaring and combustion for energy recovery to see the relative benefits for each option.

Subsector
Methane Recovery
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Landfills that have no current system for capturing CH4 would face high installation costs for a CH4 recovery system. Costs would be much lower for landfills that already have a system for trapping or cleaning captured gases. In California, CH4 reclaimed from waste could represent a large additional revenue stream for landfills if the gases are managed and sold as offsets or RECs on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard or U.S. Renewable Fuel Standards markets.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Additional reductions may be achieved if the LFG is used as a transportation fuel or injected into a regional natural gas pipeline for downstream uses. Quantitative methods for these alternatives are not specifically addressed by this measure.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-18. Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills ENERGY | 298 GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = [(G × O × L) + (G × P × M)] × Q
B = G × N
A2 = B × R × S × T
A3 = A1 + A2
C = [D × [E × I × J × F × K ] × (1 − H)] × L
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Emissions from LFG flaring or combustion [ ] MT CO2e calculated B Energy savings from flaring or combustion
of LFG for energy
[ ] MMBtu calculated
A2 Additional emissions from LFG combustion
if energy is generated
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
A3 Total emissions from LFG use (flaring and
energy use)
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
C CH4 generation potential emissions [ ] MT CO2e calculated User Inputs
D Municipal Solid Waste affected by measure [ ] tons user input E CH4 correction factor 0.6–1 unitless IPCC 2007
F Fraction of CH4 in landfill gas 0.4–0.6 unitless IPCC 2007 G LFG flared of combusted for energy [ ] standard
cubic
foot (scf)
U.S. EPA 2018
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
H Oxidation rate 0.10 percent IPCC 2007
I Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) 19.8% percent CalRecycle 2014 J Fraction of DOC that is ultimately
degraded

0.6 unitless IPCC 2007
K Stoichiometric ratio between CH4 and
carbon
16/12 g of CH4
per g of C
conversion
L GWP of CH4 25 unitless IPCC 2007
M GWP of N2O 298 unitless IPCC 2007
N Heating value of LFG 0.000485 MMBtu
per scf
U.S. EPA 2018
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-18. Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills ENERGY | 299 ID Variable Value Unit Source
O CH4 emission factor for LFG combustion 0.001552 g CH4 per scf
U.S. EPA 2018
P N2O emission factor for LFG combustion 0.000306 g N2O per scf
U.S. EPA 2018
Q Conversion from g to MT 10-6 MT per g conversion
R MWh to MMBTU 3.412142 MWh per
MMBtu
conversion
S Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Table E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e
per MWh
CA Utilities 2021
T Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (E) – The CH4 correction factor accounts for CH4 generation from managed or unmanaged landfills. For example, unmanaged landfills produce less CH4 from a given amount of waste than managed landfills because a larger fraction of waste decomposes aerobically in the top layers of a landfill. - Managed = 1.0
- Unmanaged (≥5 meter (m) deep) = 0.8
- Unmanaged (<5 m deep) = 0.4
- Uncategorized = 0.6
▪ (C) – The generation potential follows the IPCC 2007 “good practices” guidelines for estimating CH4 emissions for a landfill that does not have LFG capture technology. ▪ (F) – The fraction of CH4 in landfill gas is based on the organic matter content of the landfill. This fraction can range from 0.4 to 0.6, but the default is usually taken as 0.5. ▪ (I) – CalRecycle published a 2016 study on the composition of California's overall disposed waste stream. From this study, an average California DOC was calculated to determine organic content of waste in landfills.
▪ (D) – This input is the amount of waste that the user will know will have some amount of LFG capture technology.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
In this example, a user decides to implement an LFG capture program and use the LFG to produce energy to offset utility electricity usage. The landfill contains 1,000 short tons of waste, is managed and has 0.5 fraction of CH4 in the LFG with a 75 percent collection efficiency. Twenty million scf LFG was combusted. The project is in Redding Electric Utility’s service territory and would begin operation by 2024. It would therefore have an electricity carbon intensity of 341 lb CO2e per MWh (S). This example scenario results in a total net GHG reduction (A3) of 5,126.6 MT CO2e.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-18. Establish Methane Recovery in Landfills ENERGY | 300 Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy savings from flaring or combustion of LFG for energy are calculated above as (B).

Sources
▪ CalRecycle 2014. 2014 Disposal-Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California.

November 4, 2015. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Details/1546. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018. Center for Corporate Climate Leadership. Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories. March 9. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/emission-factors_mar_2018_0.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H. L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.

A1 = [(20,000,000 scf × 0.001552
g CH4
scf × 25) +
(20,000,000 scf × 0.000306
g N2O
scf × 298)] × 10-6 = 2.6 MT CO2e
B = 20,000,000 scf × 0.000485 MMBtu
scf = 9,700 MMBtu
A2 = 9,700 MMBtu × 3.412142
MWh
MMBtu × 341
lb
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb = 5,124 MT CO2e
A3 = 2.6 MT CO2e + 5,124 MT CO2e = 5,126.6 MT CO2e
C= [1,000 tons × [1 × 19.8% × 0.6 × 0.5 ×
16 12
g CH4
g C ] × (1 − 0.1)] × 25 = 1,782 MTCO2e
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ENERGY | 301
E-19. Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater
Treatment Plants
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction
in GHG emissions from
plant operations
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Establishing CH4 recovery provides backup
fuels if extreme weather events disrupt main
sources of fuel.

Health and Equity Considerations
Combustion of CH4 may increase air
pollution. Potential effects of combustion
emissions on adjacent sensitive receptors
needs to be evaluated during project design.

Measure Description
This measure requires capturing CH4 from an existing wastewater treatment plant and either (1) combusting or flaring it to prevent escape into the atmosphere or (2) combusting or flaring it and using the heat to generate electricity for onsite energy needs.

Using the combusted CH4 as an energy source reduces GHG emissions by displacing electricity demand and the associated indirect GHG emissions from electricity production. This measure is most applicable to wastewater treatment plants that have anaerobic digestion infrastructure, which facilitates the biological decomposition of the wastewater and produces the CH4 that is either flared or harnessed for energy.

Subsector
Methane Recovery
Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description. Also, this measure may not be
appropriate for wastewater treatment plants that use lagoons to process wastewater.

Cost Considerations
Wastewater treatment plants that have no current system for capturing CH4 would face high installation costs for a CH4 recovery system. Costs would be lower for plants that already have a system for trapping or cleaning captured gases. In California, CH4 reclaimed from wastewater treatment could represent a large additional revenue stream for the plants if the gases are managed and sold as offsets or RECs on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard or U.S. Renewable Fuel Standards markets.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Additional reductions may be achieved if the CH4 is processed and used as a transportation fuel or injected into a regional natural gas pipeline for downstream uses. Captured waste biogas may also be used to support the production of
biodegradable biopolymers, which serve as natural alternatives to conventional plastics.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-19. Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants ENERGY | 302 GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = C × [D − (E × F × G × H × (1 − I) × J × K × L)] (Emissions Reduction) B = (C × E × F × G × M × N × O) (Energy Savings, if applicable) A2 = B × P × Q × R (Additional Emissions Reduction, if applicable) A3 = A1 + A2 (Total Net Emissions Reduction)
A4 = A3
C × D (% Reduction)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Emissions reduction from CH4 flaring
or combustion
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
B Energy savings from CH4 capture,
combustion and energy generation
[ ] kWh calculated
A2 Additional emissions reduction if
energy is generated
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
A3 Total net emissions reduction [ ] MT CO2e calculated A4 Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from wastewater
0-100 % calculated
User Inputs
C Wastewater affected by measure [ ] liters user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Wastewater emission factor 2.85 x 10-6 or

1.93 x 10-6
MT CO2 per liter
gal per liter
U.S. EPA
2020
E Conversion from liters to gal 0.26417 sf per gal conversion F Digester gas 0.01 unitless U.S. EPA
2020
G Fraction CH4 0.65 % U.S. EPA
2020
H Density of CH4 662 g CH4 per m3 CH4 U.S. EPA
2020
I Destruction efficiency 0.99 unitless U.S. EPA
2020
J Conversion from ft3 to m 0.02832 m3 per ft3conversion K Conversion from g to MT 1𝑒−6 g per MT conversion
L GWP of CH4 25 unitless IPCC 2007
M Heating value of CH4 1,028 BTU per ft3 CH4 ICLEI 2013 N Conversion from kWh to BTU 0.000293 kWh per BTU conversion O Efficiency factor 0.85 unitless assumption
P Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-19. Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants ENERGY | 303 ID Variable Value Unit Source
Q Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
R Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A1) – The emissions calculated for this variable represent the emissions reduction that is achieved from the combustion of CH4. Combusting the CH4 prevents it from entering the atmosphere; however, during the combustion process, some fraction of CH4 is not fully combusted and can leak into the atmosphere. The formula for this variable accounts for the fraction that is not fully combusted.
▪ (B) – This variable represents the energy savings that result from the combustion of CH4 and then using the heat produced to generate energy. If CH4 will only be combusted or flared but not used for energy, then there would not be energy savings for this measure.

The user should set this variable to zero if there will be no energy generation. ▪ (A2) – The emissions reductions calculated for this variable represent the emissions that are offset from the generation of energy from the captured CH4 instead of from typical fossil fuel sources. Combusting the CH4 avoids the need for fossil fuel sources of energy that would have been generated in the absence of this measure. ▪ (A3) – The net emissions reductions achieved by this measure are calculated in this variable. ▪ (D) – The factors represent the emissions per liter of wastewater that is treated at facilities with either primary treatment or without primary treatment. These values are as follows. - Primary treatment factor: 1.93 x 10-6
- Without primary treatment factor: 2.85 x 10-6
▪ (E) – The digester gas variable represents the amount of digester gas that is generated per gal of wastewater. The value given here is determined by assumptions from the U.S. EPA’s GHG inventory, with the amount of digester gas generated per person per day is 1 cubic foot and the amount of wastewater generated per person per day is 100 gallons (gal) (for publicly owned treatment works). Dividing these values (1/100) is equal to 0.01 cubic feet of digester gas per gal of wastewater.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user implements CH4 capture and energy generation infrastructure at an existing wastewater treatment plant that processes 100 million liters of wastewater per year. The existing plant currently has primary treatment. The project is in the Silicon Valley Power’s service territory, and the selected electricity provider emission factor is for the year 2026 (224 lb CO2e per MWh) (Q). The example measure emission reduction is calculated below.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
E-19. Establish Methane Recovery in Wastewater Treatment Plants ENERGY | 304 A1 = 100×106liters × [1.93×10-6 MT CH4
liter
− (0.26417 gal
liter × 0.01
ft3
gal × 0.65 × 662
g CH4
m3 CH4
× (1
− 0.99) ×

0.02832 m3
ft3 ×
10-6 MT
g
× 25)] = 192 MT CO2e
A2 = 43,962 kWh × 0.001 MWh
kWh × 224 × 0.000454
MT
lb = 4 MT CO2e
A3 = 192 MT CO2e + 4 MT CO2e = 196 MT CO2e
A4 =
196 MT CO2e
100×106 liters × 1.93 × 10-6 MT CO2e
liter
= 102%
Quantified Co-Benefits
Successful implementation of this measure could achieve energy savings if the user’s project includes CH4-based energy generation infrastructure. This quantified co-benefit is derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

Sources
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Appendix F: Wastewater and Water Emission Activities and Sources. Available: https://icleiusa.org/publications/us-community-protocol/. Accessed:

January 19, 2021.
▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2018 – Chapter 7. Waste. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2020-chapter-7- waste.pdf. Accessed: January 19, 2021.

B = (100×106 liters ×

0.26417 gal
liter × 0.01
ft3
gal ×0.65 ×
1,028 BTU
ft3 CH4
×

0.000293 kWh
BTU × 0.85) = 43,962 kWh
𝑒
B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 305
Water
Energy used to pump, treat, and convey
water generates GHG emissions and is
the primary source of GHG emissions
within the water sector. The amount of
energy required depends on both the
volume of water and energy intensity
associated with the water source. For
example, it generally takes less energy to
pump and convey water from a local
source than to transport water across
long distances. California’s water supply
is diverse and comprised of groundwater,
surface water, and reservoirs, with some
water transport occurring over long distances and over varied terrain. Treating water so that it is potable for human use and processing wastewater also generates GHG emissions.

Indirect GHG emissions associated with water use can be decreased by reducing water demand and/or by using a less energy-intensive water source. A project can reduce its indoor water demand by installing low-flow and high-efficiency water fixtures and appliances, such as toilets, showerheads, faucets, clothes washers, and dishwashers. A reduction in outdoor water demand can be achieved by designing water-efficient landscapes that include plants with relatively low watering needs; minimizing areas of water-intensive turf; and installing smart irrigation systems to avoid excessive water use. These and other strategies could be combined into a water conservation strategy with a water reduction performance target. Less energy-intensive water sources include reclaimed and grey water, as well as locally sourced water (e.g., nearby groundwater basins, nearby surface water, and gravity-dominated systems).

Emission reductions achieved by reduced
water demand will be directly proportional to
the decrease in demand. Use of less energyintensive water sources will decrease energyrelated emissions, but these systems may also require energy to successfully operate.

Resources and methods to quantify emissions
reductions from measures that reduce water
demand and/or target use of a less energyintensive water source are described in this section. Use the graphic on the right to click
on an individual measure to navigate directly
to the measure’s factsheet.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 306
W-1. Use Reclaimed Non-Potable Water
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from outdoor
water use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using reclaimed non-potable water
conserves water resources, which will
become more strained under climate
change, and provides a backup water
source should extreme events disrupt current
sources. This could also reduce costs
associated with obtaining fresh potable
water from distant sources.

Health and Equity Considerations
The project will provide appropriate
education on non-potable water for project
residents/employee.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of reclaimed water for outdoor uses.

Reclaimed water is water reused for non-potable uses (e.g., landscape irrigation) after wastewater treatment instead of returning the water to the environment (i.e., discharging into rivers and other bodies of water). Using water after it has been treated requires substantially less energy to deliver it to users than fresh water from distant sources and, therefore, reduces GHG
emissions. The use of reclaimed water is typically designated for non-potable uses, such as landscaping and other outdoor uses.

Although wastewater treatment processes have improved, there has been limited implementation of reclaimed water projects for household or potable uses. Furthermore, the treatment of wastewater to produce potable water (often through reverse osmosis) is usually energy-intensive and thus may not result in reduction in energy consumption and associated GHG emissions.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Initial costs of altering a system, whether it is irrigation, plumbing, or cleaning, to use reclaimed non-potable water will vary with the source of the water and the use; however, all applications will have costs associated with installing water collection and distribution infrastructure.

Expanded Mitigation Options
This measure does not include treatment of wastewater for potable uses, although the approach to assessing the potential change in GHG emissions would be the same.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-1. Use Reclaimed Non-Potable Water WATER | 307
GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = C1 × (D − E) (Energy savings)
B1 = A1 × F × G × H (Emissions reduction)
B2 = C2 ×
D−E
D
(Percent emissions reduction)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Energy savings from using reclaimed water [ ] kWh calculated B1 GHG reduction from using reclaimed water [ ] MT CO2e calculated B2 % GHG reduction from outdoor water use [ ] % calculated User Inputs
C1 Amount of water to be used from reclaimed
sources
[ ] acre-feet (AF) user input
C2 Percentage of water from reclaimed water
(relative to total outdoor water demand)
[ ] % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity for municipally provided water Table
W-1.1
kWh per AF CPUC
2016
E Fraction of electricity for reclaimed water Table
W-1.1
kWh per AF CPUC
2016
F Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion G Carbon intensity of electricity provider Tables
E-4.3 and
E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
H Conversion from pounds (lb) to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C1) – The amount of water to be used from reclaimed water must be provided by the user. ▪ (D, E) – The water energy-intensity factors are derived from the most recent version of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Water Energy Calculator and are provided in Table W-1.1 in Appendix C, Emission Factors and Data Tables (CPUC 2016). The energy intensity factors rely on region-wide average values for the California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) 10 hydrologic regions. Following wastewater treatment, reclaimed water would be pre-treated (to meet standards) and distributed back to an end use (e.g., city park). Accordingly, the fraction of energy required to provide reclaimed water can be determined by consulting Table W-1.1 and identifying the columns for pre-treatment and water distribution (omit the column for extraction and conveyance).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-1. Use Reclaimed Non-Potable Water WATER | 308
▪ (G) – GHG intensity factors for major utilities in California are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by the listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year in which the reclaimed water system would be established), the user should replace these defaults in the electricity consumption GHG calculation formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions from water-related electricity by using reclaimed water for non-potable uses in place of fresh water. In this example, the project is in the San Joaquin River hydrologic region and includes the use of 31 AF per year of reclaimed water (C1), which represents 80 percent of the project’s total outdoor water demand (C2). The electricity provider for the project area is Turlock Irrigation District and the analysis year is 2027. The carbon intensity of electricity is therefore 296 lb CO2e per MWh (G).

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy savings (A1) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

Water Conservation
This measure would not necessarily change water consumption, but it would result in conservation of fresh water sources by using reclaimed water. This quantity of freshwater savings is equal to the amount of reclaimed water (C1).

Sources
▪ California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2016. Water-Energy Calculator–Draft Version 1.05.

A1 = 31 AF × (252
kWh
AF -163
kWh
AF ) = 2,759 kWh
B1 = 2,759 kWh × 0.001 MWh
kWh × 296 lb CO2eMWh × 0.000454 MT
lb = 0.4 MT CO2e
B2 = 80% ×
(252 kWh
AF − 163 kWh
AF )
252 kWh
AF
= 28%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 309
W-2. Use Grey Water
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from outdoor
water use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using grey water conserves water resources,
which will become more strained under
climate change, and provides a backup
water source should extreme events disrupt
current sources. This could also reduce costs
associated with obtaining fresh potable
water from distant sources.

Health and Equity Considerations
The project should provide appropriate
education on grey water for project residents
and employees.

Measure Description
This measure requires the use of grey water for outdoor uses. Grey water is water from sinks, showers, tubs, and washing machines that has not contacted biological pathogens. Grey water offsets freshwater that would need to be extracted or sourced for the same demand, resulting in water and GHG emissions savings. The energy associated with grey water use is essentially negligible as it is used on site for a second time and does not require major pumping equipment or further treatment.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Grey water should only be used for non-potable applications, such as landscaping and other outdoor uses, because grey water does not undergo water treatment before being used for the second time.

Cost Considerations
Initial costs of altering the plumbing of a property to use grey water will vary with the property type; however, all applications will have costs associated with installing water collection, storage, and distribution infrastructure. These costs would be offset by reductions in freshwater use, as well as reduce energy
requirements for water treatment and waste management.

Expanded Mitigation Options
For grey water sourced from sinks, it is best practice not to use water with greasy and oily substances, such as runoff from kitchen sinks with leftover oils, meat scraps, and dairy products.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-2. Use Grey Water WATER | 310
GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = (D × E + D × F) × G × H (Water savings, if not known by user) B = A1 × ((I + J) − K) (Energy savings)
C1 = B × L × M × N (Emissions reduction)
C2 = A2 (Percent emissions reduction)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Outdoor water savings from using grey
water
[ ] AF calculated
B Energy savings from using grey water [ ] kWh calculated C1 GHG reduction from using grey water [ ] MT CO2e calculated C2 % GHG reduction from outdoor water use [ ] % calculated User Inputs
A2 Percentage of water from grey water
sources (relative to total outdoor water
demand)
[ ] % user input
D Number of residents in homes with grey
water systems
[ ] occupants user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E Gal per day per occupant from showers,
bathtubs, and lavatories
25 gal per day
per occupant
CA Code
2019
F Gal per day per occupant for laundry 15 gal per day
per occupant
CA Code
2019
G Days per year 365 days per year conversion
H Conversion from gal to AF 3.07x10-6 AF per gal conversion I Electricity required for municipally provided
water
Table W-1.1 kWh per AF CPUC 2016
J Electricity required for wastewater treatment
following municipal use
418 kWh per AF CPUC 2016
K Fraction of electricity for grey water 0 kWh per AF assumption L Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per
kWh
conversion
M Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
N Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-2. Use Grey Water WATER | 311
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A1) – If the user knows how much grey water will be used for their project, that amount should be used to determine GHG reductions. If it is not known, however, the formula for A1 can be used to estimate the volume of grey water at residential uses, based on the 2019 California Plumbing Code.
▪ (I, K, J) – The water energy-intensity factors are derived from the most recent version of the CPUC Water Energy Calculator and are provided in Table W-1.1 in Appendix C (CPUC 2016). The energy intensity factors rely on region-wide average values for DWR’s 10 hydrologic regions. Because grey water is reused on site, it avoids energy after initial water consumption for at least once use cycle (i.e., wastewater treatment and extraction, conveyance, pre-treatment, and distribution energy for an equivalent volume of water).
▪ (M) – GHG intensity factors for major utilities in California are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by the listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year in which the grey water system would be established), the user should replace these defaults in the electricity consumption GHG calculation formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions from water-related electricity by using grey water for nonpotable uses in place of fresh water. In this example, the project in the South Coast hydrologic region and includes 300 residents. These residents would produce about 13.4 AF of water, which the user has determined is equal to 20 percent of the project’s total water demand (A2). The electricity provider for the project area is City of Riverside and the analysis year is 2024. The carbon intensity of electricity is therefore 789 lb CO2e per MWh (L).

A1 = (300 × 25
gal
day∙resident + 300 × 15
gal
day∙resident) × 365
days
year
× (3.07×10-6 AF
gal) = 13.4 AF
B = 13.4 AF × ((1,898
kWh
AF + 418
kWh
AF ) − 0
kWh
AF ) = 31,034 kWh
C1 = 31,034 kWh × 0.001 MWh
kWh × 789
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb = 11.1 MT CO2e
C2 = 20%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-2. Use Grey Water WATER | 312
Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy savings (B) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

Water Conservation
This measure would not necessarily change water consumption, but it would result in conservation of fresh water sources by using grey water. This quantity of freshwater savings is equal to the amount of grey water (A1).

Sources
▪ California Plumbing Code. 2019 (CA Code). Chapter 15 Alternate Water Sources for Nonpotable Applications. https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-plumbing-code-2019/chapter/15/alternate-watersources-for-nonpotable-applications#15. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2016. Water-Energy Calculator–Draft Version 1.05.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 313
W-3. Use Locally Sourced Water Supply
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially moderate
reduction in GHG emissions
from water use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using locally sourced water provides fewer
opportunities for extreme events to disrupt
the water source due to shorter traveling
times. This could also reduce costs
associated with obtaining fresh potable
water from distant sources.

Health and Equity Considerations
Locally sourced water may have more
contaminants than imported options. For
potable uses, carefully consider the water
quality of the proposed source.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of local water supplies instead of more distant water supplies. Locally sourced water is typically less energy intensive because it does not need to be moved across long distances (unless locally sourced water requires extensive pretreatment to address water quality concerns). Using locally sourced water can thus avoids the higher GHG emissions from energy consumed to pump and move water through larger
infrastructure systems, such as the State Water Project.

Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Prioritizing locally sourced water reduces costs associated with the transportation of water to the use location. However, regions that are not already large-scale water producers will most likely require significant investment in water extraction, processing, management, and potentially reuse in order to meet demand.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Install onsite water collection systems, such as a rain barrels or cisterns, for even more local water supply, reducing the associated energy and GHG emissions from water transmission.

Moderate
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-3. Use Locally Sourced Water Supply WATER | 314
GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = C1 × (D − E) (Energy savings)
B1 = A1 × F × G × H (Emissions reduction)
B2 = C2 ×
D−E
D
(Percent emissions reduction)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Energy savings from using local water [ ] kWh calculated B1 GHG reduction from using local water [ ] MT CO2e calculated B2 % GHG reduction from outdoor water use [ ] % calculated User Inputs
C1 Amount of water to be obtained from local
sources
[ ] AF user input
C2 Percentage of water from local sources
(relative to total water demand)
[ ] % user input
E Electricity required to treat and distribute
local water
[ ] kWh/AF user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity for municipally provided water Table W-1.1 kWh per AF CPUC 2016 F Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion G Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
H Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (E) – The water energy-intensity factor for the local water source must be defined by the user. ▪ (D) – The water energy-intensity factors are derived from the most recent version of the CPUC Water Energy Calculator and are provided in Table W-1.1 in Appendix C (CPUC 2016). The energy intensity factors rely on region-wide average values for DWR’s 10 hydrologic regions.
▪ (G) – GHG intensity factors for major utilities in California are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by the listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year in which the project begins local water use), the user should replace these defaults in the electricity consumption GHG calculation formula.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-3. Use Locally Sourced Water Supply WATER | 315
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions from water-related electricity by using locally sourced water. In this example, the project is in the South Coast hydrologic region and uses 46 AF per year of water. The user chooses to supply 100 percent of the water for the project (C1, C2) from an alternative local source that has a water energy-intensity of 1,200 kWh per AF (E).

The electricity provider for the project area is Burbank Water and Power and the analysis year is 2029. The carbon intensity of electricity is therefore 218 lbs CO2e per MWh (G).

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy savings (A1) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

Sources
▪ California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2016. Water-Energy Calculator–Draft Version 1.05.

A1 = 46 AF × (1,898
kWh
AF − 1,200
kWh
AF ) = 32,108 kWh
B1 = 32,108 kWh × 0.001 MWh
kWh × 218
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lbs = 3.2 MTCO2e
B2 = 100% ×
1,898 kWh
AF − 1,200 kWh
AF
1,898 kWh
AF
= 37%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 316
W-4. Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from indoor
water use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using low-flow water fixtures conserves
water resources, which will become more
strained under climate change.

Health and Equity Considerations
Low-flow and high-efficiency water fixtures
can help to reduce water utility bill costs for
project residents.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures in residential and non-residential buildings. Low-flow and high-efficiency fixtures may include toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, clothes washers, and dishwashers. These fixtures use less water than their traditional counterparts and, therefore, reduce energy and indirect GHG emissions that result from sourcing and transporting fresh water.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Install low-flow or high-efficiency fixtures that exceed state standards in any of the following: toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, clothes washers, and dishwashers.

Cost Considerations
Low-flow water fixtures tend to be slightly more expensive to purchase and install than less efficient models; however, these costs are almost immediately offset by large savings in water and energy consumption.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Install low-flow or high-efficiency water fixtures that perform better than the minimum efficiency standard established by ENERGY STAR, reducing the associated energy use and GHG emissions.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-4. Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures WATER | 317
GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = ∑ ( D1 × Ez × Fz-Gz
Fz ) or = ∑ (D1 × Hz)
(Water savings)
A2 =
A1
D1 or =
D1−D2
D1 (Percent emissions reduction)
B = A1 × I × (J + K) (Energy savings)
C = B × L × M × N (Emissions reduction)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Indoor water savings with low-flow
fixtures
[ ] AF calculated
A2 % reduction in indoor water, energy,
and GHG emissions with low-flow
fixtures
[ ] % calculated
B Energy savings with low-flow fixtures [ ] kWh calculated C GHG reduction with low-flow fixtures [ ] MT CO2e calculated User Inputs
D1 Existing indoor water use [ ] gal user input
D2 Mitigated indoor water use [ ] gal user input
(if known)
Hz % savings of water for end use z 1–100 % user input
(if known)
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
Ez % of indoor water used for end use z Table W-4.1
Table W-4.2
% Pacific Institute
2003 and Water
Research
Foundation 2016
Fz Current state standard water flow rate
for end use z
Table W-4.3
Table W-4.4
variable units EnergyStar
2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d
and CA Green
Building Code
Gz Reduced flow rate for end use z Table W-4.3
Table W-4.4
variable units EnergyStar
2021a, 2021b,
2021c, 2021d
and CA Green
Building Code
I Conversion from gal to AF 3.07x10-6 AF per gal conversion B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-4. Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures WATER | 318
ID Variable Value Unit Source
J Electricity for municipally provided
water
Table W-1.1 kWh per AF CPUC 2016
K Electricity required for wastewater
treatment following municipal use
418 kWh per AF CPUC 2016
L Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion M Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities 2021
N Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion z End use or type of fixture N/A - -
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (Ez) – For residential uses, the percentages of indoor water that is typically used for the most common end uses are shown in Table W-4.1 in Appendix C. For non-residential uses, the percentages of total and indoor water that is typically used for the most common end uses are shown in Table W-4.2 in Appendix C. To calculate the water savings for this measure relative to total or indoor use, the user should multiply the savings rate from a given fixture (e.g., kitchen faucet) by the percentage of water that is used in kitchen faucets for a typical residential or non-residential use. ▪ (Fz) – The current (2019) California Plumbing Code water use flow rates for common fixtures are provided in Table W-4.3 (for residential uses) and Table W-4.4 (for nonresidential uses) in Appendix C. The user can use a specific existing flow rate if the flow rate for the end use or fixture differs from the 2019 code. ▪ (Gz) – The reduced water use flow rate for common fixtures in provided in Table W-4.3 (for residential uses) and Table W-4.4 (for non-residential uses). These reduced rates assume implementation of voluntary measures from the 2019 California Green Building Code or EnergyStar certification, which goes beyond the current (2019) California Plumbing Code. The user can use a specific reduced flow rate if the flow rate for the end use or fixture differs from the rates shown in Tables W-4.3 or W-4.4. ▪ (Hz) – This variable is the percent water savings from using a fixture with improved water efficiency, relative to the existing rate for that fixture. If the user knows what the percent savings is for their fixtures, the equation above with variable Hz can be used. ▪ (J) – The water energy-intensity factors are derived from the most recent version of the CPUC Water Energy Calculator and are provided in Table W-1.1 in Appendix C (CPUC 2016). The energy intensity factors assume that all water is treated to potable standards and rely upon region-wide average values for DWR’s 10 hydrologic regions. ▪ (K) – For this measure, water conservation would affect indoor water consumption.

Because indoor water is sent to wastewater treatment plants, it is necessary to account for the energy that would be avoided at the wastewater treatment plant. The value of 418 kWh/AF is based on the CPUC Water Energy Calculator (CPUC 2016). ▪ (M) – GHG intensity factors for major utilities in California are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by the listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value, the user should replace these defaults in the electricity consumption GHG calculation formula.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-4. Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures WATER | 319
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions from water-related electricity by requiring low-flow fixtures. In this example, the project is a non-residential office use located in Central Coast hydrologic region with a total indoor water demand of 10 million gal per year (D1). The user is proposing to upgrade the toilets and bathroom faucets per the 2019 California Green Building Code Voluntary Measures. Accordingly, the following assumptions are obtained from Tables W-4.2 and W-4.4 in Appendix C:
▪ Percent of indoor water used for toilets (Ez) = 48 percent. ▪ Percent of indoor water used for bathroom faucets (Ez) = 3 percent. ▪ Current state standard water flow rate for toilets (Fz) = 1.28 gal per flush. ▪ Current state standard water flow rate for toilets (Fz) = 0.5 gal per minute. ▪ Reduced water flow rate for toilets (Fz) = 1.12 gal per flush. ▪ Reduced water flow rate for toilets (Fz) = 0.35 gal per minute.

The project is in the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region, the electricity provider is My Choice Energy (MCE), and the analysis year is 2026. The carbon intensity of electricity is therefore 184 lb CO2e per MWh (G).

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy savings (B) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

A1 = [(10×106gal × 48%(toilet) ×

1.28(toilet) − 1.12(toilet)

1.28(toilet)
) +
(10×106gal × 3%(bathroom faucet) ×

0.5(bathroom faucet) − 0.35(bathroom faucet)

0.5(bathroom faucet)
)]
= 690,000 gal
A2 =
690,000 gal
10×106 gal
= 7%
B = 690,000 gal × (3.07×10-6 AF
gal) × (695
kWh
AF + 418
kWh
AF ) = 2,358 kWh
C = 2,358 kWh × 0.001 MWh
kWh × 184
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb = 0.2 MT CO2e
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-4. Require Low-Flow Water Fixtures WATER | 320
Water Conservation
Water savings (A1) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

January 2021.
▪ EnergyStar. 2021b. Commercial Dishwashers Key Product Criteria. Available:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/commercial_food_service_equipment/commercial_dishwashers/ key_product_criteria. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ EnergyStar. 2021c. Commercial Kitchen Equipment Calculator. Available:
http://www.energystar.gov/buildings/sites/default/uploads/files/commercial_kitchen_equipment_calcu lator.xlsx. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ EnergyStar. 2021d. Dishwashers Key Product Criteria. Available:
https://www.energystar.gov/products/appliances/dishwashers/key_product_criteria. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ Pacific Institute. 2003. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water Conservation in California.

November. Available: https://pacinst.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/02/waste_not_want_not_full_report3.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.The Water Research Foundation. 2016. Residential End Uses of Water, Version 2. Available:
https://www.waterrf.org/research/projects/residential-end-uses-water-version-2. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 321
W-5. Design Water-Efficient Landscapes
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from outdoor
water use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Designing water-efficient landscapes
conserves water resources, which will
become more strained under climate
change. In addition, native landscaping can
help to support biodiversity and pollinators.

Health and Equity Considerations
Water-efficient landscaping can lower utility
costs for project residents, and reduce
pesticide and fertilizer run-off, which can
affect water quality.

Measure Description
This measure requires the use of landscapes that are water efficient, with lower water demands than required by the DWR 2015 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)
(California Code of Regulations [C.C.R.], Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 2.7). Designing water-efficient landscapes for a project site or throughout a community reduces water consumption and thus the corresponding energy and indirect GHG emissions that result from sourcing and transporting fresh water.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Relative to the maximum allowable water use under the MWELO, users can achieve water savings by reducing lawn sizes, planting vegetation with minimal water needs (e.g., California native species), choosing vegetation appropriate for the climate of the project site or community, or choosing complementary plants that have similar water needs or that can provide shade and/or water to each other.

Cost Considerations
Water-efficient landscapes save money not only through reduced requirements for irrigation, but also require fewer inputs like fertilizer and pesticides and less use of landscaping equipment.

Depending on the area of the landscape and the cost of designing it for water efficiency, these cost savings usually recoup the cost of installation and design.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure W-6 for increased outdoor water conservation and GHG reductions. Encourage application of biochar to improve soil quality and enhance carbon sequestration.

Incorporate low-impact development practices in the landscape and surrounding area.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-5. Design Water-Efficient Landscapes WATER | 322
GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = ( [(D × E) + ((1 − D) × F)] − (
G
H
× E)) × I × J (Water savings)
A2 = 1 − A1/[((D × E) + ((1 − D) × F)) × I ×J] (Percent emissions reduction) B = A1 × K × L (Energy savings)
C = B × M × N × O (Emissions reduction)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Outdoor water savings with water-efficient
landscapes
[ ] gal Calculated
A2 % reduction in outdoor water, energy &
GHG emissions with water-efficient
landscapes
[ ] % Calculated
B Energy savings with water-efficient
landscapes
[ ] kWh Calculated
C GHG reduction with water-efficient
landscapes
[ ] MT CO2e Calculated
User Inputs
D Evapotranspiration adjustment factor for
maximum allowable water use

0.55 or 0.45 unitless user input
E Landscape area [ ] sf user input
F Special landscape area [ ] sf user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
G Plant factor 0 to 1.0 unitless UC Davis
2021a
H Irrigation efficiency 0.75 or 0.81 unitless 23 C.C.R.

Appendix A
I Evapotranspiration rate [ ] Inches per
year
23 C.C.R.

Appendix A
J Conversion from acre-inches/acre to gal/sf 0.62 (gal per sf) per (acre-inch
per acre)
conversion
K Conversion from gal to AF 3.07x10-6 AF per gal conversion L Electricity for municipally provided water Table W-1.1 kWh per AF CPUC 2016 M Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per
kWh
conversion
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-5. Design Water-Efficient Landscapes WATER | 323
ID Variable Value Unit Source
N Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
O Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A1) – The methodology for calculating water reductions is based on the MWELO. It combines calculations for maximum allowable water use (known as MAWA per the MWELO) and estimated total water use (known as ETWU per the MWELO) into one formula for quantifying water savings.
▪ (D) – The evapotranspiration adjustment factor for maximum allowable water use is dependent on the project or land use type and is 0.55 for residential uses and 0.45 for non-residential uses.
▪ (F) – Special landscape area is an area of the landscape dedicated solely to edible plants, recreational areas, areas irrigated with recycled water, or water features using recycled water.
▪ (G) – In the calculation for water savings, the plant factor is the primary determinant of the magnitude of water savings. The plant factor should be taken from the University of California Davis’ Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) or other professional associations that are approved by DWR. The plant factor ranges from 0 to

0.1 for very low water plants; 0.1 to 0.3 for low water plants; from 0.4 to 0.6 for moderate water use plants; and from 0.7 to 1.0 for high water use plants. The water demands of a particular plant species can vary, depending on the region where the project is located. The region categorizations and plant factors can be found from the WUCOLS plant database (UC Davis 2021a, 2021b).
▪ (H) – The irrigation efficiency factor depends on the type of irrigation that will be used for the landscape and is 0.75 for spray head irrigation and 0.81 for drip irrigation. ▪ (I) – The evapotranspiration rate corresponding to the user’s location affects how much water savings are achieved. Users can look-up location-dependent evapotranspiration rates from Appendix A of the MWELO (23 C.C.R. Appendix A). ▪ (L) – The water energy-intensity factors are derived from the most recent version of the CPUC Water Energy Calculator and are provided in Table W-1.1 in Appendix C (CPUC 2016). The energy intensity factors rely on region-wide average values for DWR’s 10 hydrologic regions.
▪ (N) – GHG intensity factors for major utilities in California are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by the listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value, the user should replace these defaults in the electricity consumption GHG calculation formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-5. Design Water-Efficient Landscapes WATER | 324
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions from water-related electricity by requiring water efficient landscaping. In this example, the project is a residential use in Crescent City (North Coast hydrologic region). As a residential project, the evapotranspiration adjustment factor is

0.55 (D). Per MWELO, the evapotranspiration rate for Crescent City is 27.7 inches per year (I). The project includes a landscaped area of 1,500 sf (E), which will be landscaped with coyote mint (a low water use plant with plant factor equal to 0.1 [G]) and irrigated with a drip system (H). The project does not include special landscaping area (F). The electricity provider for the project area is PacificCorp, and the analysis year is 2022. The carbon intensity of electricity is, therefore, 1,228 lb CO2e per MWh (N).

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy savings (B) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

Water Conservation
Water savings (A1) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

Sources
▪ California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2016. Water-Energy Calculator–Draft Version 1.05.

January 2021.
▪ University of California, Davis (UC Davis). 2021b. WUCOLS IV Water Use Classification of Landscape Species. Regions. Available: https://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS/WUCOLS_IV_User_Manual/Regions/.

Accessed: January 2021.

A1 = ([(0.55 × 1,500 sf) + ((1 − 0.55) × 0 sf)]
− (

0.1 0.81 × 1,500 sf)) × 27.7 inchyr
× 0.62
(
gal
sf )
(
acre∙in
acre )
= 10,988
gal
yr
A2 = 1 − 10,988
gal
yr
/[((0.55 × 1,500 sf) + ((1 − 0.55) × 0 sf)) × 27.7 inch yr
× 0.62
gal
sf
acre∙inch
acre
] = 22%
B = 10,988
gal
yr
× (3.07×10-6 AF
gal) × 362
kWh
AF = 12
kWh
yr
C = 12
kWh
yr
× 0.001
MWh
kWh × 1,228
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb = 0.007
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 325
W-6. Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from outdoor
water use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Reducing turf conserves water resources,
which will become more strained under
climate change.

Health and Equity Considerations
Turf is often used for play. For residential or
school projects, include play opportunities,
build additional public parks nearby, and/or
increase access to existing parks or
playgrounds. However, turf often requires
use of fertilizer (which can be derived from
fossil fuels) and herbicides, both of which
can affect water quality, and the removal of
turf can reduce runoff effects.

Measure Description
This measure would remove or avoid turf grass. Turf grass (i.e., lawn grass) has relatively high-water needs compared to most other types of vegetation. Lowering landscaping water demands by reducing turf size would reduce water consumption and thus the corresponding energy and indirect GHG emissions that result from sourcing and transporting fresh water. Water agencies in California have instituted turf removal programs that provide rebates for residents who reduce the turf area at their homes.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Turf maintenance in landscape and lawns has always been significantly more expensive than a lawn filled with hardier species that are native to the region. As turf requires constant input to be maintained, the cost of transitioning turf to a more sustainable landscape is relatively inexpensive, and both a short- and longterm cost savings may be realized.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Additional GHG emissions savings may be achieved through reduced fertilizer use. The methods to calculate these reductions are not included in the quantification method.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-6. Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns WATER | 326
GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = D × E × F × G × H (Water savings)
A2 = F
I
(Percent emissions reduction)
B = A1 × J × K (Energy savings)
C = B × L × M × N (Emissions reduction)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 Outdoor water savings from turf
reduction
[ ] gal calculated
A2 % reduction in GHG emissions from
outdoor water use
[ ] % calculated
B Energy savings from turf reduction [ ] kWh calculated C GHG emissions reduction from turf
reduction
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
User Inputs
F Area of turf to be removed [ ] sf user input
I Total turf area [ ] sf user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Crop coefficient 0.6 or 0.8
(cool- or warmseason grasses)
unitless UC Davis
2021a,
2021b
E Evapotranspiration rate [ ] inches per year MWELO
G Conversion factor acre-inches/acre
to gal/sf

0.62 (gal per sf) per
(acre-inch per
acre)
conversion
H Days per year 365 days per year conversion
J Conversion from gal to AF 3.07x10-6 AF per gal conversion K Electricity required for municipally
provided water
Table W-1.1 kWh per AF CPUC 2016
L Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion M Carbon intensity of local electricity
provider
Tables E-4.3
and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
N Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-6. Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns WATER | 327
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (D) – The crop coefficient for turf grasses is represented by two values, one for coolseason grasses (0.6) and one for warm-season grasses (0.8). ▪ (E) – The evapotranspiration rate corresponding to the user’s location affects how much water savings are achieved. Users can look-up location-dependent evapotranspiration rates from Appendix A of the MWELO (23 CCR Appendix A). ▪ (H) – The water energy-intensity factors are derived from the most recent version of the CPUC Water Energy Calculator and are provided in Table W-1.1 in Appendix C (CPUC 2016). The energy intensity factors rely on region-wide average values for DWR’s 10 hydrologic regions.
▪ (M) – GHG intensity factors for major utilities in California are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by the listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value, the user should replace these defaults in the electricity consumption GHG calculation formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions from water-related electricity by reducing turf grass. In this example, the project is in Lancaster (South Coast hydrologic region), which has evapotranspiration rate of 44.2 inches per day (E). The project will remove 800 sf of turf (F) with warm-season grasses (D). The project’s entire turf area is 1,200 sf (I). The electricity provider for the project is Lancaster Choice Energy, and the analysis year is 2022. The carbon intensity of electricity is, therefore, 600 lb CO2e per MWh (M).

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Energy savings (B) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

A1 = 0.8 × 44.2
inch
yr
× 800 sf × 0.62
(
gal
sf )
acre∙inch
acre
= 17,539
gal
yr
A2 =
800 sf
1,200 sf = 67%
B = 17,539 gal × (3.07×10-6 AF
gal) × 1,898
kWh
AF = 102 kWh
C = 102 kWh × 0.001 MWh
kWh × 600
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb = 0.03 MT CO2e
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-6. Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns WATER | 328
Water Conservation
Water savings (A1) are derived in the steps above that are necessary to quantify GHG reductions.

Sources
▪ California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2016. Water-Energy Calculator–Draft Version 1.05.

Available: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nexus_calculator/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ University of California, Davis (UC Davis). 2021a. Turfgrass Crop Coefficients. Available:
https://ucanr.edu/sites/UrbanHort/Water_Use_of_Turfgrass_and_Landscape_Plant_Materials/Turfgras s_Crop_Coefficients_Kc/. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ University of California, Davis (UC Davis). 2021b. Water Requirements for Turfgrasses. Available:
https://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS/Water_Requirements_for_Turfgrasses/. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
WATER | 329
W-7. Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from water use
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Conserving water reduces the strain on
water resources, which is expected to
increase under climate change.

Health and Equity Considerations
Ensure strategy includes enough water for
outdoor use to maintain and enhance urban
tree canopy as much as possible. Water
conservation can also help to lower utility
costs for project residents.

Measure Description
This measure will establish a water conservation strategy to achieve a reduction in water consumption. The water reduction performance standard is flexible to the users’ needs, and in this measure is set as a percent reduction in water consumption relative to a reference condition (e.g., existing conditions, historic year).

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The strategy should clearly identify the actions that will be undertaken to achieve the performance standard. These actions could include any of the measures presented in this Handbook (Measures W-1 through W-6) or others developed by the user; for example, low-impact development practices to enhance onsite water infiltration and improve stormwater management.

Cost Considerations
A water conservation strategy is a low-cost way to encourage using less water and energy, which in turns saves money. Costs from developing and implementing the strategy are primarily related to staff time and document production. Costs and savings achieved by actions undertaken because of the strategy would vary depending on the action.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable
Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-7. Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy WATER | 330
GHG Reduction Formula
A = (B × C) × D × E × F × G
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from strategy [ ] MT CO2e calculated
User Inputs
B Water consumption for the reference year [ ] AF user input C Performance standard for conservation
strategy
[ ] % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Electricity required for municipally provided
water
Table W-1.1 kWh per AF CPUC 2016
E Conversion from kWh to MWh 0.001 MWh per kWh conversion F Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
G Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – Water consumption for the project or community for the reference year must be defined by the user.
▪ (C) – The percent reduction in water consumption relative to the reference condition. ▪ (D) – The water energy-intensity factors are derived from the most recent version of the CPUC Water Energy Calculator and are provided in Table W-1.1 in Appendix C (CPUC 2016). The energy intensity factors rely on region-wide average values for DWR’s 10 hydrologic regions.
▪ (F) – GHG intensity factors for major utilities in California are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by the listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value, the user should replace these defaults in the electricity consumption GHG calculation formula.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
W-7. Adopt a Water Conservation Strategy WATER | 331
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions by adopting and implementing a water conservation strategy. In this example, the performance standard for the strategy is a 10 percent reduction in existing (2020) water consumption by 2030. Existing water consumption is 1,000 AF, and the project is in the Sacramento River hydrologic region (D) and SMUD service territory. The carbon intensity of electricity is, therefore, 224 lb CO2e per MWh (F).

Quantified Co-Benefits
The co-benefits that are quantifiable (energy and fuel savings, water conservation) are calculated as part of the GHG reduction formula. The abbreviated formulas are also shown below.

Energy and Fuel Savings Formula
MWh
year
=(B × C) × D × E
Water Conservation Formula
AF
year
= B × C
Sources
▪ California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2016. Water-Energy Calculator–Draft Version 1.05. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nexus_calculator/. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021.

A = (1,000
AF
yr
× 10%) × 207
kWh
AF × 0.001
MWh
kWh × 224
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb = 2.11
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
LAWN AND LANDSCAPING | 332
Lawn and Landscaping
Landscaping equipment is the primary source
of direct GHG emissions in the lawn and
landscaping sector. Landscaping equipment
traditionally uses gasoline fuel and releases
emissions based on the amount of fuel
combusted and emission factor of the engine.

Equipment emissions can be reduced by
requiring use of zero-emission landscaping
equipment (including battery-powered and
corded electric equipment) over conventional
gasoline-fueled counterparts. The exclusive use
of grid electricity to power the equipment eliminates onsite gasoline emissions but increases indirect emissions from electricity generation. However, grid-based emissions are typically less than the emissions from the gasoline-fueled equipment (depending on the source of grid power).

Emissions reductions achieved by zero-emission equipment are determined by finding the difference in emissions between those generated by the replacement power source and those generated by conventional gasoline engines. Emissions for the mitigated scenario may consist of direct emissions from combustion fuel use, and/or indirect emissions from grid electricity.

Resources and methods to quantify emissions reductions from a measure requiring zero-emission landscaping equipment are described in this section.

Additional measures that can be undertaken to reduce emissions within the lawn and landscaping sector include ensuring electric yard equipment compatibility and implementing a yard equipment exchange program. Electric yard equipment compatibility is a supporting action for successful implementation of a measure that restricts gasoline landscaping equipment in favor of zeroemission equipment. A yard equipment exchange program would help facilitate community-scale equipment turnover and engine replacement. Please refer to the Supporting or Non-Quantified GHG Reduction Measures section at the end of Chapter 3 for additional information.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
LAWN AND LANDSCAPING | 333
LL-1. Replace Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment with
Zero-Emission Landscape Equipment
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from
landscaping equipment
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Replacing gas-powered landscape
equipment with zero-emission landscape
equipment can reduce sensitivity to fuel price
shocks or scarcity.

Health and Equity Considerations
Consider implementing programs to help
disadvantaged business enterprises convert
to electric equipment. Reduction or
replacement of gasoline-powered equipment
reduces localized air pollution.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of zero-emission landscaping
equipment over conventional gasoline-fueled counterparts.

Equipment types historically powered by gasoline engines covered by this measure include chainsaws, chippers, lawn mowers, leaf blowers/vacuums, riding mowers, tillers, and trimmers (CARB 2020). Replacing gasoline-powered equipment with zero-emission equipment reduces fossil fuel combustion and thus GHG
emissions. However, electric equipment results in GHG emissions from the electricity used to charge the equipment. The indirect GHG emissions increase from electricity must be calculated in addition to the GHG emissions reduction from displaced fossil fuel combustion to estimate the total net GHG emissions reduction achieved by this measure.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
For this measure to be successfully implemented, it is helpful for electrical outlets on the exterior of buildings to be accessible so that the corded electric landscaping equipment can be more easily used in different areas, and batteries can be charged if indoor charging is not available. Measure LL-3, Electric Yard Equipment Compatibility, in Table 3-2 should, therefore, be considered as a supporting action to this measure.

Cost Considerations
Although the environmental benefits of replacing gas powered landscape equipment are high, so too are the costs. Zeroemission equipment is usually more expensive than conventional gasoline-powered equipment. Once the equipment is purchased, however, there are long-term cost savings in avoided fuel inputs and maintenance.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Users may consider an exchange program to expand penetration of this measure, as outlined in Measure LL-2, Implement Yard Equipment Exchange Program, in Table 3-2.

Large
B3 Attach #1 of 3
LAWN AND LANDSCAPING | 334
LL-1. Replace Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment with ZeroEmission Landscape Equipment GHG Reduction Formula
A = [B × C × (D × E) × F1 × G] − [B × C × D × F2 × H]
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from using plug-in or battery
electric equipment
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
User Inputs
B Hours of equipment operation [ ] hours user input
F2 Carbon intensity of gasoline equipment [ ] g CO2e per hp-hour
CARB 2020
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Load factor of equipment Table LL-1.1 unitless CARB 2020 D Horsepower (hp) of equipment Table LL-1.1 hp CARB 2020 E Conversion from horsepower to MW 0.0007457 MW per hp conversion F1 Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
G Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion H Conversion from grams (g) to MT 1 ×10-6 MT per g conversion Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – The load factor is the average operational level of an engine as a fraction or percentage of the engine manufacturer’s maximum rated horsepower (hp). Average load factors of various landscaping equipment are provided in Table LL-1.1 in Appendix C, Emission Factors and Data Tables (CARB 2020). If the user can provide an equipment-specific load factor, they should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula.
▪ (D) – Average hp of various landscaping equipment are provided in Table LL-1.1 in Appendix C (CARB 2020). If the user can provide an equipment-specific hp, the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. ▪ (E) – Conversion factor assumes that energy requirements and losses are the same for both a fuel-powered engine and a piece of electric equipment. ▪ (F1) – GHG intensity factors for major California electricity providers are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Appendix C), the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, users may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.
▪ (F2) – GHG intensity factors for various landscaping equipment can be obtained from CARB’s (2020) SORE2020 model.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
LAWN AND LANDSCAPING | 335
LL-1. Replace Gas-Powered Landscape Equipment with ZeroEmission Landscape Equipment GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces lawn and landscaping emissions by replacing fossil fuel combustion with electricity consumption, which generates fewer GHG emissions per unit of activity. In this example, a 5-hp residential gasoline 4-stroke leaf blower (D) that is used 8 hours per day (B) is replaced by an electric-powered equivalent. The average load factor for a 5-hp leaf blower is 0.94 (C). The electricity provider for the project area is CleanPower SF and the analysis year is 2025. The carbon intensity of electricity is, therefore, 80 lb CO2e per MWh (F1).

Measure Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
Reducing gasoline combustion will also reduce local criteria pollutants. Emission savings can be calculated using the same formula used to quantify GHG reductions (A). Criteria pollutant intensity factors for various landscaping equipment can be obtained from CARB’s (2020) SORE2020 model.

Electricity supplied by statewide fossil-fueled or bioenergy power plants will generate criteria pollutants. However, because these power plants are located throughout the state, electricity consumption from equipment charging will not generate localized criteria pollutant emissions. Consequently, for the quantification of criteria pollutant emission reductions, either the electricity portion of the equation can be removed, or the electricity intensity (F1) can be set to zero.

Energy and Fuel Savings
Fossil fuel (gasoline) savings are a product of the equipment fuel efficiency (gal consumed per hour) and the equipment operating time (hours). Fuel intensity factors for various landscaping equipment can be obtained from CARB’s (2020) SORE2020 model . Users should multiply the fuel intensity by the equipment operating hours to quantify fuel savings. Increased electricity consumption is calculated as part of the GHG reduction formula. The abbreviated formula is also shown below.

MWh = [B × C × (D × E)]
Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. 2020 Emissions Model for Small Off-Road Engines— SORE2020. Version 1.1. September. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobilesource-emissions-inventory/msei-announcements. Database queried by Ramboll and provided electronically to ICF. September 2021.
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021.

A = (8
hours
day × 0.94 × [5 hp × 0.0007457 MWhp ] × 80
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb ) -
(8
hours
day × 0.94 × 5 hp × 635 g CO2e
hp-hour × 1e-6 MTg
) = -0.02
MT CO2e
day
B3 Attach #1 of 3
SOLID WASTE | 336
Solid Waste
CH4 emissions are generated through the
decomposition of organic waste disposed in a landfill.

CO2 is also generated as materials degrade, but these
emissions are considered part of the natural carbon
cycle of growth and decomposition. The transportation
of waste to a landfilling facility also generates
emissions from the combustion of fuel to operate the
waste-hauling vehicle. In some cases, organic
materials that are landfilled do not completely
decompose, allowing for biogenic carbon storage that
otherwise would not have occurred. In addition, landfills may capture some of the CH4 generated by organic materials and combust it to generate electricity, thereby avoiding emissions that otherwise would have been emitted to generate electricity (U.S. EPA 2020).

Emissions associated with landfilling can be avoided through the diversion of waste. Alternate waste management pathways include recycling and composting. ▪ Recycling is the separation and collection of wastes, their subsequent transformation or remanufacture into usable or marketable products or materials, and the purchase of products made from recyclable materials (U.S. EPA 2020). During recycling, emissions are generated from the transportation of waste to recycling facilities and the operation of machinery to process these materials into new, recycled products. Other emissions may be generated during the recycling process through the purification chemicals or agents. At the same time, recycling offsets emissions associated with the virgin production of materials. ▪ Composting involves bacterial decomposition of organic matter into compost. Emissions result from the transportation and processing of waste at the compost facility, as well as from the decomposition process. At the same time, compost application can help reduce the use of synthetic fertilizers and increase soil carbon storage.

The methodology used in this Handbook to quantify emission reductions from diverting waste from landfills is based on a lifecycle approach that accounts for upstream and downstream emissions associated with the waste management pathways with and without the measure. This is consistent with the methodology developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.

EPA) (2020). As a result, users are cautioned in how these reductions are compared to operational emissions inventories, which may not include lifecycle emissions. Additionally, the methodology assumes that all disposed waste will be diverted from the landfill. In reality, recycling and composting programs will likely only result in the diversion of a fraction of disposed waste. Users should consider this when calculating the benefits of
implementation of waste diversion programs.

Use the graphic to click on an individual measure to navigate directly to the measure’s factsheet.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
SOLID WASTE | 337
S-1. Institute or Extend Recycling Services
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from waste
management pathways
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Recycling can reduce upstream material
extraction and product manufacturing,
preserving resources and reducing
energy use.

Health and Equity Considerations
Any new recycling facilities should not be
constructed near vulnerable or underserved
communities.

Measure Description
This measure will institute or extend recycling services to reduce the volume of landfilled waste. Decomposition of certain types of landfilled waste produces CH4. Increasing waste diversion from landfills therefore reduces GHG emissions. The recycling process generates some emissions, but also reduces upstream emissions from the manufacturing and production of new raw materials and goods.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Expanding recycling services generates costs of collection, processing, and management of the materials to be recycled, and can include the construction of new facilities to process a certain type of material, or transportation for the materials to reach a plant that can accommodate them. However, expanded recycling also reduces costs associated with new material production, waste processing, landfill management, pollution control, and wastestream GHG emissions.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Waste reduction is as important, if not more so, as waste diversion. Work with building tenants to audit waste streams to identify opportunities for material reduction. For example, organizations may reduce single-use disposal at large events (e.g., concerts) and venues (e.g., stadiums) through partnerships with organizations that provide reusable cups and dishes.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
S-1. Institute or Extend Recycling Services SOLID WASTE | 338 GHG Reduction Formula
A = [E1 or E2] × D
BZ = A × FZ
C = Input BZinto U.S. EPA WARM
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Waste disposed by building type [ ] tons calculated
B Waste disposed by material type [ ] tons calculated
C GHG reduction from recycling vs. landfilling
waste
[ ] MT CO2e calculated using
U.S. EPA WARM
User Inputs
D Population [ ] resident or
employee
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E1 Annual residential waste disposal rates by
location
Table
S-1.1
tons per
resident
per year
CalRecycle
n.d.(a)
E2 Annual statewide non-residential waste disposal
rates by business type
Table
S-1.2
tons per
employee
per year
CalRecycle
n.d.(b)
F Percentage of material z in waste stream Table
S-1.3
% CalRecycle
n.d.(c), 2020
z Material type (e.g., glass) N/A - -
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – U.S. EPA’s (2020) Waste Reduction Model (WARM) calculates GHG emissions associated with various waste management practices, including recycling and landfilling. To estimate the GHG benefit of recycling over landfilling, users input the tonnage of waste by material type into the Tons Landfilled column under the “baseline” scenario. The user then inputs the tonnage of waste by material type into the Tons Recycled column under the “alternative management” scenario. If a material type cannot be recycled, the used should input the tonnage for that material into the Tons Landfilled column under the alternative management scenario. The model calculates emissions under the baseline and alternative management scenarios of manufacturing, transportation, and end-of-life landfilling or recycling of waste and shows the net GHG savings in MT CO2e.
▪ (E1) – Annual solid waste disposal rates for multi-family and single-family homes are provided in Table S-1.1 in Appendix C, Emission Factors and Data Tables. ▪ (E2) – Annual non-residential waste disposal rates by business type are provided in Table S-1.2 in Appendix C.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
S-1. Institute or Extend Recycling Services SOLID WASTE | 339 ▪ (F) – The composition of disposed waste by material type for residential and nonresidential buildings is provided in Table S-1.3 in Appendix C.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions by diverting waste from a landfill to a recycling center. In this example, the project is an Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation business with 100 employees (D).

The user inputs the tons of waste by material type (B) into U.S. EPA’s WARM in the Tons Landfilled column. The project will recycle all paper (Bpaper), glass (Bglass), and plastic (Bplastic), A = 1.94
tons
yr∙employee × 100 employees = 194
tons
yr
Bpaper = 194
tons
yr
× 21% = 40.7
tons
yr
Bglass = 194
tons
yr
× 3% = 5.8
tons
yr
Bmetals = 194
tons
yr
× 2% = 3.9
tons
yr
Bplastic = 194
tons
yr
× 14% = 27.2
tons
yr
Bfood = 194
tons
yr
× 34% = 66.0
tons
yr
Byard trimmings = 194
tons
yr
× 12% = 23.3
tons
yr
Bmixed organics = 194
tons
yr
× 6% = 11.6
tons
yr
Bcarpet = 194
tons
yr
× 1% = 1.9
tons
yr
Bconcrete = 194
tons
yr
× 2% = 3.9
tons
yr
Bdimensonal lumber = 194
tons
yr
× 1% = 1.9
tons
yr
Bfly ash = 194
tons
yr
× 1% = 1.9
tons
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
S-1. Institute or Extend Recycling Services SOLID WASTE | 340 which is assumed in the alternative management scenario. Based on WARM, the project would mitigate up to 202 MT CO2e by diverting its waste from a landfill to a recycling facility.

Quantified Co-Benefits
None.

Sources
▪ CalRecycle. n.d.(a) Residential Waste Stream by Material Type. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ResidentialStreams. Accessed: April 2021. ▪ CalRecycle. n.d.(b) Disposal and Diversions Rates for Business Groups. Available https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/BusinessGroupRates. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ CalRecycle. n.d.(c) Business Group Waste Stream Calculator. Available https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/BusinessGroupCalculator. Accessed:

January 2021.
▪ CalRecycle. 2020. 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. Available https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/Study. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Version 15.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/warm. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
SOLID WASTE | 341
S-2. Implement Organics Diversion Program
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from
management pathways
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Organics diversion programs can increase
the amount of compost produced, which can
go toward gardens and farms and help
improve food and crop production. Compost
can also help increase soil carbon storage,
which can in turn improve biodiversity and
groundwater storage.

Health and Equity Considerations
If possible, work with local food banks and
shelters to ensure that edible food goes to
people first.

Measure Description
This measure will implement an organics diversion program to reduce the volume of organic waste sent to landfills. An organics diversion program lowers the landfill disposal rate of food waste (both edible and non-edible), food soiled paper, yard waste, and non-hazardous wood waste. Decomposition of organic waste in landfills produces CH4. Increasing organic waste diversion from landfills thus reduces GHG emissions.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Waste management practices to support organics diversion may include construction and management of a composting facility (citywide scale), providing residential and business composting pickup services (citywide scale), community outreach (citywide scale and project scale), or providing clearly marked triple bin locations (waste, recycling, composting) (project scale).

Cost Considerations
Implementing organics diversion services, or utility scale composting, generates costs for collection, processing, and management of the materials to be composted, and can include the construction of new composting facilities or transportation for the materials to reach a plant that can accommodate them.

However, expanded composting also reduces costs associated with waste processing, landfill management, pollution control, and waste-stream greenhouse gas emissions. The resulting compost can also take the place of fertilizer, saving costs on land management inputs and increasing agricultural yields.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Diversion of edible food to food banks is another viable organics diversion program but is not specifically captured by the current quantitative method for this measure.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
S-2. Implement Organics Diversion Program SOLID WASTE | 342 GHG Reduction Formula
A = [E1 or E2] × D
BZ = A × FZ
C = Input BZinto U.S. EPA WARM
Composting can help reduce the use of nitrogen-based fertilizer, which results in GHG emissions during the manufacturing process (which involves use of natural gas) and release of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) during use. These emissions are not quantified as part of this measure’s methodology. Additional GHG reductions may be achieved if the diversion program reduces VMT and associated vehicle emissions. Refer to Quantified Co-Benefits below for further discussion.

GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Waste disposed by building type [ ] tons calculated
B Waste disposed by material type [ ] Tons calculated
C GHG reduction from recycling vs.
composting waste
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
using U.S.

EPA WARM
User Inputs
D Population [ ] resident or
employee
user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
E1 Annual residential waste disposal rates by
location
Table
S-1.1
tons per resident
per year
CalRecycle
n.d.(a)
E2 Annual statewide non-residential waste
disposal rates by business type
Table
S-1.2
tons per employee
per year
CalRecycle
n.d.(b)
F Percentage of material z in waste stream Table
S-1.3
% CalRecycle
n.d.(c), 2020
z Material type (e.g., glass) N/A - -
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (C) – U.S. EPA’s (2020) WARM calculates the GHG emission impacts associated with various waste management practices, including recycling and composting. To estimate the GHG benefit of composting over landfilling, users input the tonnage of organic waste by material type into the Tons Landfilled column under the “baseline” scenario.

The user then inputs the tonnage of organic waste by material type into the Tons Composted column under the “alternative management” scenario. The model calculates emissions under the baseline and alternative management scenarios of manufacturing, transportation and end-of-life landfilling, or diversion of organic waste and shows the net GHG savings in MT CO2e.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
S-2. Implement Organics Diversion Program SOLID WASTE | 343 ▪ (E1) – Annual solid waste disposal rates for multi-family and single-family homes are provided in Table S-1.1 in Appendix C.
▪ (E2) – Annual non-residential waste disposal rates by business type are provided in Table S-1.2 in Appendix C.
▪ (F) – The composition of disposed waste by material type for residential and nonresidential buildings is provided in Table S-1.3 in Appendix C.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions by diverting organic waste from a landfill. In this example, the project is an Arts, Entertainment, & Recreation business with 100 employees (D).

The user inputs the tons of waste by material type (B) into U.S. EPA’s WARM in the Tons Landfilled column. The project will compost all materials, which is assumed in the alternative management scenario. Based on WARM, this business can mitigate up to 40 MT CO2e by diverting waste from a landfill to compost facility.

Quantified Co-Benefits
VMT Reductions
Organics diversion programs may reduce waste transfer vehicle VMT if the compost facility is closer to the waste generation source than the landfill. The VMT reduction may be calculated using the following formula.

G = (H × I) − (J × K)
A = 1.94
tons
yr∙employee × 100 employees = 194
tons
yr
Bfood = 194
tons
yr
× 34% = 66.0
tons
yr
Byard trimmings = 194
tons
yr
× 12% = 23.3
tons
yr
Bmixed organics = 194
tons
yr
× 6% = 11.6
tons
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
S-2. Implement Organics Diversion Program SOLID WASTE | 344 VMT Reduction Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
G Reduction in waste transfer vehicle
VMT
[ ] miles/day calculated
User Inputs
H Daily waste transfer trips without
the organics diversion program
[ ] trips/day user input
I Waste transfer trip distance without
the organics diversion program
[ ] miles/trip user input
J Daily waste transfer trips under the
organics diversion program
[ ] trips/day user input
K Waste transfer trip distance under
the organics diversion program
[ ] miles/trip user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (H, J) – The user should take care to properly account for all vehicle trips directly affected by implementation of the measure. This value may be the same with and without the diversion program.
▪ (I, K) – The user should take care to properly account for the full trip distance of the waste transfer vehicle. Note that if the trip distance increases with implementation of the organics diversion program (i.e., K>I), this measure would result in a VMT increase.

Users may translate VMT reductions (or increases) (G) to GHG emissions using emission factors from CARB’s (2021) EMFAC model. Users should multiply the VMT reductions (or increases) by the appropriate vehicle emission factors. If the organics diversion program also reduces (or increases) the number of vehicle trips (i.e., J<H or J>H), users should quantify the resulting changes in process emissions using EMFAC.

Improved Air Quality
Composting can produce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in and around the composting site. This may result in worsened regional air quality.

Increases in VOC emissions may be offset if the organics diversion program reduces waste transfer vehicle VMT. Users may translate VMT reductions (or increases) (G) to criteria pollutant emissions using emission factors from CARB’s (2021) EMFAC model. Users should multiply the VMT reductions (or increases) by the appropriate vehicle emission factors. If the organics diversion program also reduces (or increases) the number of vehicle trips (i.e., J<H or J>H), users should quantify the resulting changes in process emissions using EMFAC.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
S-2. Implement Organics Diversion Program SOLID WASTE | 345 Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. EMFAC. Available: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/.

Accessed: September 2021.
▪ CalRecycle. n.d.(a) Residential Waste Stream by Material Type. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/ResidentialStreams. Accessed: April 2021. ▪ CalRecycle. n.d.(b) Disposal and Diversions Rates for Business Groups. Available https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/BusinessGroupRates. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ CalRecycle. n.d.(c) Business Group Waste Stream Calculator. Available https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/BusinessGroupCalculator. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ CalRecycle. 2020. 2018 Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California. Available https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/Study. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Version 15.

Available https://www.epa.gov/warm. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 346
Natural and Working Lands
Natural and working lands may be a GHG sink or
source of GHG emissions. For example, trees and
other vegetation incorporate carbon into their
biomass during their growth phase and thereby
can remove a finite amount of carbon from the
atmosphere. Carbon can also be stored in soils.

These types of natural lands are considered GHG
sinks. Other types of lands, on the other hand,
such as certain types of agriculture and animal
operations, can emit GHGs from a variety of
sources and activities.

Measures within the natural and working lands sector aim to either enhance the sequestration capacity of the land or reduce the intensity of emissions from GHG sources. A project can increase the area available for vegetation by converting previously developed land into vegetated open space. Conversions from one type of vegetated land to another may increase or decrease carbon sequestration, depending on the relative sequestration capacities of the land types.

Additional ways to increase sequestration may include planting new trees on either developed or undeveloped land. GHG emission from working lands can be reduced through climate-smart farming practices, some of which may increase below- and above-ground carbon storage.

Methods to quantify GHG reductions from natural and working lands measures are inherently complex given the dynamic variables that influence GHG emissions. These methods do not lend to a simplified quantification approach that can be presented in a few pages. Therefore, it is advised users rely on existing tools to quantify GHG reductions as referenced in this section. Additional measures that can be undertaken to reduce emissions within the natural and working lands sector include establishing a local farmer’s market or community garden. Please refer to Supporting or NonQuantified GHG Reduction Measures for additional information on these measures.

Use the below graphic to click on an individual measure to navigate directly to the measure’s factsheet.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 347
N-1. Create New Vegetated Open Space
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from vegetated
open spaces
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Creating new vegetated open spaces can
reduce the urban heat island effect, mitigate
flooding, and improve water quality, as well
as provide recreational spaces that improve
health and community resilience. Vegetated
open space can also provide wildlife habitat
and corridors for wildlife migration in the face
of increasing temperatures and changing
precipitation patterns.

Health and Equity Considerations
Prioritize open space creation in
communities that have the lowest level of
access to parks, gardens, and open spaces.

Measure Description
This measure would convert previously developed areas to vegetated open spaces. By creating new vegetated areas from previously settled land, the project would sequester CO2 that would not have been captured without the land conversion. Trees and other vegetation also incorporate carbon into their biomass during their growth phase (stored carbon).

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Implementation must involve conversion of cleared areas to vegetated open spaces. This measure does not give any GHG reduction for the preservation of existing lands.

Cost Considerations
Upfront costs of creating more green spaces will depend on how the land is currently being used and how much construction is required to make it suitable. However, vegetated open spaces can achieve cost savings from improved storm water management, and can also reduce the incidence and cost of heat exposure and pollution-related illnesses.

Expanded Mitigation Options
A best practice for creating new open spaces is to ensure the habitat type(s) are native or will thrive in the local climate.

Varies
Photo Credit: Doug Donaldson, March 2017
B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-1. Create New Vegetated Open Space NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 348 GHG Reduction Formula
RePlan
Users are directed to the California Strategic Growth Council’s (2021) RePlan: Regional Conservation and Development Planning Tool (RePlan). RePlan provides an estimate of total stored carbon throughout California. The tool was developed using CARB’s Natural and Working Lands (NWL) inventory method. Users can identify total stored carbon across five geographic scales: statewide, ecoregion, county, watershed, and user-drawn polygon for a specific area. Based on the scale selected, RePlan returns the metric tons (equivalent to megagrams, as used by RePlan) of stored carbon per hectare (ha). The carbon storage value is representative of current conditions, per CARB’s inventory and the analysis conducted by the Strategic Growth Council. The result is not an annual accumulation value or sequestration rate.

Users converting previously developed areas to vegetated open spaces can use RePlan to obtain estimated total ecosystem carbon storage on parcels within the same general area of the project that contain similar land cover types. RePlan can also be used to estimate existing stored carbon (if any) on the project site that will be converted to the new land cover type. Existing stored carbon on the project site should be subtracted from the estimated carbon storage of the future land use type.

Alternative Quantification Method
RePlan integrates the latest planning and environmental data to support robust quantification of carbon storage throughout the state. The tool is aligned with California’s conservation, resource management, and development objectives. While RePlan is recommended as the primary quantification tool for this measure, users may consult the below equation and method to generate a high-level estimate of stored soil carbon plus above and belowground biomass carbon pools, which can serve as an estimate of total CO2 stored.

A = [(BC × CC) + (BS × CS × D)] × E
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A CO2 benefit from new land cover type (soil
and above and belowground carbon storage)
[ ] MT CO2e per year
(over accumulation
period)
calculated
User Inputs
BC Hectare (Ha) of land-by-land cover type [ ] ha user input BS Ha of land by soil type [ ] ha user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
CC Annual above and belowground biomass
carbon accumulation by land cover type
Table
N-1.1
MT carbon per ha
per year
CARB
2021a
CS Annual soil carbon accumulation by soil
type and land use type
Table
N-1.2
MT carbon per ha
per year
CARB
2020a
B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-1. Create New Vegetated Open Space NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 349 ID Variable Value Unit Source
D Soil carbon gain from conversion from
settlements to vegetated land
30 % CARB
2020a
E Molecular weight ratio of CO2 to carbon 44/12 MT CO2 to MT carbon
assumed
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – If the existing land use type currently generates CO2e or includes soil carbon plus above or belowground stored carbon, those emissions should be added or removed, respectively, from the CO2e reduction quantified under this measure. ▪ (BC) – The land cover types are based on those defined in CARB’s NWL inventory. ▪ (BS) – The soil types and land use types are based on those defined in CARB’s Benefits Calculator Tool for Agricultural Lands Conservation (CARB 2020a). The soil type for the project area can be obtained from UC Davis’ SoilWeb (UC Davis n.d.). CARB’s Agricultural Lands Conservation Easement Quantification Methodology provides detailed instructions for using this tool (CARB 2020b). ▪ (CC) – Average annual above or belowground stored carbon accumulation rates per ha of land cover type and air basin are provided in Table N-1.1 in Appendix C, Emissions Factors and Data Tables. These rates include above and belowground carbon storage in biomass pools. They were developed by CARB (2021a) from their NWL inventory.

The rates have been annualized over the following accumulation periods. - Forest = 60 years. This is the median project duration under the California Climate Investments Forest Health Quantification Method for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Forest Health Program. The median project duration represents one stand rotation, which is the typical time to harvest (CARB 2021b). - Grasslands = 20 years. This represents the typical amount of time for restored grasslands on former agricultural sites to accumulate the same amount of biomass carbon as native grasslands (Matamala et al. 2008).
- Shrublands = 35 years. This rate represents the average frequency of wildfires in Southern California Chaparral systems (Luo et al. 2007). ▪ (CS) – Average annual soil carbon accumulation rates per ha of land use type are provided in Table N-1.2 in Appendix C (CARB 2020a). The rates have been annualized over a 20- year accumulation period, consistent with IPCC’s (2006) GHG inventory framework.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None. If the existing land use cover currently includes stored carbon, and that value exceeds that of the new land cover type, this measure may result in a GHG emissions increase.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-1. Create New Vegetated Open Space NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 350 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions by converting 20 ha of developed area to Broadleaf Forest (BC) with a Spodosols (BS) soil type. The project is in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin where the resulting annual average above and belowground biomass carbon accumulation per ha is 1.69 MT (CC). The annual average carbon stock per ha is 5.89 MT (CS). The resulting CO2e reduction is 254 MT per year.

Quantified Co-Benefits
None quantified. Depending on the land cover type created, successful implementation of this measure could achieve improved air quality, improved public health, and improved ecosystem health.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020a. Benefits Calculator Tool for Agricultural Lands Conservation. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/alc_tool_final_202

0.xlsx. Accessed: March 2021.
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020b. Agricultural Lands Conservation Easement Quantification Methodology. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/alc_qm_final_202

0.pdf. Accessed: March 2021.
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021a. Carbon Accumulation Values for Major Cover Types for Each California Air Basin. Database provided to ICF in March 2021. ▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021b. Quantification Methodology Forest Restoration & Management California Climate Investments. March. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/Draft%20FRM%20 FY20-21%20QM.pdf. Accessed: March 2021.
▪ California Strategic Growth Council. 2021. RePlan: Regional Conservation and Development Planning Tool. Available: https://replan-tool.org/#. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Chapter 4, Forest Land. Available: https://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_04_Ch4_Forest_Land.pdf. Accessed: March 2021 ▪ Luo, H., W. Oechel, S. Hastings, R. Zulueta, Y. Qia., and H. Kwon. Mature Semiarid Chaparral Ecosystems can be a Significant Sink for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01299.x. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ Matamala, R., J. Jastrow, R. Miller, R. and C. Garten. 2008. Temporal Changes in C and N Stocks of Restored Prairie: Implications for C Sequestration Strategies. September. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1609.1. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ University of California, Davis (UC Davis). n.d. SoilWeb: An Online Soil Survey Browser. Available:
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/. Accessed: March 2021.

A= [(20 ha × 1.69
MT carbon
ha∙yr ) + (20 ha × 5.89
MT carbon
ha∙yr × 30%)] ×
44 12
MT CO2
MT carbon = 254
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 351
N-2. Expand Urban Tree Planting
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from urban tree
planting
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Planting trees provides more shade,
reducing the urban heat island effect and
localized health impacts of higher
temperatures. Trees can also help to
improve stormwater management and air
quality and support mental health and social
resilience.

Health and Equity Considerations
Tree planting should be prioritized in areas
that have lower levels of existing canopy.

Tree-planting programs should be designed
in collaboration with residents. This ensures
not only that community preferences are
considered, but that the community feels
ownership over the trees and is more likely
to participate in long-term tree care. Trees
should be selected according to local
preferences, such as avoiding high-pollen
trees that may exacerbate allergies.

Measure Description
This measure requires tree planting in urban areas. Planting trees sequesters CO2 while the trees are actively growing, thereby reducing GHGs. The amount of CO2 sequestered depends on the type of tree and the duration of the active growing period. Urban trees may also provide shade, which can reduce the urban heat island effect and building cooling demands. Buildings that use less electricity for air conditioning reduce energy consumption and associated indirect GHG emission.

Given many parts of California are in dry climates, the selection of tree type is critical to minimize the use of additional water. Trees that have high water demands that are met through GHGintensive water (such as water transported over long distances) can impact the amount of GHG reductions achieved by this measure.

Nonetheless, even during times of drought, trees help to provide multiple benefits to communities, and state agencies as well as natural resource organizations have emphasized repeatedly the importance of watering and maintaining trees during droughts.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Upfront costs of planting more urban trees will depend on how the land is currently being used and how much maintenance and assistance in growing the trees will need to be successful.

However, urban trees can reduce the incidence and cost of heat exposure and pollution-related illnesses by reducing the urban heat island effect and filtering pollutants from the air and soil.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Best practices for urban tree planting programs include selecting native tree species that require minimal water and maintenance, planting low-biogenic VOC emitting and low-allergen trees, and appropriately distancing trees from buildings, especially in high fire areas.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-2. Expand Urban Tree Planting NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 352 GHG Reduction Formula
Users are directed to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) (2021) i-Tree Planting tool. The i-Tree Planting tool quantifies increased carbon sequestration from urban tree planting using species-based biomass equations that account for user defined site-specific variables and tree growth rates. The tool also quantifies GHG reductions from energy savings (e.g., kWh), if applicable.

While simplified quantification methods for increased carbon sequestration resulting from urban tree planting have been used in the past, this Handbook does not recommend their application given the number and dynamic nature of variables that can influence the amount of CO2 reduced. Tools like i-Tree Planting comprehensively account for these variables, enabling users easily to calculate the approximate benefits from individual trees.

The i-Tree Planting tool is available at: https://planting.itreetools.org/.

Depending on the scale of the project, users may also wish to consult other i-Tree tools, including i-Tree Design (https://design.itreetools.org/), i-Tree Canopy (https://canopy.itreetools.org/), and i-Tree County (https://county.itreetools.org/). Users may consult the Climate Action Reserves’ Urban Tree Planting Project Protocol (CAR 2014) or CARB’s Quantification Methodology for Urban and Community Forestry Program (CARB 2020).

GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A CO2 sequestered over project lifetime [ ] lb CO2 calculated B CO2 reduced from building energy savings
over project lifetime
[ ] lb CO2 calculated
User Inputs
C Project state/province [ ] address user input
D Project county/division [ ] Text user input
E Project city [ ] Text user input
F Project lifetime 1–99 Years user input
G Tree mortality over project lifetime 0–100 % user input H Tree species planted by the project [ ] species name user input* I Diameter breast height of each tree [ ] Inches user input* J Distance to the nearest building [ ] Feet user input* K Direction of tree from the building [ ] degrees user input* L Building vintage [ ] Text user input*
M Building climate controls [ ] Text user input*
N Tree condition [ ] Text user input*
O Tree exposure to sunlight [ ] Text user input*
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
Q Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Table E-4.3 Table E-4.4
lb CO2e per
MWh
CA Utilities
2021
R Carbon intensity of natural gas 117 lb CO2e per
MMBtu
TCR 2020
* Inputs provided through a drop-down menu.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-2. Expand Urban Tree Planting NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 353 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A and B) – The GHG reductions are presented over the project lifetime. If users are seeking an annualized value, they will need to divide this result by the assumed project lifetime (F).
▪ (F) – Trees sequester CO2 while the trees are actively growing. The i-Tree Planting tool will project the benefits for up to 99 years into the future. The tool defaults to 40 years. ▪ (G) – The i-Tree Planting tool will incorporate tree mortality into the projected benefits. ▪ (I) – The diameter of the trunk measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. ▪ (J) – For trees that will be planted to shade buildings, enter the distance class to the nearest building (0–19 feet, 20–39 feet, 40–59 feet, > 60 feet). Note that this could be a building on an adjacent site. The i-Tree tool will not calculate shade benefits (i.e., energy savings) for trees more than 60 feet away from the building. ▪ (K) – General direction of the tree from the building (e.g., north 0 degrees). This input can be ignored if the tree is more than 60 feet from the building. ▪ (L) – The age of the building affects its energy efficiency and therefore the potential benefits the trees can bring. Available inputs are built after 1980, built 1950–1980, and built before 1950. If the specific age of the building in unknown, the user can input the typical age of buildings for the area where the user is working. This input can be ignored if the tree is more than 60 feet from the building. ▪ (M) – Trees can only have an impact on energy use in buildings where energy is used to heat or cool. Available inputs are heating and air conditioning (A/C), heat only, A/C only, and none. If the climate controls of the building are unknown, the user can input the option that is most common for the area where the user is working. This input can be ignored if the tree is more than 60 feet from the building. ▪ (N) – The condition of the trees will affect how well they grow and thus future benefits.

Available inputs are excellent, good, fair, poor, critical, dying, and dead. New plantings are likely to be excellent.
▪ (O) – The exposure to sunlight affects both how the trees grow and the degree to which a new tree adds shade to a building. Available inputs are full sun, partial shade, and full shade.
▪ (Q) – GHG intensity factors for major California utilities are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for a future year not referenced in Tables E-4.3 or E-4.4), the user should use that specific value. If the electricity provider is not known, the user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity or rely on the i-Tree Planting default. ▪ (R) – The carbon intensity of natural gas was calculated in terms of CO2e by multiplying the U.S. natural gas combustion emission factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O (TCR 2020) by the corresponding 100-year GWP values from the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC 2007). See Table E-4.5 in Appendix C for more natural gas emission factors.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-2. Expand Urban Tree Planting NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 354 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces emissions by planting shade trees at a new home site. In this example, the project is in the City of Sacramento (E)/Sacramento County (D)/California (C). The electricity provider for the project area is SMUD, and the analysis year is 2022. The carbon intensity of electricity is, therefore, 344 lb CO2e per megawatt-hour (Q). The project lifetime is 40 years (F) and expected tree morality 10 percent (G). The project will plant two (P) live oaks (H) with a diameter breast height of 4 inches (I). The trees are 0 to 19 feet from the nearest building (J) and oriented east 90 degrees (K). The building was built between 1950 and 1980 (L) and includes heat and A/C (M). The tree condition is excellent (N) and has full sunlight (O). Based on these inputs to the i-Tree Planting tool, over the project lifetime, the trees would sequester 16,045 lb of CO2 and reduce 6,787 lb of CO2 from building energy savings. This totals 22,832 pounds of CO2, or 571 pounds CO2 per year (based on 40- year project lifetime).

Quantified Co-Benefits
The i-Tree tool outputs electricity savings (kWh), fuel savings (MMBtu), avoided runoff (gallons), and criteria pollutant emissions reductions (pounds). All values are over the project lifetime. Note that depending on user inputs, the measure may result in increased fuel consumption (MMBtu) from building shading in the winter.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. Quantification Methodology for Urban and Community Forestry Program. California Climate Investments. Version 2.0. January. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/calfire_ucf_finalq m_012820.pdf?_ga=2.67722641.1011230202.1624305360-1883459709.1621467679.

Accessed: June 2021.
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ Climate Action Reserve. 2014. Urban Tree Planting Project Protocol. Version 2.0 June. Available:
https://www.climateactionreserve.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Urban_Tree_Planting_Project_Protocol_V2.0.pdf. Accessed: June 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ The Climate Registry (TCR). 2020. 2020 Default Emission Factor Document. April. Available:
https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-Climate-Registry-2020-DefaultEmission-Factor-Document.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2021. i-Tree Planting Calculator. Available: https://planting.itreetools.org/.

Accessed: January 201.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 355
N-3. Implement Management Practices to Improve the
Health and Function of Natural and Working Lands
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from natural and
working lands
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Improving the health and function of natural
and working islands can reduce the urban
heat island effect and flooding and improve
water quality, as well as provide recreational
spaces that improve health and community
resilience. Improving natural and working
lands can also provide habitat in which
wildlife can live and through which it can
migrate in the face of increasing temperatures
and changing precipitation patterns.

Health and Equity Considerations
Some management practices can reduce
the use of pesticides and herbicides, which
can reduce exposure to farmworkers and
their families.

Measure Description
This measure covers a broad range of management strategies aimed at improving the overall health and functionality of natural and working lands as a mechanism for increasing carbon
sequestration and reducing GHG emissions. Management
practices may include those that change ecosystem carbon exchange rates (e.g., cultivated land soil conservation, use of biochar) and those that involve land cover changes.

Scale of Application
Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Note that this measure is only applicable to users with land management authority.

Cost Considerations
Overall, improved land management reduces net expenses
drastically. Practices designed for maximum land health reduce costs related to inputs, irrigation, and damage from extreme weather, and preserve ecosystems and animal life.

Expanded Mitigation Options
See the GHG Reduction Formula section below for online tools to quantify GHG reductions from various conservation practices and management strategies. For agricultural applications, consider developing a Carbon Farm Plan to comprehensively evaluate all elements of your land management strategy.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 356
N-3. Implement Management Practices to Improve the Health and Function of Natural and Working Lands
GHG Reduction Formula
Users are directed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (2021) COMET-Planner Tool (COMET-Planner) and USFS (2021) Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). COMET-Planner is a California-specific tool that was developed for the California Department of Food and Agriculture Heathy Soils Program. COMET-Planner should be used to quantify GHG reductions from conservation practices on cropland, orchard and vineyards, and grazing land. The FVS should be used to quantify GHG reductions from forest management.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces emissions by implementing grazing management to improve irrigated pasture conditions. The user consults COMET-Planner to quantify the estimated reductions.

The project is in Napa County. The user selects “Grazing” for the agricultural system, “Prescribed Grazing” for the conservation practice standard, and “Grazing Management to Improve Irrigated Pasture Condition” for the conservation practice implementation. The practice would be applied to 25 acres. Based on these inputs, the user will reduce GHG emissions by 2 MT CO2e per year (USDA 2021).

Quantified Co-Benefits
None quantified. Depending on the management strategy, successful implementation of this measure could achieve improved air quality, water conservation, improved public health, and improved ecosystem health.

Sources
▪ U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. COMET-Planner. Available: http://www.comet-plannercdfahsp.com/. Accessed: March 2021. ▪ U.S. Forest Service Forest (USFS). 2021. Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). Available:
https://www.fs.fed.us/fvs/index.shtml. Accessed: March 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 357
N-4. Require Best Management Practices for Manure
Management
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from manure
management practices
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Improving manure management can
improve water and air quality, thereby
improving community health and resilience.

Depending on the alternative management
practice, it can also increase the amount of
compost produced, which can go toward
gardens and farms and help improve soil
health as well as food and crop production.

Health and Equity Considerations
Fertilizer and manure are major causes of
groundwater contamination in California,
especially in the Central Valley. Improved
manure management can help to improve
water quality for rural and vulnerable
communities.

Measure Description
This measure will require best management practices for the management of manure from livestock. Well-managed pasture systems and aerobic dry composting systems tend to have lower emissions, while anaerobic wet handling systems generate more CH4. This measure is thus intended for manure collection systems that are currently managed by anaerobic decomposition of manure volatile solids stored in a lagoon or other predominantly liquid anaerobic environment. Utilizing alternative practices to manage manure results in reduced agriculture emissions from livestock by decreasing the amount of volatile manure solids that are stored in wet, anaerobic conditions.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Emission reductions can only be quantified for projects with existing manure management practices that include the anaerobic decomposition of manure volatile solids stored in a lagoon or other predominantly liquid anaerobic environment.

Cost Considerations
Incorporating best practices for manure management may entail initial costs to build the related storage and processing ability.

Cost savings come in the form of reduced need for inputs like fertilizer if the manure is used on site and avoided water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Expanded Mitigation Options
See the GHG Reduction Formula section below for tools to quantify GHG reductions from various alternative manure management practices.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-4. Require Best Management Practices for Manure Management NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 358 GHG Reduction Formula
Users are directed to CARB’s (2021) Benefits Calculator Tool for the Alternative Manure Management Program (AMMP tool). The AMMP tool quantifies GHG reductions from livestock manure management based on user-entered parameters, including the livestock type, number of cattle, the type of existing manure collection system, and the user’s chosen alternative type of manure collection system. The AMMP tool is only applicable to users who have existing manure management practices that include the anaerobic decomposition of manure volatile solids stored in a lagoon or other predominantly liquid anaerobic environment.

The user can choose from many alternative manure management practices, such as pasture-based management, and various methods of solid separation and scrape conversion. The tool also quantifies GHG reductions from energy savings (e.g., MWh, diesel fuel gallons), if applicable.

Because of the wide range of manure management practices, which corresponds to GHG calculations that have many user-entered variables that influence the amount of GHGs reduced, this Handbook recommends that users use the AMMP tool directly. Tools like AMMP comprehensively account for these variables, enabling users easily to calculate the approximate benefits that each manure management practice will achieve.

GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHGs reduced from alternative manure management [ ] MT CO2e calculated User Inputs
B Project county [ ] text user input
C Type of alternative manure management practice to
be adopted
[ ] text user input
D Existing livestock by category [ ] text & number
of livestock
user input
E Existing manure collection practices [ ] text user input F Existing number of months livestock spend at pasture 0–12 months user input G Existing solid-separation and secondary solid
separation
[ ] text user input
H Existing storage/treatment practice for separated
solids
[ ] text user input
I Specification of milk produced, if applicable [ ] % user input J Existing electricity consumption from manure
management activities
[ ] MWh per
year
user input
K Existing diesel fuel consumption from manure
management activities
[ ] gallons per
year
user input
L Alternative number of months livestock spend at
pasture
0–12 months user input
B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-4. Require Best Management Practices for Manure Management NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 359 ID Variable Value Unit Source
M Alternative solid-separation and secondary solid
separation
[ ] text user input
N Estimated alternative electricity consumption from
alternative manure management activities
[ ] MWh per
year
user input
O Estimated alternative diesel fuel consumption from
alternative manure management activities
[ ] gallons per
year
user input
P List of stationary and mobile sources associated with manure management activities
[ ] text user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – The GHG reductions achieved by the implementation of alternative manure management practices are calculated by the AMMP tool. On the GHG Summary tab of the AMMP tool, the GHG reduction is given for a 5-year period. Thus, if the user would like to know the annual number of reductions, that value can be found on the For Technical Reviewers tab of the tool, or by simply dividing the 5-year reduction by 5.

For more information on the inputs for the AMMP tool, users should refer to the AMMP tool user guide, which provides technical details on the input parameters of the tool (CARB 2019).

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user’s livestock operation in Sonoma County (B) currently has 400 lactating dairy cows in freestalls, 100 dry cows, and 100 grazing heifers (D). The current manure management technique has a flush system for freestalls and milking parlors (E), and all cattle are at pasture for 9 months per year (F, L). There is no solid separation currently, and this will not change for the alternative practices (G, H, M). The current energy consumption is 200 MWh per year of electricity (J) and 600 gallons per year of diesel fuel (K). The average milk production is 55 lbs per day per cow, with 3.75 percent milk fat, 3 percent true protein, and 4.9 percent lactose (I). The alternative manure management practice will involve the installation of a new compost bedded pack barn (C). With the alternative manure management practices, electricity consumption will be reduced to 150 MWh per year (N), and diesel consumption will increase to 1,200 gallons per year (O). Based on these inputs, the user will reduce GHG emissions by 2,720 MT CO2e for five years, or 544 MT CO2e per year. This example is taken from the AMMP tool user guide (CARB 2019).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
N-4. Require Best Management Practices for Manure Management NATURAL AND WORKING LANDS | 360 Quantified Co-Benefits
The AMMP tool calculates criteria pollutant reductions (lb), fuel savings (gallons of diesel), and soil health benefits (tons of compost production). All values are over a 5- year project life.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2019. User Guide–California Department of Food and Agriculture Alternative Manure Management Program. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/cdfa_ammp_final userguide_2-8-19.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. CCI Quantification, Benefits, and Reporting Materials.

Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/cci-quantification-benefits-and-reportingmaterials. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
CONSTRUCTION | 361
C
Construction
Equipment and vehicles are the primary sources
of GHG emissions in the construction sector.

Construction equipment typically operates on
construction sites and includes off-road sources
like cranes, bulldozers, forklifts, and tractors.

Vehicles are used for personnel, material, and
equipment transport, as well as onsite material
supply movement. Construction equipment and
vehicles traditionally use diesel or gasoline fuel
and release emissions based on the amount of
fuel combusted and the emission certification
level of the engine.

Equipment and vehicle emissions can be reduced by using engines that emit fewer pollutants for the same amount of work. This is typically equipment and vehicles powered by electricity or cleaner fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas, renewable diesel). The exclusive use of grid electricity by electric equipment and vehicles eliminates the diesel emissions at the site but increases indirect electricity emissions. However, grid-based emissions are typically less than the emissions from the diesel-fueled equipment (depending on the source of grid power). Hybrid-powered equipment and vehicles would decrease but not eliminate fuel use. The electricity for hybrid engines is selfgenerated, so it would not increase grid-based electrical generation and the associated emissions unless the equipment has plug-in capability. Likewise, depending on the fuel type, cleaner-fuel equipment and vehicles would decrease but not eliminate combustion emissions.

Emissions reductions achieved by electric-powered and cleaner-fuel equipment and vehicles are determined by finding the difference in emissions between those generated by the replacement power source and those generated by conventional fossil-fueled engines. Emissions for the mitigated scenario may consist of direct emissions from combustion fuel use, and/or indirect emissions from grid electricity. Resources and methods to quantify emissions reductions from measures that target cleaner-fuel equipment are described in this section. Measures that reduce vehicle fuel consumption through idling restrictions and local contractor provisions are also discussed. Use the below graphic to click on an individual measure to navigate directly to the measure’s factsheet.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
CONSTRUCTION | 362
C-1-A. Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially large reduction in
GHG emissions from
construction equipment
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using electric- or hybrid-powered equipment
can reduce sensitivity to fuel price shocks or
scarcity. However, using all-electric equipment
may decrease resilience if they are the only
option available during a power outage.

Health and Equity Considerations
This measure will not only reduce air
pollution for surrounding communities but
also for onsite workers.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of electric- or hybrid-powered construction equipment over conventional diesel-fueled counterparts. Replacing diesel-powered equipment with electric or hybrid-electric equipment reduces fossil fuel combustion and thus GHG emissions. However, all-electric equipment results in GHG emissions from the electricity used to charge the equipment. The indirect GHG emissions increase from electricity must be calculated in addition to the GHG emissions reduction from displaced fossil fuel combustion to estimate the total net GHG emissions reduction achieved by this measure if using allelectric equipment. A variation of this measure is described in Measure C-1-B, Use Cleaner-Fuel Equipment.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Note that while this measure discusses offroad equipment used for construction, this measure can also be implemented for other offroad equipment applications (e.g., agriculture, industrial).

Cost Considerations
Electric- or hybrid-powered equipment tends to be more expensive to purchase and install than conventional models powered by fossil fuels. These costs may be offset by savings in fuel use and maintenance.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure E-10, Procure Electricity from Lower Carbon Intensity Power Supply, to ensure that the energy supplied to power the electrified equipment has a lower carbon intensity than the local grid, thereby further reducing GHG emissions. Consider using portable batteries to support and extend implementation of this measure at more remote sites.

Large
Photo Credit: Granite Construction, March 2019
B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-1-A. Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment CONSTRUCTION | 363 GHG Reduction Formula
A1 = (C × D × F × G1 × H) − (C × D × G2 × I)
A2 = C × D × E × G2 × I
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A1 GHG reduction from using electric equipment [ ] MT CO2e calculated A2 GHG reduction from using hybrid equipment [ ] MT CO2e calculated User Inputs
B Fuel type of existing equipment [ ] text user input
C Hours of equipment operation [ ] hours user input
G2 Carbon intensity of fossil-fueled equipment [ ] g CO2e per hphour
CARB 2021
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Horsepower of equipment Table C-1-B.1 hp CARB 2021
E Percent fuel reduction of hybrid equipment
compared to conventional equipment
10 % Holian and
Pyeon 2017
F Conversion from horsepower to MW 0.0007457 MW per hp conversion G1 Carbon intensity of local electricity provider Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4
lb CO2e
per MWh
CA Utilities
2021
H Conversion from lb to MT 0.000454 MT per lb conversion I Conversion from g to MT 1 e-6 MT per g conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The fuel type of the existing equipment is used to obtain the carbon intensity of the equipment (G2) from OFFROAD.
▪ (D) – Average hp of various construction equipment are provided in Table C-1-B.1 in Appendix C, Emission Factors and Data Tables (CARB 2021). If the user can provide an equipment-specific hp, they should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. ▪ (E) – The percent fuel reduction is used in this formula as a proxy for the percent activity reduction that would be expected with hybrid construction equipment. Based on a survey of 12 models of heavy construction equipment from 10 different manufacturers, hybrid construction equipment reduced fuel use by 10 to 45 percent, with an average of 28 percent (Holian and Pyeon 2017). To be conservative, the low end of the range is cited. If the user can provide an equipment-specific hp, the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. If the user knows the make and model of the construction equipment used, the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-1-A. Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment CONSTRUCTION | 364 ▪ (F) – Conversion factor assumes that energy requirements and losses are the same for both a fuel-powered engine and an electrically-charged engine. ▪ (G1) – GHG intensity factors for major California utilities are provided in Tables E-4.3 and E-4.4 in Appendix C. If the project study area is not serviced by a listed electricity provider, or the user is able to provide a project-specific value (i.e., for the future year not referenced in Appendix C), the user should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula. If the electricity provider is not known, the user may elect to use the statewide grid average carbon intensity.
▪ (G2) – GHG intensity factors for various construction equipment can be obtained from CARB’s (2021) OFFROAD model. Note that the OFFROAD emissions rates are inclusive of equipment load. Therefore, the GHG reduction equation does not include a multiplier for load factor.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces construction equipment emissions by replacing fossil fuel combustion with electricity consumption, which generates fewer GHG emissions per unit of activity. In this example, a 158-hp diesel excavator (D) that is used 8 hours per day (C) is replaced by an electric-powered equivalent. A 158-hp excavator has a carbon intensity of 530 g CO2e per hp-hour (G2). The electricity provider for the project area is Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and the analysis year is 2025. The carbon intensity of electricity is, therefore, 5 lb CO2e per megawatt-hour (G1).

Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
Reducing fossil-fuel combustion will also reduce local criteria pollutants. Emission savings can be calculated using the same formula used to quantify GHG reductions (A1 and A2). Criteria pollutant intensity factors for various construction equipment can be obtained from CARB’s (2021) OFFROAD model.

Consequently, for the quantification of criteria pollutant emission reductions, either A1 = (8
hours
day × 158 hp × 0.0007457 MWhp × 5
lb CO2e
MWh × 0.000454
MT
lb )
− (8
hours
day × 158 hp × 530
g CO2e
hp-hour × 1e-6 MTg
) = -0.7
MT CO2e
day
B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-1-A. Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment CONSTRUCTION | 365 the electricity portion of the equation can be removed, or the electricity intensity (G2) can be set to zero.

Energy and Fuel Savings
Fossil fuel savings are a product of the equipment fuel efficiency (gallons consumed per hour) and the equipment operating time (hours). Fuel intensity factors for various construction equipment can be obtained from CARB’s OFFROAD model.

Users should multiply the fuel intensity by the equipment operating hours to quantify fuel savings.

Increased electricity consumption for electric equipment is calculated as part of the GHG reduction formula (A1). The abbreviated formula is also shown below.

MWh = C × D × F
Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. OFFROAD2017–ORION. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Database queried by Ramboll and provided electronically to ICF. September 2021.
▪ California Utilities. 2021. Excel database of GHG emission factors for delivered electricity, provided to the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and ICF. January through March 2021. ▪ Holian, M., and J. Pyeon. 2017. Analyzing the Potential of Hybrid and Electric Off-Road Equipment in Reducing Carbon Emissions from Construction Industries. Mineta Transportation Institute. September.

Available: https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/1533-analyzing-the-potential-of-hybrid-andelectric-off-road-equipment-in-reducing-carbon-emissions-from-construction-industries-researchbrief.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
CONSTRUCTION | 366
C-1-B. Use Cleaner-Fuel Equipment
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from
construction equipment
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Using cleaner fuel equipment allows for fuel
redundancy and can reduce sensitivity to
price shocks or scarcity in conventional fuels.

Health and Equity Considerations
While most alternative fuels reduce both
GHG and criteria pollutants, a few may
increase criteria pollutant emissions. The
most prominent example of this is biodiesel,
which generally results in higher NOx
emissions, but lower PM emissions
compared to conventional diesel.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of cleaner-fueled construction equipment over conventional diesel- or gasoline-fueled
counterparts. Depending on the fuel type, equipment type, and horsepower, equipment may emit fewer GHG for the same
amount of work as equivalent diesel- or gasoline-fueled engines.

A variation of this measure is described in Measure C-1-A, Use Electric or Hybrid Powered Equipment. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is specifically addressed in the quantification method for this measure, although users could expand to cover additional fuel types, such as renewable diesel.

Cost Considerations
Equipment powered by cleaner-fuels tend to be more expensive to purchase and install than less clean models. These costs may be offset by savings in fuel use and maintenance.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Other cleaner fuels available for use in construction equipment include renewable diesel, biodiesel, and hydrogen fuel cells. These fuels are not specifically captured by the current quantitative method for this measure.

Small
Photo Credit: TruckPR, April 2017
B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-1-B. Use Cleaner-Fuel Equipment CONSTRUCTION | 367
GHG Reduction Formula
A = ((C × D × E2) − (C × D × E1)) × F
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from using cleaner-fuel
equipment
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
User Inputs
B Fuel types of existing and cleaner-fuel
equipment
[ ] text user input
C Hours of equipment operation [ ] hours user input
E1 Carbon intensity of existing equipment [ ] g CO2e per hp-hour CARB 2021 E2 Carbon intensity of cleaner-fuel equipment [ ] g CO2e per hp-hour CARB 2021 Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Horsepower of equipment (diesel,
gasoline, and CNG equipment)
Table
C-1-B.1
hp CARB 2021
F Conversion from g to MT 1 e
-6 MT per g conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – Depending on the fuel type, equipment type, and horsepower, the cleaner-fuel equipment may emit more GHGs than an equivalent gasoline- or diesel-fueled engine.

The user should take care to consider the potential criteria pollutant co-benefits against possible GHG increases from the use of a cleaner fuel.
▪ (B) – The fuel type of the existing and cleaner-fuel equipment is used to obtain the carbon intensity of the equipment (E1 and E2) from CARB’s (2021) OFFROAD. ▪ (D) – Average hp of various construction equipment are provided in Table C-1-B.1 in Appendix C (CARB 2021). If the user can provide an equipment-specific hp, they should replace the default in the GHG calculation formula.
▪ (E1 and E2) – GHG intensity factors for various construction equipment by fuel type can be obtained from CARB’s (2021) OFFROAD model. Note that the OFFROAD emissions rates are inclusive of equipment load. Therefore, the GHG reduction equation does not include a multiplier for load factor.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None. If the emissions rate for the cleaner-fuel equipment exceeds that of the diesel- or gasoline-powered counterpart, this measure may result in a GHG emissions increase.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-1-B. Use Cleaner-Fuel Equipment CONSTRUCTION | 368
Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces construction equipment emissions by replacing gasoline or diesel combustion with CNG or renewable diesel consumption, which may generate fewer GHG emissions per unit of activity, depending on the piece of equipment and horsepower. In this example, a fleet of 23-hp diesel aerial lifts (D) that are used 40 hours per day (C) in 2022 is replaced by CNG-fueled equivalents. A 23-hp diesel aerial lift has a carbon intensity of 851g CO2e per hp-hour (E1). The CNG-fueled equivalent has a hp of 19 and carbon intensity of 675g CO2e per hp-hour (E2).

A = ((40
hours
day × 19 hp × 675 g CO2ehp-hour)
− (40
hours
day × 23 hp × 851
g CO2e
hp-hour)) × 1e-6 MTg
= -0.3
MT CO2e
day
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
Depending on the fuel type, equipment type, and horsepower, the cleaner-fuel equipment may emit more criteria pollutants than an equivalent gasoline- or dieselfueled engine. Emission changes can be calculated using the same formula used to quantify GHG reductions (A). The carbon intensity factors (E1 and E2) should be replaced in the formula with the corresponding criteria pollutant intensity factors, which can be obtained from CARB’s OFFROAD model.

Energy and Fuel Savings
This measure would displace use of fossil fuel (gasoline or diesel) with a cleaner fuel type (CNG). Total fuel consumption is a product of the equipment fuel efficiency (gallons consumed per hour) and the equipment operating time (hours). Fuel intensity factors for various construction equipment can be obtained from CARB’s OFFROAD model. Users should multiply the fuel intensity factor by the equipment operating hours to quantify fuel changes for the existing and cleaner-fuel equipment.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. OFFROAD2017–ORION. Available:
https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory. Database queried by Ramboll and provided electronically to ICF. September 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
CONSTRUCTION | 369
C-2. Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling
GHG Mitigation Potential
Potentially small reduction in
GHG emissions from
construction vehicles
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Limiting vehicle idling saves fuels and can
reduce sensitivity to price shocks or fuel
scarcity.

Health and Equity Considerations
This measure will not only reduce air
pollution for surrounding communities but
also for onsite workers.

Measure Description
This measure limits heavy-duty vehicle idling beyond current regulatory restrictions. The Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling prohibits dieselfueled commercial motor vehicles of more than 10,000 pounds from idling the vehicle's primary engine for 5 minutes at a single location (13 CCR Section 2485). There are some exceptions to the regulation, such as positioning or providing a power source for equipment or operations, such as lift, crane, pump, drill, hoist, or other auxiliary equipment. Reduction in idling time beyond the regulation would further reduce fuel consumption and thus emissions. Reducing idling benefits the health of construction workers as well as nearby residents and workers.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
The construction site manager should develop an enforceable mechanism that monitors the idling time to ensure compliance with this measure. Note that while this measure discusses heavyduty vehicles used for construction, this measure can also be implemented for other vehicle applications (e.g., agriculture, industrial).

Cost Considerations
There are no initial costs associated with this measure. Restricting vehicle idling time beyond regulation will reduce fuel consumption, leading to long-term cost savings.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure T-30, Use Cleaner-Fuel Vehicles, to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels combusted during idling.

Small
B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-2. Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling CONSTRUCTION | 370 GHG Reduction Formula
A = (B − D) × C × E × F × G × H
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from idling limit [ ] MT CO2e calculated User Inputs
B Idle restriction with measure
implementation
[ ] minutes/period user input
C Vehicle trips [ ] trips user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Idle limit without the measure 5 minutes/period 13 CCR Section 2485
E Idle periods per trip 2 period/trip assumption
F Vehicle idling emission factor [ ] g/idle hours CARB 2021 G Conversion from minutes to hour 0.0167 hours per minute conversion H Conversion from g to MT 1 e
-6 MT per g conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (A) – Emissions reductions are quantified per vehicle idling period. Daily emissions reductions can be quantified if the number of idling periods per day is known. ▪ (B) – The measure-imposed idle restriction must exceed the idle limit without the measure (D).
▪ (C) – Idle restrictions are imposed on vehicles idling at a single location. Vehicles may make multiple trips to that location or make trips to different locations but still be subject to the idling limit. Users should define the number of trips the vehicle will make for the analysis period (e.g., per day, per year).
▪ (D) – The Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling limits diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling time to 5 minutes at a single location, with exceptions for some vehicles with auxiliary equipment powered by the primary engine. The user should determine the appropriate idling limit without the measure for such exempted vehicles.
▪ (E) – The quantification method assumes the vehicle will idle twice per trip at a single location: once during vehicle shutdown from the inbound trip and once during vehicle warmup for the outbound trip. Users should apply a different factor if the number of idle periods per trip is known.
▪ (F) – GHG intensity factors for diesel-fueled heavy vehicle idling can be obtained from CARB’s (2021) EMFAC model.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-2. Limit Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle Idling CONSTRUCTION | 371 GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces vehicle idling emissions by enforcing an idling period of 3 minutes (B). In this example, a heavy-duty truck is regulated under the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. The idling limit without the measure is therefore 5 minutes at a single location (D). The vehicle has a gross vehicle weight of 35,000 pounds and will operate at a construction site in Los Angeles County in 2023. The vehicle will make 10 trips to the construction site per day (C). The idling carbon intensity is 6,375 g CO2e per idle hour (F).

A = (3
idle min
period − 5
idle min
period ) × 10
trips
day × 2
period
trip × 6,375
g
idle∙hr
× 0.0167
hr
min × 1e-6 MTg
= <-0.1
MT CO2e
day
Quantified Co-Benefits
Improved Air Quality
Reducing fossil-fuel combustion from idling restrictions will also reduce local criteria pollutants. The reduction in criteria pollutant emissions can be calculated using the GHG reduction formula, where (F) represents the criteria pollutant intensity factors obtained from CARB’s (2021) EMFAC model.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. EMFAC. Available: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/.

Accessed: September 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
CONSTRUCTION | 372
C-3. Use Local Construction Contractors
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions from construction
worker vehicles
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Reducing worker commute trip lengths saves
fuels and can reduce sensitivity to price
shocks or fuel scarcity.

Health and Equity Considerations
Refer to Measure IEP-1, Local Labor and
Apprenticeships (Construction), in Chapter 5.

Measure Description
This measure requires use of local construction contractors.

Contracting construction work with a local company reduces VMT associated with construction employee commute distances and, therefore, reduces emissions from vehicle fuel combustion. Local hire provisions may cover the entire workforce or a percentage of the workforce based on the project size or employment type.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
Local hiring requirements should be expressed in the contractor bid specifications. Note that this measure is specific to local hire provisions for employees reporting to the construction site.

Measure C-4, Use Local and Sustainable Building Materials, requires use of local building materials, which can reduce VMT and emissions from vendor and delivery trips.

Cost Considerations
Local and skilled workforce provisions can promote economic development, channeling some of the economic value of
development directly to the community in which it is building.

Decreased worker commute times and fuel savings may generate additional discretionary funds. Reduced car use may decrease the need for infrastructure spending on road maintenance.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Local workforce provisions may increase the likelihood of employee commute trips by transit, walking, or biking. Potential GHG reductions from mode shift are not reflected in the quantification methodology. Partner with local transit agencies to provide discounted transit passes to further incentivize alternative transportation.

Consider additional provisions for workforce training to bolster development of skilled trades and further economic growth.

Requirements may include workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program
approved by the State of California or who have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the appliable craft or are registered in an apprenticeship training program.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-3. Use Local Construction Contractors CONSTRUCTION | 373 GHG Reduction Formula
A = (B − D) × C × E × F × G
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from using local
construction contractors
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
User Inputs
B Distance provision of local hiring
requirement
[ ] miles/one-way trip user input
C Number of employees [ ] employees user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Countywide average one-way employee
commute trip distance
Table
C-3.1
miles/one-way trip 2015
CSTMD
E Employee trips per day 2 trips per employee assumption F Vehicle emission factor [ ] g CO2e per mile CARB 2021 G Conversion from g to MT 1 e
-6 MT per g conversion
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The local hire provision should specify the maximum average one-way travel distance for contracted staff.
▪ (C) – The number of employees required to report to the construction site and subject to the provision must be provided by the user.
▪ (D) – The average countywide vehicle trip lengths from the 2015 California Statewide Travel Demand Model (CSTDM) are provided in Table C-3.1 in Appendix C. The data are for home-based-work trips by traffic analysis zone averaged to the county level. ▪ (E) – The quantification method assumes all employees will make both an inbound and outbound trip per day.
▪ (F) – Users should obtain the carbon intensity of employee commute vehicles from CARB’s (2021) EMFAC model. Employee commute vehicles are generally classified as light-duty automobiles (LDA) and trucks (light-duty truck class 1 [LDT1] and 2 [LDT2]).

Users may obtain a weighted carbon intensity of these vehicle types using a 25/50/25 percent mix of LDA, LDT1, and LDT2, respectively. Alternatively, users may apply different weightings of vehicle fleet mixes if project-specific information is available.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
(B<D). For implementation of this measure to result in a GHG reduction, the maximum average allowable travel distance must be less than the average countywide vehicle trip length assumed in the calculation.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
C-3. Use Local Construction Contractors CONSTRUCTION | 374 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces employee commute emissions by requiring all contracted employees to be located within a certain distance of a construction project. In this example, the construction project requires 100 employees per day (C) and is in Alameda County, where the average countywide home-based-work vehicle trip length from the 2015 CSTDM is 11.98 miles (D).

The contractor agreement requires all staff reporting to the construction site to reside no more than 10 miles from the project (B). The weighted average carbon intensity for employee commute vehicles in Alameda County for the analysis year from EMFAC is 281 grams per mile (F).

A = (10
miles
trip − 11.98
miles
trip ) × 100
employees
day × 2
trips
employee
× 281
g CO2e
mi × 1e-6 MT
g
= 0.1
MT CO2e
day
Quantified Co-Benefits
VMT Reductions
Contracting construction work with a local company reduces construction employee commute VMT. The reduction in VMT can be calculated using the GHG reduction formula with the exception that (F and G) should be replaced with a value of 1 or otherwise be removed from the equation.

Energy and Fuel Savings
This measure will achieve vehicle fuel savings by reducing employee commute VMT.

Total fuel consumption is a product of the vehicle fuel efficiency (gallons consumed per mile) and miles traveled. Fuel intensity factors can be obtained from CARB’s (2021) EMFAC model. Users should multiply the vehicle fuel intensity factor by the VMT reduction (see above) to quantify fuel savings.

Improved Air Quality
Reducing fossil-fuel combustion from a local hire provision will also reduce local criteria pollutants. The reduction in criteria pollutant emissions can be calculated using the GHG reduction formula, where (F) represents the criteria pollutant intensity factors obtained from CARB’s (2021) EMFAC model.

Sources
▪ California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. EMFAC. Available: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/.

Accessed: September 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 375
Refrigerants
Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for
cooling and heating purposes. Most of the
refrigerants used today are HFCs or blends
thereof. HFCs are the third generation of synthetic
fluorinated chemicals and were used to replace
ozone depleting refrigerants. However, HFCs are
potent GHGs that often have high GWP values.

Different types of refrigeration equipment are used
by different types of land uses. For example, an
office may use various types of A/C equipment,
while a supermarket may use both A/C
equipment and refrigeration equipment.

All equipment that uses refrigerants has a charge size (i.e., quantity of refrigerant the equipment contains), and an operational refrigerant leak rate, and each refrigerant has a GWP that is specific to that refrigerant. The GWPs of common refrigerants are presented in Table R-1.1 in Appendix C, Emissions Factors and Data Tables. For purposes of calculating refrigerant emissions in this Handbook, the equipment charge sizes and leak rates have been determined for relevant land use and equipment types. This information is presented in Tables R-1.2 through R-1.5 in Appendix C.

Emissions from equipment can be reduced by decreasing the charge size and/or leak rate, or replacing the baseline refrigerant with a lower GWP refrigerant. The quantification method for all refrigerant measures, except Measure R-7, address emissions generated during equipment operation. Measure R-7 reduces emissions from the disposal of refrigeration and A/C equipment at the end of its lifetime. The quantification approach for Measure R-7 includes lifecycle considerations (i.e., downstream emissions) and, as a result, emission reductions from this measure should not be compared to the emission reductions calculated for other refrigeration measures in this Handbook, which do not include lifecycle emissions.

Use the graphic to click on an
individual measure to navigate
directly to the measure’s
factsheet.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 376
R-1. Use Alternative Refrigerants Instead of High-GWP
Refrigerants
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to a 100% reduction
in GHG emissions during
operation
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Climate resilience benefits vary by
alternative refrigerant; for example, use of
NH3 can reduce energy consumption,
thereby reducing the strain on the overall
grid, particularly the risk of power outages
during peak loads. Reduced energy
consumption would also reduce energy
costs, particularly if extreme heat would
otherwise increase these costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Evaluate the entire lifecycle impact of
alternative refrigerants and avoid those that
will degrade into persistent chemicals
harmful to the environment. Equipment
should be installed in locations with
adequate space and/or ventilation in
accordance with U.S. EPA and CARB
recommendations.

Measure Description
This measure replaces high-GWP refrigerants with lower-GWP refrigerants (e.g., natural refrigerants such as CO2, ammonia [NH3], and hydrocarbons, or next generation low-GWP synthetic refrigerants like hydrofluoroolefin-1234yf) in refrigeration and A/C equipment. When emitted into the atmosphere, high-GWP
refrigerants (e.g., HFCs) absorb significantly more heat than CO2 on a mass basis, resulting in larger global warming effects.

Shifting to lower-GWP refrigerants reduces the potency of refrigerant leaks, decreasing GHG emissions on a CO2e basis.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Implementation may require retrofitting existing equipment or purchasing new equipment, which may result in high initial capital costs. Alternative refrigerants, if synthetic and patented, may cost more than conventional refrigerants. Natural, non-patented refrigerants may cost less. Costs differences are expected to decrease over time with increased availability and
commercialization of alternative refrigerants. Savings may also be achieved through increased energy efficiency of a refrigerant system using an alternative refrigerant.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Evaluate the entire lifecycle impact of alternative refrigerants and avoid those that will degrade into persistent chemicals harmful to the environment so as to improve local air quality, public health, and ecosystem health. Ensure that Clean Air Act and other regulations are followed during refrigerant disposal.
100%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-1. Use Alternative Refrigerants Instead of High-GWP Refrigerants REFRIGERANTS | 377 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
(B × C × G) − (D × E × F)
(D × E × F)
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from
refrigerant emissions
0–100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Total alternative refrigerant charge size [ ] kg user input C Annual leak rate of equipment with
alternative refrigerant
[ ] % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D HFC refrigerant charge size Tables R-1.2
through R-1.5
kg U.S. EPA 2016
E Annual leak rate of equipment with HFC
refrigerant
Tables R-1.2
through R-1.5
% U.S. EPA 2016
F GWP of HFC refrigerant Table R-1.1 unitless IPCC 2007 G GWP of alternative refrigerant Table R-1.1 unitless IPCC 2007 and WMO 2018
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B, D) – The equipment charge size is the total quantity of refrigerant installed in the refrigeration or A/C equipment. The charge size may be the same for equipment using HFC and alternative refrigerants, or it may differ. Default charge sizes for equipment with HFC refrigerants are provided in Tables R.1-2 through R-1.5 in Appendix C. If the user can provide a project-specific value, they should replace the default quantity of refrigerant installed in the GHG reduction formula. Charge size for alternative refrigerants would vary by equipment type. In the case where the alternative charge size is not known, the corresponding HFC refrigerant charge size may be used as a substitute. ▪ (C, E) – Based on industry data, the average annual leak rates for the given equipment type, including operational and servicing leak rates for the equipment throughout the year. The leak rate may be the same for equipment using HFC and alternative refrigerants, or it may differ. Default leak rates for equipment with HFC refrigerants are provided in Tables R.1-2 through R-1.5 in Appendix C. These are average values and may vary with specific systems. Leak rates for alternative refrigerants would vary by equipment type. In the case where the alternative leak rate is not known, the corresponding HFC refrigerant leak rate may be used as a substitute. ▪ (F, G) – The GWP measures the contribution to global warming from the release of one unit of the given refrigerant relative to CO2 on a 100-year time horizon. The GWPs of common refrigerants and alternatives are provided in Table R-1.1 in Appendix C.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-1. Use Alternative Refrigerants Instead of High-GWP Refrigerants REFRIGERANTS | 378 GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
This measure has a maximum GHG emissions reduction of 100 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces high-GWP emissions by replacing a high-GWP refrigerant with a lowerGWP refrigerant alternative. In this example, a 60,000-sf supermarket has a conventional direct expansion system with 1,360 kg (D) of R-404A and a total leak rate of 33 percent (E).

The supermarket also has A/C equipment with 13 kg (D) of R-410A and a total leak rate of 8 percent (E). The GWPs of R-404A and R-410A are 3,922 and 2,088 (F), respectively. The user replaces R-404A with R-448, a refrigerant with a GWP of 1,387 (G), and R-410A with R407C, a refrigerant with a GWP of 1,774 (G). The charge sizes and leak rates for the alternative equipment would be the same as the high-GWP counterpart. Note that the A/C refrigerant transition from R-410A to R-407C is included for illustrative purposes and that this transition in supermarkets is not currently happening in practice. This would reduce GHG emissions from the refrigeration and A/C systems at the supermarket by 65 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Depending on system type and refrigerant selected, successful implementation of this measure could result in energy savings or energy penalties (U.S. EPA 2019).

This co-benefit cannot be quantified for the purposes of this general methodology.

Sources
▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. Accounting Tool to Support Federal Reporting of Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions: Supporting Documentation. October 2016. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/hfc_emissions_accounting_tool_supporting_documentation.pdf. Accessed: May 2021. ▪ World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2018. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project. Report No. 58, 5886 pp., Geneva, Switzerland.

A =
((1,360 kg × 33% × 1,387)+(13 kg × 8% × 1,774)) − ((1,360 kg × 33% × 3,922)+(13kg × 8% × 2,088)) ((1,360 kg × 33% × 3,922)+(13 kg × 8% × 2,088))
= -65%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 379
R-2. Install Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Supermarket
Systems in Place of Direct Expansion Systems
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to a 100% reduction in
GHG emissions during
operation
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Increased energy efficiency in refrigeration
systems can reduce the strain on the overall
grid, particularly the risk of power outages
during peak loads. Increased efficiency can
also reduce energy costs, particularly if
extreme heat would otherwise increase
these costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Non-applicable
Measure Description
This measure replaces conventional direct expansion systems in supermarkets with indirect systems such as secondary loop and cascade systems. Currently, direct expansion systems are the most used refrigeration system type in supermarkets in the U.S. (U.S.

EPA 2016). Whereas direct expansion systems circulate one refrigerant from the machinery room out to the store and back to the machinery room, indirect systems employ a primary and secondary refrigerant or heat transfer fluid (U.S. EPA 2016, 2019).

In secondary loop systems, the primary refrigerant remains in the machine room and cools the secondary fluid, which is then pumped throughout the store to cool products. Another type of indirect system is a cascade system, which contains two refrigeration systems that share a common heat exchanger. These systems often use HFCs, NH3, or hydrocarbons as the primary refrigerant. Often water mixed with glycol is used as the secondary heat transfer fluid in secondary loop systems; CO2 is often used as the second refrigerant in cascades. By either confining HFCs to the machinery room as the primary refrigerant or removing HFCs entirely (as in NH3 and hydrocarbon systems), these systems require significantly lower refrigerant charge and have lower leak rates than conventional direct expansion systems (U.S. EPA 2013a, 2019). Decreasing the refrigerant charge and leak rates results in a reduction of potential direct GHG emissions.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
While both secondary loop and cascade supermarket systems have a higher initial cost over traditional systems, minimized costs associated with rechanging systems due to reduced leakage and energy efficiency improvements may provide a net cost savings over the lifetime of the systems.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure R-1, Use Alternative Refrigerants Instead of High-GWP Refrigerants, for increased GHG reductions in
supermarket refrigerant systems.
100%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 380
R-2. Install Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Supermarket Systems in Place of Direct Expansion Systems
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
[(B × F × H)+(C × F × I)] − (D × E × G)
D × E × G
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from refrigerant
emissions
0–100 % calculated
User Inputs
B Equipment charge size of secondary loop and/or
cascade system
[ ] kg user input
C Equipment charge size of secondary refrigerant in
secondary loop and/or cascade system
[ ] kg user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
D Equipment charge size of conventional direct
expansion system
1,633 kg U.S. EPA
2013a
E Annual leak rate of conventional direct expansion
system
25 % U.S. EPA
2013b
F Annual leak rate of secondary loop and/or cascade
system
5–15 % U.S. EPA
2013a
G GWP of HFC refrigerant Table R-1.1 unitless IPCC 2007 and WMO
2018
H GWP of HFC refrigerant Table R-1.1 unitless IPCC 2007 and WMO
2018
I GWP of refrigerant Table R-1.1 unitless IPCC 2007
and WMO
2018
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The equipment charge size is the total quantity of the primary refrigerant installed in refrigeration or A/C equipment.
▪ (C) – The equipment charge size is the total quantity of the secondary refrigerant installed in refrigeration or A/C equipment.
▪ (D) – Based on industry data, the equipment charge size of a conventional direct expansion system is 1,633 kg. If the user can provide a project-specific value, they should replace the default conventional direct expansion system charge size in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (E and F) – Based on industry data, the average annual leak rates for the given equipment type, including operational and servicing leak rates for the equipment B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 381
R-2. Install Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Supermarket Systems in Place of Direct Expansion Systems
throughout the year. Leak rates are provided as averages and may vary with specific systems.
▪ (G, H, and I) – The GWP of the refrigerant measures the contribution to global warming from the release of one unit of the given refrigerant relative to CO2 on a 100-year time horizon. The GWP of common refrigerants and alternatives is provided in Table R-1.1 in Appendix C.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
This measure has a maximum GHG emissions reduction of 100 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces high-GWP refrigerant emissions by replacing a conventional direct expansion system in a supermarket with a secondary loop system. In this example, the conventional direct expansion system refrigerant is R-404A, which has a GWP of 3,922 (G).

The direct expansion system equipment charge size of 1,633 kg (D) is assumed. The charge size for the primary refrigerant (R-407A) in the secondary loop system is 1,145 kg (B) and the GWP is 2,107 (H). The charge size for the heat transfer fluid refrigerant using water is 1,145 kg (C) with a GWP of 0 (I). Implementation of this project would reduce GHG emissions from the refrigeration system at this supermarket by 77 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Successful implementation of this measure could achieve energy savings. While historically secondary loop and/or cascade systems have reduced energy efficiency, the past 15 years of development have resulted in energy efficiency improvements ranging from 0.5 percent to 35 percent compared to conventional direct expansion systems (U.S. EPA 2013a; Pan et al. 2020). Note that this range of values is a historical average and that, unlike the GHG reduction formula, the energy savings cannot be precisely quantified using a predictive formula for the purposes of this methodology.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ Pan, M., H. Zaho, D. Liang, Y. Zhu, Y. Lian, and G. Bao. 2020. A Review of the Cascade Refrigeration System. May. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/9/2254/pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

A =
((1,145 kg × 15% × 2,107) + (1,145 kg × 15% × 0)) − (1,633 kg × 25% × 3,922) (1,633 kg × 25% × 3,922) = -77%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 382
R-2. Install Secondary Loop and/or Cascade Supermarket Systems in Place of Direct Expansion Systems
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013a. Global Mitigation of Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases: 2010–2030. September. Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016- 06/documents/mac_report_2013.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013b. The GreenChill Partnership. Refrigerant Leak Prevention through Regular Maintenance. September. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-
12/documents/gc_preventativemaintenance_20130913.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. Advanced Refrigeration. November 2016.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/greenchill/advanced-refrigeration. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology Documentation. U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, EPA-430-R-19-012, Washington, DC, September 2019. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 2018. Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project. Report No. 58, 5886 pp., Geneva, Switzerland.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS| 383
R-3. Install Transcritical CO2 Supermarket Systems in
Place of High-GWP Systems
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to a 99.9 percent
reduction in GHG emissions
during operation
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
Climate Resilience
Climate resilience benefits vary by climate;
in cooler and more dry climates, a CO2
transcritical system can be at parity or more
energy efficient than conventional direct
expansion systems. Increased energy
efficiency in refrigeration systems can reduce
the strain on the overall grid, particularly the
risk of power outages during peak loads.

Increased efficiency can also reduce energy
costs, particularly if extreme heat would
otherwise increase these costs.

Health and Equity Considerations
Non-applicable
Measure Description
This measure replaces conventional direct expansion systems in supermarkets with CO2 transcritical systems. Whereas direct expansion systems typically use a high-GWP refrigerant, CO2 transcritical systems use CO2, which has a GWP of 1 and a lower leakage rate than typical conventional direct expansion systems. By reducing annual leak rates and replacing high-GWP refrigerants with CO2, these systems result in a reduction of potential direct GHG emissions. CO2 transcritical systems operate at high pressures but otherwise operate similarly to conventional direct expansion systems. Typically, the charge size of these systems is comparable to conventional direct expansion systems. CO2 transcritical systems work most efficiently in cooler climates; but can also be used in warmer climates (Belusko et al. 2019; U.S. EPA 2019). Transcritical CO2 systems can be used in all California climate zones given California’s latest building codes require the use of specialized equipment to ensure that energy penalties are minimized.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
Transcritical CO2 supermarket systems carry a high initial cost over traditional systems. However, CO2 systems have a lower operating cost, mainly due to the cost of CO2 being much lower than the cost of conventional refrigerants.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Measure is a subset of Measure R-1, Use Alternative Refrigerants Instead of High-GWP Refrigerants, which should be selected for increased GHG reductions in supermarket refrigerant systems.

99.9%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-3. Install Transcritical CO2 Supermarket Systems in Place of High-GWP Systems REFRIGERANTS | 384 GHG Reduction Formula
A=
(E × G × B) − (D × F × C)
D × F × C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from refrigerant
emissions
0–99.9 % Calculated
User Inputs
B Equipment charge size of CO2 transcritical system [ ] kg user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Equipment charge size of conventional direct
expansion system
1,633 kg U.S. EPA
2019
D Annual leak rate of conventional direct expansion
system
25 % U.S. EPA
2013
E Annual leak rate of CO2 transcritical system 15 % U.S. EPA 2019
F GWP of HFC refrigerant Table R-1.1 unitless IPCC 2007 G GWP of alternative refrigerant (CO2) 1 unitless IPCC 2007 Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The equipment charge size is the total quantity of refrigerant installed in refrigeration or A/C equipment.
▪ (C) – Based on industry data, the equipment charge size of a conventional direct expansion system is 1,633 kg. If the user can provide a project-specific value, they should replace the default conventional direct expansion system charge size in the GHG reduction formula.
▪ (D and E) – Based on industry data, the average annual leak rates for the given equipment type are provided. This includes operational and servicing leak rates for the equipment throughout the year. Leak rates are provided as averages and may vary with specific systems.
▪ (F and G) – The GWP of the refrigerant measures the contribution to global warming from the release of one unit of the given refrigerant relative to CO2 on a 100-year time horizon. The GWP of common refrigerants and alternatives is provided in Table R-1.1 in Appendix C.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
This measure has a maximum GHG emissions reduction of 99.9 percent.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-3. Install Transcritical CO2 Supermarket Systems in Place of High-GWP Systems REFRIGERANTS | 385 Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces high-GWP emissions by replacing a conventional direct expansion system with a CO2 transcritical system in a supermarket. In this example, the conventional direct expansion system refrigerant is R-404A, which has a GWP of 3,922 (G), and a charge size of 1,633 kg (D). The charge size for a CO2 transcritical system is also 1,633 kg (B) and it has a 15 percent leak rate (F). Implementation of this project would reduce GHG emissions from the refrigeration system at this supermarket by 99.9 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Energy and Fuel Savings
Successful implementation of this measure could achieve energy and fuel savings.

Depending on the climate in which a CO2 transcritical system is installed, energy efficiency can show improvements up to 10 percent (U.S. EPA 2019). These improvements decrease, or become negative, in warmer and more humid climates (U.S. EPA 2019; Belusko et al. 2019). Note that, unlike the GHG reduction formula, the energy savings cannot be precisely quantified using a predictive formula for the purposes of this methodology.

Sources
▪ Belusko, M., R. Liddle, A. Alemu, E. Halawa, and F. Bruno. 2019. Performance Evaluation of a CO2 Refrigeration System Enhanced with a Dew Point Cooler. Energies 12, 1079. March. Available:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/6/1079. Accessed: May 2021. ▪ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/wg1/.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. The GreenChill Partnership. Refrigerant Leak Prevention through Regular Maintenance. September. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-
12/documents/gc_preventativemaintenance_20130913.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology Documentation. U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, EPA-430-R-19-012, Washington, DC, September 2019. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.

A =
(15% × 1 × 1,633 kg) − (25% × 3,922 × 1,633 kg)
25% × 3,922 × 1,633 kg = -99.9%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 386
R-4. Install Microchannel Heat Exchangers in A/C
Equipment in Place of Conventional Heat Exchanger
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to a 35.0% reduction in
GHG emissions during
operation
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
None
Climate Resilience
Non-applicable
Health and Equity Considerations
Microchannel heat exchangers can reduce
noise produced by the condenser fan.

Measure Description
This measure replaces conventional heat exchangers in A/C equipment (e.g., unitary A/C) with microchannel heat exchangers (MCHX). Whereas conventional heat exchangers use single or multiple large-diameter tubes to transfer heat in A/C equipment, MCHX use a series of small tubes. A/C equipment using MCHX require 35 percent to 40 percent less refrigerant than those using conventional heat exchangers (U.S. EPA 2019). The reduction in refrigerant charge in A/C equipment results in a reduction of potential GHG emissions.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
MCHX have a lower overall equipment cost compared to
conventional heat exchangers. Long-term maintenance costs are comparable.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Pair with Measure R-1 Use Alternative Refrigerants Instead of High-GWP Refrigerants, for increased GHG reductions in
A/C equipment.
35%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 387
R-4. Install Microchannel Heat Exchangers in A/C Equipment in Place of Conventional Heat Exchanger
GHG Reduction Formula
A = -B
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from refrigerant emissions
35 % calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
B Assumed charge size reduction due to
MCHX
35 % U.S. EPA 2019
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – Based on industry data, the percent reduction in charge size obtained from using MCHX in A/C equipment is provided as an average reduction across A/C equipment.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
This measure has a maximum GHG emissions reduction of 35 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces high-GWP emissions replacing a conventional heat exchanger in A/C equipment with MCHX. Implementation of this project would reduce GHG emissions from the A/C equipment by 35 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
None.

Sources
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emission Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology Documentation. U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs, EPA-430-R-19-012, Washington, DC, September 2019. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.

A = -35%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 388
R-5. Reduce Service Leak Emissions
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 95.0% reduction in
GHG emissions during
servicing
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
None
Climate Resilience
Non-applicable
Health and Equity Considerations
Non-applicable
Measure Description
This measure reduces emissions of refrigerants during equipment servicing by employing improved refrigerant servicing technologies and practices. It is estimated that recovering refrigerants can reduce emissions in servicing by up to 95 percent (U.S. EPA 2019).

Through implementation of refrigerant recovery, overall service GHG emissions can be reduced. Equipment should only be
serviced by qualified technicians certified under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act and who also hold an active California contractor’s license in accordance with California’s Refrigerant Management Program (CARB 2020). Under CARB regulations, technicians must make a recovery attempt using refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment for that type of appliance and refrigerant type before opening the appliance to atmospheric conditions. Implementing more widespread and thorough refrigerant recovery practices while servicing refrigeration and A/C systems would go beyond regulatory requirements.

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Require that all appliances are serviced by a qualified technician who must make a recovery attempt using refrigerant recovery or recycling equipment for each appliance and refrigerant type before opening the appliance to atmospheric conditions, in accordance with existing state and federal regulations.

Cost Considerations
Costs associated with reducing service leak emissions may include installation of leak detection systems and increased staff time to monitor and maintain the system. The benefit of reducing leak emissions depends on the price of the refrigerant and the quantity of leaked refrigerant. Because many refrigerants carry a high cost, detecting and repairing leaks is expected to provide a net cost savings and will also allow for quick and accurate servicing.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable.
95%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-5. Reduce Service Leak Emissions REFRIGERANTS | 389
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B − C
C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from service emissions
0–95.0 % calculated
User Inputs
None
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
B Equipment service leak rate with
measure
2 % U.S. EPA 2020
C Equipment service leak rate without
measure
Tables R-1.2
through R-1.5
% U.S. EPA 2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The updated service leak rate of the equipment after improved technology and/or practices. Leak rates vary between equipment types. A service leak rate of 2 percent can be assumed in the event project-specific information is not available (U.S. EPA 2020).

The user should replace this default in the GHG reduction formula if the user is able to provide a project-specific equipment leak rate.
▪ (C) – The service leak rate of the equipment.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
This measure has a maximum GHG emissions reduction of 95.0 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces service emissions by increasing refrigerant recovery during servicing. In this example, the user operates a commercial A/C and heat pump at a restaurant. The current service leak rate is 4 percent (C). The improved servicing leak rate of the equipment (B) is 2 percent, reducing GHG emissions by 50 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
None.

A =
2% − 4%
4%
= -50%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-5. Reduce Service Leak Emissions REFRIGERANTS | 390
Sources
▪ California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2020. Refrigerant Management Program: Service Technicians & Contractors. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/refrigerant-managementprogram/rmp-service-technicians-contractors. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. Accounting Tool to Support Federal Reporting of Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions: Supporting Documentation. October 2016. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/hfc_emissions_accounting_tool_supporting_documentation.pdf. Accessed: May 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology Documentation. September 2019.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019- 09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 – 2018. Stationary Refrigeration Leak Repair Requirements. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2018.

Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 391
R-6. Reduce Operational Leak Emissions
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to 99.9% reduction in
GHG emissions during
operation
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
None
Climate Resilience
Non-applicable
Health and Equity Considerations
Non-applicable
Measure Description
This measure reduces emissions from leakage of refrigerants during operation, decreasing emissions of refrigerants. A typical food retail store leaks an estimated 25 percent of refrigerants, or approximately 1,000 pounds annually (U.S. EPA 2013). Currently, under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, corrective action must be taken when an appliance with a full charge of 50 or more pounds is discovered to be leaking ozone depleting substances that exceeds the applicable trigger rate. The trigger rate for industrial process refrigeration is 30 percent, commercial refrigeration 20 percent, and comfort cooling and all other appliances is 10 percent. Through implementing leak detection technology and preventative maintenance measures, leakages can be resolved before reaching trigger rates, thus significantly reducing GHG emissions (U.S. EPA 2020).

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
Under California’s Refrigerant Management Program, leak inspections are required monthly for large refrigeration systems, quarterly for medium systems, and annually for small systems (CARB 2020). When reducing leak emissions, best practices include regularly conducted visual inspections to ensure no leakages occur. If a leak does occur, repairs must be made within 14 days of detection (CARB 2020).

Cost Considerations
Costs associated with reducing operational leak emissions may include installation of leak detection systems and increased staff time to monitor and maintain the detection system. The benefit of reducing leak emissions depends on the price of the refrigerant and the quantity of leaked refrigerant. Because many refrigerants carry a high cost, detecting and repairing leaks is expected to provide a net cost savings.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable.

99.9%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-6. Reduce Operational Leak Emissions REFRIGERANTS | 392 GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B − C
C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions
from leak emissions
0–99.9 % calculated
User Inputs
B Improved equipment leak rate with
measure
[ ] % user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Annual equipment leak rate without
measure
Tables R-1.2
through R-1.5
% U.S. EPA 2016
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The improved leak rate of the equipment after leak detection, leak repair, and leak prevention measures have been implemented. This varies on a case-by-case basis due to differences in equipment and leak control technologies used. ▪ (C) – The annual operational leak rate of the equipment.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
This measure has a maximum GHG emissions reduction of 99.9 percent.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces operational leak rates by installing leak detection technology and increasing regular maintenance of the equipment. In this example, the user operates refrigeration and condensing units at a supermarket. The current operational leak rate is 25 percent (C) and the updated leak rate of the equipment (B) is decreased to 20 percent annually. Implementation of this project would reduce GHG emissions from the refrigeration and condensing units at this supermarket by 20 percent.

Quantified Co-Benefits
None.

A =
(20% − 25%)
25% = -20%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-6. Reduce Operational Leak Emissions REFRIGERANTS | 393 Sources
▪ California Air Resource Board (CARB). 2020. Refrigerant Management Program: Service Technicians & Contractors. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/refrigerant-managementprogram/rmp-service-technicians-contractors. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. The GreenChill Partnership. Refrigerant Leak Prevention through Regular Maintenance. September 2013. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-
12/documents/gc_preventativemaintenance_20130913.pdf. Accessed: January 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2016. Accounting Tool to Support Federal Reporting of Hydrofluorocarbon Emissions: Supporting Documentation. October 2016. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/hfc_emissions_accounting_tool_supporting_documentation.pdf. Accessed: May 2021. ▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2020. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology Documentation. September 2019.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019- 09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
REFRIGERANTS | 394
R-7. Reduce Disposal Emissions
GHG Mitigation Potential
Up to a 99.9% reduction
in GHG emissions during
disposal
Co-Benefits (icon key on pg. 34)
None
Climate Resilience
Non-applicable
Health and Equity Considerations
Non-applicable
Measure Description
This measure reduces emissions from the disposal of refrigeration and A/C equipment at the end of its lifetime. Safe disposal requirements are included in U.S. EPA regulations (40 C.F.R. 82(F)) under Section 608 of the Clean Air Act, as well as under California’s Refrigerant Management Program. These
requirements are designed to minimize refrigerant emissions when equipment is disposed. Refrigerants must be properly recovered using U.S. EPA-certified refrigerant recovery equipment, meaning that a least 90 percent of the refrigerant must be recovered if the compressor is operating, and at least 80 percent must be recovered otherwise (U.S. EPA 2019).

Scale of Application
Project/Site
Implementation Requirements
This measure aims to capture the remaining amount of refrigerant that is not mandated to be recovered. Refrigerants must be reclaimed by an U.S. EPA-certified reclaimer for reuse or destroyed using approved destruction methods (U.S. EPA 2018).

Cost Considerations
The main cost is labor associated with hiring a technician to complete the recovery work.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Smaller equipment tends to have the highest disposal leak rates.

Target this measure to small equipment to maximize GHG
reductions.

99.9%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-7. Reduce Disposal Emissions REFRIGERANTS | 395
GHG Reduction Formula
A =
B − C
C
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A Percent reduction in GHG emissions from disposal emissions 0–99.9 % calculated User Inputs
B Improved equipment disposal emissions rate with measure [ ] % user input Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
C Equipment disposal emissions rate without measure At least 20 % U.S. EPA
2018
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The improved disposal emissions rate of the equipment after implementation of improved refrigerant recovery technologies.
▪ (C) – The disposal emission rate of refrigeration and A/C equipment. Refrigerant must be properly recovered using U.S. EPA-certified refrigerant recovery equipment, meaning that at least 80 percent must be recovered (U.S. EPA 2018). This means the regulated disposal emissions rate would be at least 20 percent. The actual achieved-in practice rate may be much higher than this minimum requirement and could exceed 50 percent.

The user should replace this default in the GHG reduction formula if they are able to provide a project-specific value.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
(B<C) In order for implementation of this measure to result in a GHG reduction, the improved equipment disposal emission rate must be less than the 20 percent required by federal and state regulations. For residential equipment, reducing disposal emissions from over 50 percent to 25–30 percent is considered adequate.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces disposal emissions by implementing more technologically advanced refrigerant recovery systems. The initial disposal rate of the equipment (C) is 20 percent and the improved disposal emission rate with the project (B) is 10 percent. Implementation of this project would reduce disposal emissions by 50 percent.

A =
(10% − 20%)
20% = -50%
B3 Attach #1 of 3
R-7. Reduce Disposal Emissions REFRIGERANTS | 396
Quantified Co-Benefits
None.

Sources
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018. Responsible Appliance Disposal (RAD) Program: Guidance for Existing and Prospective Partners. August 2018. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/rad-guidance-document.pdf.

Accessed: January 2021.
▪ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2019. Global Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projections & Marginal Abatement Cost Analysis: Methodology Documentation. September 2019.

Available: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019- 09/documents/nonco2_methodology_report.pdf. Accessed: January 2021.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
MISCELLANEOUS | 397
Miscellaneous
This sector includes several measures that will
reduce GHG emissions through the
implementation of novel or offsite projects defined
by the user. The general quantification framework
for three measures is outlined in this section,
although all require users to identify the expected
GHG reductions that will be achieved by the
measures. Use the below graphic to click on an
individual measure to navigate directly to the
measure’s factsheet. Supporting or Non-Quantified
GHG Reduction Measures includes two additional measures in the miscellaneous sector that target environmentally responsible purchasing and funding for incentives.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
MISCELLANEOUS | 398
M-1. Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in
GHG emissions
Co-Benefits
Varies
Climate Resilience
Climate resilience benefits vary by
sequestration project; for example, investing
in a tree-planting project could provide heat
reduction, flood prevention, and ecosystem
benefits to areas surrounding the project.

Health and Equity Considerations
Local carbon sequestration projects should
be prioritized, if possible, to create local
co-benefits in pollution reduction and job
creation. Consider including a local
hiring provision (see Inclusive Economy
measures in Chapter 5, Measures for
Advancing Health and Equity).

Measure Description
This measure will establish a carbon sequestration project. Carbon emissions are sequestered by embedding the carbon in a structure that will hold the emissions and keep them out of the atmosphere.

Sequestration can happen through biological, chemical, or physical processes.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community.

Implementation Requirements
Projects might include (a) geologic sequestration or carbon capture and storage techniques in which CO2 from point sources, such as power plants and fuel processing plants, is captured and injected underground; (b) novel techniques involving advanced chemical or biological pathways; or (c) technologies yet to be discovered.

Cost Considerations
Carbon sequestration projects can cover a wide range, with the high-cost option being constructing carbon capture and storage facilities. The potential for these projects to achieve long-term costs savings depends on the type and project-specific circumstance.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
M-1. Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project MISCELLANEOUS | 399 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -B
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from sequestration project [ ] MT CO2e calculated User Inputs
B Amount of CO2e sequestered [ ] MT CO2e user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The amount of the sequestration must be defined by the user and should be quantified using a published carbon offset protocol or one of the California Climate Investments quantification methodologies.28
GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions by funding and implementing a carbon sequestration project. In this example, a biomass plant is revitalized to use oxy-combustion technology to capture CO2 from the biomass waste gasification process. The project achieves an annual emissions reduction of 1,500 MT CO2e.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Depending on the type, a sequestration project could achieve improved air quality, water conservation, or improved ecosystem health. The protocol used to quantify GHG reductions by the user may include methodologies or recommendations for quantifying these co-benefits.

Sources
▪ None.
28 CARB approved compliance offset protocols for various project types are available on CARB’s website here:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program/compliance-offset-protocols.

A = -1,500
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
MISCELLANEOUS | 400
M-2. Establish Offsite Mitigation
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions
Co-Benefits
Varies
Climate Resilience
Climate resilience benefits vary by offsite
mitigation project; for example, investing in
a community energy efficiency retrofit
program could reduce electricity
consumption, minimizing risks of a power
outage during peak loads. These programs
could also reduce energy costs, particularly if
extreme heat would otherwise increase these
costs. If the program reduces residential or
commercial natural gas consumption, it
could reduce consumer sensitivity to fuel
price shocks or scarcity.

Health and Equity Considerations
Local offsite projects should be prioritized, if
possible, to create local co-benefits in
pollution reduction and job creation. Consider
including a local hiring provision (see Inclusive
Economy measures in Chapter 5, Measures
for Advancing Health and Equity).

Measure Description
This measure will reduce GHG emissions by funding and
implementing emissions reduction actions that are not directly associated with the project or located on the project site. These actions could occur within the surrounding community, or elsewhere in the city, county, state, nation, or globe. This measure should only be pursued when all possible onsite measures have been implemented or deemed infeasible. Local reductions (i.e., reductions from GHG reduction projects nearest to the project) should be prioritized, to the extent feasible.

The geographic priority for offsite reductions should be as follows:
in the community affected by the project, within nearby communities with existing disproportionate burdens, within the general nearby community, within the region, within California, and then outside California.

If GHG reduction credits (including carbon offsets) are purchased for a project, it is recommended that all GHG credits/offsets, including those outside of California, meet the six criteria defined in 17 C.F.R. Section 95802, which are used in the California Cap and Trade System, which are that the credit/offset must be “real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable.” All use of GHG reduction credits should be from sources that follow rigorous protocols and third-party verification.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
This measure should only be pursued as a last resort when all possible onsite measures have been implemented or
deemed infeasible.

Cost Considerations
Offsite mitigation projects can cover a wide range, from low-cost options like financing community building energy efficiency improvements to high-cost options like funding utility-scale renewable energy infrastructure. The potential for these projects to achieve long-term costs savings depends on the type and projectspecific circumstance.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable.

Varies
B3 Attach #1 of 3
M-2. Establish Offsite Mitigation MISCELLANEOUS | 401
GHG Reduction Formula
A = -B
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from the offsite
mitigation
[ ] MT CO2e calculated
User Inputs
B Amount of CO2e reduced by the
mitigation
[ ] MT CO2e user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The amount of the GHG reduction achieved by the offsite mitigation must be defined by the user. Users should establish a method for registering and verifying the GHG emissions reduction and ensure it meets the six offset criteria defined in 17 C.F.R.

Section 95802. These criteria ensure the mitigation would not subsidize or take credit for emissions reductions that would have occurred regardless of the mitigation.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions by funding and implementing offsite mitigation. In this example, the user collaborates with a non-profit organization to fund removal of dead, diseased, and dying trees, which are converted to transportation fuels through pyrolysis.

The project achieves an annual emissions reduction of 500 MT CO2e.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Depending on the type, offsite mitigation projects may have no co-benefits or achieve a considerable number. For example, offsite mitigation projects that involve removing or retrofitting combustion sources could achieve improved air quality, energy and fuel savings, and improved public health.

Sources
▪ None.

A = -500
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
MISCELLANEOUS | 402
M-3. Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG
Mitigation
GHG Mitigation Potential
Variable reduction in GHG
emissions
Co-Benefits
Varies
Climate Resilience
Climate resilience benefits would vary by
the strategy; however, any strategies that
reduce costs; improve air, water quality, or
public health; increase system redundancy
or reliability; reduce water use; or reduce
the urban heat island would have
resilience benefits.

Health and Equity Considerations
Similar to climate resilience benefits, any
health and equity benefits would depend on
the specific strategy and actions taken.

Measure Description
This measure will develop and implement a novel strategy to reduce GHG emissions at the project site or off site. This measure may incorporate technologies which have yet to be developed at the time of the publication of this Handbook. Alternatively, this measure may also bring together multiple measures from this Handbook into a cohesive program or mechanism to facilitate the reduction of GHG emissions, such as development of a “VMT bank” that offers community-scale VMT measures that would not otherwise be available to individual land use projects.

It is recommended that all strategies or projects implemented under this measure meet the six criteria defined in 17 C.F.R.

Section 95802, which are used in the California Cap and Trade System, which are that the GHG reductions must be “real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable.” Quantification of emission reductions achieved by new strategies or projects should be from sources that follow rigorous protocols and third-party verification.

Scale of Application
Project/Site and Plan/Community
Implementation Requirements
See measure description.

Cost Considerations
A GHG mitigation strategy may be a low-cost way for a local government to encourage emission reduction activities across many levels of a community. Costs from developing and
implementing the strategy are primarily related to staff time and document production. Costs and savings achieved by the strategy would vary depending on the action.

Expanded Mitigation Options
Non-applicable.

Varies
Photo Credit: Robert Schwemmer, July 2009
B3 Attach #1 of 3
M-3. Implement an Innovative Strategy for GHG Mitigation MISCELLANEOUS | 403 GHG Reduction Formula
A = -B
GHG Calculation Variables
ID Variable Value Unit Source
Output
A GHG reduction from the strategy [ ] MT CO2e calculated User Inputs
B Amount of CO2e reduced [ ] MT CO2e user input
Constants, Assumptions, and Available Defaults
None
Further explanation of key variables:
▪ (B) – The amount of the GHG reduction achieved by the mitigation strategy must be defined by the user. To take quantifiable credit for this measure, the user must provide detailed and substantial evidence showing the quantification and verification of the GHG emissions reduction.

GHG Calculation Caps or Maximums
None.

Example GHG Reduction Quantification
The user reduces GHG emissions by funding and implementing an innovative GHG reductions strategy. In this example, the lead agency for a new development project collaborates with a local air quality management district and CARB to fund a project that achieves an annual emissions reduction of 2,000 MT CO2e.

Quantified Co-Benefits
Depending on the type, mitigation projects may result in none of the identified co-benefits or achieve several of them. For example, mitigation projects that involve removing or retrofitting combustion sources could achieve improved air quality, energy and fuel savings, and improved public health. This quantification methodology does not quantify the cobenefits from these projects.

Sources
▪ None.

A = -2,000
MT CO2e
yr
B3 Attach #1 of 3
ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 404 Assessing Climate Exposures and
Measures to Reduce Vulnerabilities
Introduction
This chapter provides a method to assess the potential benefits of different climate risk reduction measures at the project level. The climate exposures, sensitivities, and adaptive capacities of a project or asset all influence their vulnerabilities to current and expected impacts of climate change. This chapter presents a step-by-step process to identify and score these variables.

These scores should be used to establish an initial vulnerability score, which will allow users to identify priority vulnerabilities, as well as measures to reduce these vulnerabilities. This chapter also provides descriptions of climate vulnerability reduction measures and guidance for assessing adaptive benefits of selected measures.

Climate change has already profoundly affected California’s natural resources, communities, and infrastructure, and will continue to do so in the future. Existing and future developments must consider climate change in their planning processes to adequately prepare for anticipated hazards and risks. This chapter guides users through estimating their project’s site- or regional-level climate vulnerability, as well as selecting risk reduction measures to address those vulnerabilities.

CHAPTER 4
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 405 The Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) is the state’s comprehensive guidance for assessing climate vulnerability at the local level. The APG is hosted on the California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) Resilient-CA website, where additional materials and local adaptation case studies can also be found. Resilient-CA is regularly updated as new climate vulnerability assessments are completed. To ensure alignment with the state’s overall approach to vulnerability assessments, this chapter follows the structure and processes outlined in the APG, which was last revised in 2020 (OPR 2020).

The guidance presented in this chapter should be used as a starting point to help users understand and begin to analyze potential climate vulnerabilities. The methodology should not replace a full climate vulnerability assessment performed using the APG or other resources. Moreover, the scores alone should not be used to define or communicate the climate risks for a project. A climate vulnerability score of 5, for example, does not mean that a project will face certain climate catastrophe. Similarly, a score of 1 does not mean that a project will not face any climate hazards. The purpose of the Handbook scoring method is to aid users in prioritizing the most significant climate risks so that they can select appropriate risk reduction measures for their project. Users seeking a more thorough or tailored analysis should refer to the APG, the Resilient-CA website, or other resources (provided later in this chapter).

Assessing Climate Vulnerability and Risk Reduction
The step-by-step process detailed in this chapter is outlined below.

1. Establish Initial Vulnerability Score – this step guides the user through a high-level assessment of the contributing elements to a project’s climate vulnerabilities, including exposure, sensitivity, and existing adaptive capacity to projected climate hazards.

Steps for establishing the vulnerability score are as follows. a. Determine exposure score.
b. Determine sensitivity score.
c. Determine adaptive capacity score.
d. Develop overall vulnerability score.

2. Select Measures and Assess Vulnerability Reduction – after establishing the initial vulnerability score, this step guides the user through selecting measures that can effectively reduce climate vulnerabilities. It also provides guidance for determining measure costs and benefits. Steps identifying and assessing vulnerability reduction measures are as follows.
a. Select climate risk reduction measures.
b. Identify adaptation benefits.
c. Identify adaptation co-benefits.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 406 Initial Vulnerability Score
Climate hazards, such as sea level rise, wildfire, flooding, and heat waves, will increasingly affect projects and project sites. The climate vulnerability of a project refers to the extent to which a project site or community is susceptible to harm from these climate hazards. In this step, users will establish a baseline for the current and projected vulnerabilities from climate hazards.

Developing an overall vulnerability score consists of combining three elements: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Figure 4-1 from the California Adaptation Planning Guide shows how these elements combine to determine climate vulnerability (Cal OES 2020).

Figure 4-1. Vulnerability Assessment Process in California Adaptation Planning Guide (Source: California’s Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 2020) The following sub-steps provide guidance on developing scores to assess a project’s exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Users should first score these three components separately, using guidance provided below in the form of maps, tables, and guiding questions. Users will carry out the vulnerability scoring process in the following way.

1. Score the project’s exposure to each climate hazard on a scale of 1 to 5.

2. Score the project’s sensitivity to each climate hazard on a scale of 1 to 5.

3. Rate the project’s adaptive capacity to each hazard using the ranking system of Low, Low–Med, Med, Med–High, and High. (Adaptive capacity is not scored from 1 to 5 to avoid confusion as the numeric scale for this component would be reversed from the scale for exposure and sensitivity.)
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 407

4. Average the project’s exposure and sensitivity scores to develop a potential impact score for each climate hazard from 1 to 5.

5. Combine the potential impact scores and adaptive capacity ratings to develop a vulnerability score for each climate hazard from 1 to 5.

6. Select the highest-scoring vulnerabilities to address as priority climate vulnerabilities.

This section also provides a use case example for a hypothetical affordable housing project in Los Angeles County to illustrate these sub-steps and how to arrive at a final vulnerability score. Users can follow along the example to understand how the scoring system works, what kind of project characteristics may justify a score, and how users can use their final vulnerability score to choose adaptation measures.

Determine Exposure Score
This section guides the user through
the following sub-steps to determine
the exposure score.

1. Identify key climate hazards based
on the project site location.

2. Select initial regional exposure
scores.

3. Refine initial regional exposure
scores.

The following sections provide a highlevel exposure map and accompanying table for users to identify key climate
hazards. Guiding questions and resources to define the exposure score from 1 to 5 (with 1 being the least exposed and 5 being the most exposed) are then presented.

Identify Key Climate Hazards
Figure 4-2 shows the nine main climate regions of California as identified in the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment (Bedsworth et al. 2018).

Identify the climate region in which the user’s project is located (Figure 4-2).

Use Case Example: The project is in the Los Angeles Region.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 408 Figure 4-2. Illustrative Climate Hazards in Nine Climate Regions of California under the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment
Select Initial Regional Exposure Scores
For each of the nine regions, the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment identifies the most significant climate hazards, summarized in Table 4-1, along with initial regional exposure scores that allow users to screen for the hazards of greatest concern to their geography. These initial regional scores are based on an analysis of Cal-Adapt and the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment’s summaries of the most relevant climate hazards in each region. Where given, a range reflects how much the vulnerability to climate change can vary within that region. For example, sea level rise does not occur everywhere in San Francisco (score of 1), but it can be a significant vulnerability (score of 5) for coastal areas.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 409 Locate the climate region for the user’s project in Table 4-1 and record the initial regional exposure score for each hazard.

Table 4-1. Initial Regional Climate Hazard Exposure Values a Region
Sea Level Rise Flooding Temperature and Extreme Heat Extreme Precipitation Wildfire Drought Decrease in Snowpack Air Quality Degradation Central Coast 1–5 1–2 1–5 1–5 1–5 3–4 1–2 1–2
Inland Deserts N/A 1–2 1–5 1–5 1–5 3–5 1–2 2–4
Los Angeles 1–5 1–3 1–5 1–5 1–5 4–5 2–3 3–5
North Coast 1–5 2–3 1–5 1–5 1–5 3–4 3–4 1–2
Sacramento Valley N/A 3–4 1–5 1–5 1–5 3–4 2–3 3–4
San Diego 1–5 2–3 1–5 1–5 1–5 3–4 1 3–4
San Francisco Bay Area 1–5 2–4 1–5 1–5 1–5 2–4 2–4 3–4
San Joaquin Valley N/A 2–3 1–5 1–5 1–5 3–5 2–4 2–3
Sierra Nevada N/A 3–4 1–5 1–5 1–5 3–4 5 1–3
a
Within the CalEEMod tool, some hazards (sea level rise, temperature and extreme heat, extreme precipitation, and wildfire) are evaluated in regional quantiles using Cal-Adapt data; to ensure consistency between this Handbook and CalEEMod, these four hazards have a score range of 1 to 5 here. The score range for the remaining four hazards (flooding, drought, decrease in snowpack, and air quality degradation) are based on a comparison of relevant hazards summarized in the California’s Fourth Climate Assessment regional reports.

Use Case Example: The following climate hazards and initial regional exposure scores are applicable for the Los Angeles region.
▪ Sea level rise: 1–5
▪ Flooding: 1–3
▪ Temperature and extreme heat: 1–5
▪ Extreme precipitation: 1–5
▪ Wildfire: 1–5
▪ Drought: 4–5
▪ Decrease in snowpack: 2–3
▪ Air quality degradation: 3–5
Based on these initial regional scores, significant region-wide climate hazards for the Los Angeles region include sea level rise, temperature and extreme heat, extreme precipitation, wildfire, drought, and air quality degradation.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 410 Refine Initial Regional Exposure Scores
Where Table 4-1 offers a range (e.g., 1–3) for a climate hazard exposure score, users can refine that range to a single score that is more specific to a project location. Table 4-2 provides key questions and considerations users could use to refine their exposure scores for their region. For example, a user with a site in the San Francisco Bay Area within the Coastal Zone Boundary that has experienced coastal flooding in the past should consider a “5” hazard rating for sea level rise.

Table 4-2 also indicates whether each question refers to a project area’s past or potential future climate exposure. This distinction is important because susceptibility to climate hazards in the past is one factor indicating susceptibility to climate hazards in the future.

However, the lack of past exposure does not mean future climate hazards will also be the same. As the climate changes, the frequency and severity of climate impacts increase, and climate risk areas extend beyond historic boundaries. Users should keep this in mind as they refine the initial exposure scores.

Table 4-2. Guidance Questions for Refining Initial Climate Hazard Exposure Scores Past vs.

Future Question
User
Answer
Exposure
Score
Sea Level Rise
Past Has the project area experienced flooding in the past? Yes High No Low–Med
Future Is the project area projected to experience flooding under future sea level rise?
Yes High
No Low–Med
Flooding
Past Is the project located in a 100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain?
Yes High
No Low
Past Is the project located in a 500-year FEMA floodplain? Yes Med No Low
Past Has the project area experienced flooding in the past? Yes High No Low–Med
Future Is the project area projected to experience an expansion in flood risk areas, increased flood depths, or increased extreme precipitation events? Yes High
No Low–Med
Temperature and Extreme Heat
Past Is the project located in an urban heat island? (Is the project located in a dense urban or suburban environment?)
Yes High
No Med
Future Is the project area projected to have higher projected temperature and extreme heat values compared to the region as a whole? Yes High
No Low–Med
Extreme Precipitation
Past Has the project area experienced extreme precipitation (e.g., over the 95th percentile) in the past?
Yes High
No Low–Med
Future Is the project area projected to have higher extreme precipitation values or changes in extreme precipitation compared to the region as a whole? Yes High
No Low–Med
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 411 Past vs.

Future Question
User
Answer
Exposure
Score
Wildfire
Past Is the project located in the wildland–urban interface (WUI) (as defined by CAL FIRE hazard and/or county WUI maps)?
Yes High
No Low
Past Is the project in or near an area that experiences high wind events? Yes High No Low–Med
Past Is the project area composed of vegetation that could serve as significant wildfire fuel?
Yes High
No Low–Med
Past Has the project area experienced wildfire in the past? Yes High No Low-Med
Future Is the project area projected to have higher wildfire risk compared to the region as a whole?
Yes High
No Low–Med
Drought
Past Has or does the project area's local government impose water conservation requirements beyond the statewide requirements? Yes High
No Low-Med
Past Has the project area experienced curtailments in water deliveries from local surface or groundwater sources in the past?
Yes High
No Low-Med
Past Has the project area ever been identified in a state drought emergency declaration?
Yes High
No Low-Med
Future Is the project area projected to experience an increase in the frequency or severity of drought in the future?
Yes High
No Low-Med
Decrease in Snowpack
Past Does the project rely on annual snowfall directly (e.g., recreation facility relying on snow)?
Yes High
No Low-Med
Past Does the project depend on water sources that vary annually based on snowpack?
Yes Med
No Low
Future Is the project area projected to experience a decrease in future snowpack?
Yes High
No Low-Med
Air Quality Degradation
Past Is the project area within a nonattainment area for federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Yes High
No Low
Past Is the project area within 0.25 mile of a major freeway? Yes High No Low
Past Is the project area within 0.25 mile of a major industrial zone or logistics center?
Yes High
No Low
Past Is this project area within the WUI? Yes High
No Low
Future Is the project area projected to experience a decrease in future air quality due to climate change (e.g., due to increased smoke from wildfires)?
Yes High
No Low-Med
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 412 When refining the exposure score, it may be useful to refer to climate projection tools to consider climate hazard exposure in the specific area where the project will be located.

Users are also encouraged to consult any local climate vulnerability assessments, local hazard mitigation plans, or other climate planning documents for their region or project area. The following resources provide additional guidance on understanding climate exposures, as well as exposure maps, that can be used to further refine the exposure score. In some cases, selecting a refined exposure score may require users to make certain assumptions or judgements.
▪ CalEEMod: This model provides an exposure mapping tool that is based on data from Cal-Adapt and the Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) (mentioned below).29 ▪ Cal-Adapt: This is the official statewide climate hazard mapping tool. Use this tool to assess exposure to temperature, precipitation, and wildfire-related hazards by location. ▪ Our Coast, Our Future: A web visualization tool based on data from CoSMoS. Use this tool to assess exposure to sea level rise and coastal flooding hazards. ▪ Adaptation Planning Guide (APG): The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) provides detailed guidance for conducting vulnerability studies that can help users expand on the baseline assessment here.
▪ Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program (ICARP) Adaptation Clearinghouse: OPR’s official database of adaptation case studies and technical reports. Users can search the ICARP database to look for detailed vulnerability assessments covering the project site.
▪ Caltrans 2019 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has conducted climate change vulnerability assessments for each of its 12 regions. While the focus is on resilience of the state highway system, the climate hazard analysis and recommendations can be generalized to other land uses and projects. Each region also has an interactive map that provides localized climate impact projections.

Answer the questions in Table 4-2 to refine the climate hazard exposure ranges and obtain a single score for each climate hazard.

Use Case Example: The Los Angeles project is an affordable housing building located in a highly urban area. Table 4-3 shows the initial regional exposure ranges per hazard outlined above, as well as refinements to the initial regional scores with justifications. 29 This version of CalEEMod is still in development and will be released in 2022.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 413 Table 4-3. Refined Exposure Scores and Justifications for Use Case Example Climate hazard
Initial
Regional
Exposure
Range
Refined
Exposure
Score Justification for Refined Exposure Score
Sea Level Rise 1–5 1 The project is not located within an area previously subject to coastal flooding and is not in
an area with projected future sea level rise.

Flooding 1–3 1 The project is not located within any Federal Emergency Management Agency flood zones or
within future flood risk areas determined from
local flood risk studies sourced from the ResilientCA website.

Temperature and
Extreme Heat
1–5 5 The project is in an urban heat island and in an
area projected to become hotter in the future.

Extreme
Precipitation
1–5 2 The project area has experienced few extreme
precipitation events in the past and is not in an
area projected to experience extreme precipitation
in the future.

Wildfire 1–5 2 The project is not located in the wildland-urban interface or in an area projected to experience an
increase in wildfire risk in the future.

Drought 4–5 5 The project relies on water that comes from imported sources and is in an area highly
vulnerable to increased frequency and severity of
drought in the future.

Decrease in
Snowpack
2–3 3 The project relies on water that comes from
imported sources that will face increased future
risk under climate change.

Air Quality
Degradation
3–5 5 The project is located near a major freeway and in a non-attainment area for the federal 8-hour
ozone standard.

Determine Sensitivity Score
This section guides the user through determining the sensitivity score. The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. There are multiple aspects of sensitivity to consider. ▪ Physical: How sensitive the project may be to physical damage from climate hazards.

For example, wildfire can impair the structural integrity of buildings through incineration and exposure to extreme temperatures. Historical data on events for the project site and similar projects can provide insights for how sensitive the project may be to physical effects from different hazards.
▪ Operational: How sensitive the project may be to disruptions of regular operations from climate hazards. For example, flooding along roads may disrupt public transportation operations. Historical data on events for the project site, similar projects, B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 414 and critical interconnections (e.g., local energy utilities, transportation networks) will be helpful in understanding potential operational disruptions. ▪ Safety: How sensitive populations associated with a project may be to different climate hazards. For example, apartments in urban areas may become hot and not cool down easily during extreme heat events due to urban heat island effects, endangering the health of residents. Some projects may serve populations that are more vulnerable to climate hazards, such as hospitals or nursing homes.

The questions below allow the user to understand how project specifics and site historical data can help provide insights to the sensitivities of a project to climate hazards. Some of the questions, such as those on populations served by the project or project elements vulnerable to physical impacts, are specific to the project type and the user’s knowledge of the project. Other questions may require the Handbook user to access existing reports for the project area. For example, historical data on hazard impacts for the project area and similar projects may be found in local hazard mitigation plans or through engaging local community planners and decision makers.

Users can take an average of their scores across the four questions below to obtain an overall sensitivity score. However, users do not necessarily need to weigh the four questions below equally. A user may, for example, weigh the question on vulnerable populations much higher than the other questions if that is the project priority. Similarly, questions below are not meant to be all-encompassing in capturing the different aspects of climate sensitivity. Users may find there are other characteristics of their project not listed below that also have a factor in determining the project’s climate sensitivity. The following questions serve as guidance in helping a user think through and understand their project’s climate sensitivity and address the most sensitive parts. This is important to note particularly if the scores for each question vary widely, such as projects that are not very physically sensitive to a hazard but may have highly sensitive operations.

Answer the following four questions to assign the project a sensitivity score of 1 to 5 for each climate hazard.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 415 Question #1. How have similar projects to the user’s and the project site been impacted by past extreme climate events?
 Similar projects and the project
area have experienced little to no
effects from this hazard.
 Similar projects and the project
area have faced damage from
this hazard that may have been
major and/or permanent but does
not significantly affect the project.
 Similar projects and the project
area have faced catastrophic
damage from this hazard that
resulted in permanent effects and
significantly altered the project’s
functionality and local community.

Question #2. Does the project include elements that are susceptible to physical damage from the climate hazards (either at their historic or projected levels)?  The project has no elements
that are susceptible to physical
damage from this hazard,
including projected severity over
the project lifetime.
 The project has some elements
that may be physically damaged
by the hazard as projected over its
lifetime, but they are not significant
to the functionality of the project.
 The project relies significantly on
elements that are likely to be
physically damaged by the
hazard as projected to occur over
its lifetime.

Question #3. If the project includes an operational component (e.g., a utility), how might that be affected by the climate hazards (either at their historic or projected levels)? Score Spectrum
 The project does not contain an
operational component that is
likely to be affected the hazard.
 The project has an operational
component, but it will only face
minor disruptions from the hazard.
 The project has a significant
operational component that will
be affected by this hazard.

Question #4. Does the project serve vulnerable populations who may be particularly sensitive to certain climate hazards (e.g., a nursing home) at their historic and projected levels?
 The project is not likely to serve
any vulnerable populations.
 The project serves the public,
some of whom may be vulnerable
populations.
 The project almost exclusively
serves vulnerable populations.

Use Case Example: The Los Angeles affordable housing project does not have a significant operational component, nor does it house many fragile systems. However, it is Score Spectrum
Score Spectrum
Score Spectrum
Score Spectrum
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 416 a residence that serves a vulnerable population. We will give it the following sensitivity scores with justifications (Table 4-4).

Table 4-4. Sensitivity Scores and Justifications for Use Case Example Climate
Hazard
Question #1.
(Impact of Past
Events)
Question #2.
(Elements Prone
to Historic or
Projected
Damage)
Question #3.
(Operations
Vulnerable to
Historic or Projected
Hazards)
Question #4.
(Populations
Vulnerable to Historic
or Projected Hazards)
Final
Sensitivity
Score
Sea Level
Rise
1—Sea level rise
impacts have not
occurred in this
location in the
past
2—Building is
slightly elevated,
so inundation not
likely to infiltrate
units
3—Apartment
operations may face
minor disruptions
from inundation,
particularly if flooding
occurs at a level not
seen in the past
4—Serves low-income
populations that may be
sensitive to inundation
from sea level rise,
particularly if flooding
occurs at a level not
seen in the past
3 Flooding 4—Similar
projects have
faced damage or
inaccessibility
from flooding
2—Building is
slightly elevated,
so inundation not
likely to infiltrate
units
4—Apartment
operations and
access may face
minor disruptions
from inundation,
particularly if flooding
occurs at a level not
seen in the past
4—Serves low-income
populations that may
be sensitive to flooding,
particularly if flooding
occurs at a level not
seen in the past
4 Temperature
and Extreme
Heat
5—Other
apartment
buildings around
this location have
been affected by
extreme heat in
the past
2—Electrical
equipment inside
may be sensitive
to extreme heat,
but overall
building is not
4—Cooling
equipment may fail
more frequently due
to working outside of
original design
parameters
5—Serves low-income
residents who may be
especially sensitive to
extreme heat due to
cost of energy bills and
lack of nearby access
to cool locations and
weatherization
resources/services
5 Extreme
Precipitation
1—Similar
projects have not
faced significant
impacts from
extreme
precipitation
1—Project may
experience light
wear and tear, but
no elements are
highly sensitive to
extreme
precipitation
2—Apartment
operations may face
mild disruptions from
extreme precipitation,
particularly if rainfall
occurs at an intensity
level not seen in the
past
3—Serves low-income
residents who may face
slight sensitivity to
extreme precipitation,
particularly if rainfall
occurs at an intensity
level not seen in the past
2 Wildfire 1—Wildfires have
not occurred in
this location in
the past
4—Building may
face damage
from wildfire
4—Wildfire would
affect apartment
operations,
particularly if wildfire
occurs at a level not
seen in the past; high
building occupancy
also makes this
project sensitive
5—Serves low-income
residents who may be
highly sensitive to
wildfire, particularly if
wildfire occurs at a
level not seen in the
past
4 B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 417 Climate
Hazard
Question #1.
(Impact of Past
Events)
Question #2.
(Elements Prone
to Historic or
Projected
Damage)
Question #3.
(Operations
Vulnerable to
Historic or Projected
Hazards)
Question #4.
(Populations
Vulnerable to Historic
or Projected Hazards)
Final
Sensitivity
Score
Drought Unknown past
impacts
2—Project does
not have
abundant
landscaping that
requires water
1—Drought unlikely
to affect operations
2—Serves low-income
residents who may be
slightly sensitive to
drought, particularly if
drought occurs at a
level not seen in the
past
2 Decrease in
Snowpack
Unknown past
impacts
1—No elements
prone to damage
from decrease in
snowpack
1—Decrease in
snowpack unlikely to
affect operations
1—Residents unlikely
to be affected by
decrease in snowpack
1 Air Quality
Degradation
4—Other
apartment
buildings around
this location have
been affected by
air quality
degradation in
the past
1—No elements
prone to damage
from air quality
degradation
1—Air quality
degradation unlikely
to affect operations
5—Serves low-income
residents who may be
highly sensitive to air
quality degradation
due to cost of
healthcare and lack of
nearby access to clean
air locations
4 Determine Adaptive Capacity Rating
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. For example, a housing development with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) throughout the building will provide residents with cooling and air filtration against projected increases in heat waves and smoke from wildfire events. Identifying the adaptive capacity of a proposed project will help users understand the degree to which vulnerabilities may be addressed before taking adaptation actions.

Rather than use a numerical score, users will rate their adaptive capacity on a spectrum from Low to High. Like sensitivity, users can take an average of their scores amongst the four questions below to obtain an overall adaptive capacity score, but users do not need to weigh them equally and the questions provided do not necessarily capture all aspects of adaptive capacity.

Answer the following four questions to assign the project an adaptive capacity rating of Low, Low–Med, Med, Med–High, or High for each climate hazard.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 418 Question #1. How have similar projects or other developments in the project area managed climate impacts in the past?

Low: Similar projects and
developments in the project area
were not able to manage climate
impacts or required significant
cost/effort in doing so.

Med: Similar projects and
developments in the project area
required a fair amount of cost and
effort to manage climate impacts.

High: Similar projects and
developments in the project area
adapted to climate impacts with little
cost and effort.

Question #2. Does the project have design elements that may mitigate climate impacts planned (e.g., drainage system, cool roof, modifications that can be made over time)?

Low: The project does not have
any elements that may mitigate
climate impacts.

Med: The project has some
elements that partially address the
most relevant climate hazards.

High: The project already has
elements that address the climate
hazard of most relevance.

Question #3. Are there already policies and standards that the project incorporates (e.g., local community or state climate resilience planning and design requirements) that require planning for climate change impacts?

Low: The project does not follow
any standards related to planning
for climate change impacts.

Med: The project follows some
standards related to planning for
climate change impacts.

High: The project follows many
standards that incorporate climate
change considerations into design.

Question #4. Can the project qualify for or access funding for climate adaptation and resilience activities?

Low: The project has no access
to funding related to climate
adaptation activities.

Med: There is some funding
available for climate adaptation, but
the project would still require
additional funding beyond that to
finance adaptation.

High: There is plenty of funding
available for climate change
adaptation activities.

Use Case Example: The Los Angeles affordable housing project will follow the latest building safety standards but does not have access to abundant funding for climate adaptation activities. We will give it the following adaptive capacity ratings with justifications (Table 4-5).

Score Spectrum
Score Spectrum
Score Spectrum
Score Spectrum
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 419 Table 4-5. Adaptive Capacity Scores and Justifications for Use Case Example Climate
Hazard
Question #1.
(Impact of Past
Events)
Question #2.
(Elements that
Mitigate Climate
Hazards)
Question #3.
(Climate
Change
Standards)
Question #4.
(Climate
Change
Funding)
Final
Adaptive
Capacity
Score
Sea Level
Rise
High—Sea level
rise has not been
an issue in this
location
Low–Med—
Building managers
could put out
sandbags or
temporary flood
barriers, but these
would be less
effective in
permanent
inundation
scenarios
Not
applicable—
Building does
not follow any
sea level rise
standards
since it is not
located on a
coast
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
Med
Flooding Low–Med—
Similar projects
have struggled to
manage flood
impacts
Med–High—
Building managers
could put out
sandbags or
temporary flood
barriers and have
pumps in low-lying
areas
High—
Building
follows flood
standards
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
Med–
High
Temperature
and Extreme
Heat
Low—Extreme
heat has been an
issue in this area
for apartments
Low–Med—project
is not currently
designed to have
air conditioning
High—
Building
follows latest
standards
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
Low–Med
Extreme
Precipitation
High—Similar
projects have
held up well
against extreme
precipitation
High—Project has
well-sealed
windows and
doors as well as a
stormwater
capture system
High—
Building
follows latest
standards
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
High
Wildfire Low–Med—
Wildfires are not
a big issue in this
location but
apartments that
do burn from
structure fires do
not have much
adaptive capacity
Low—Project does
not have many
elements that
mitigate wildfire
risks
High—
Building
follows latest
wildfire
protection
standards
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
Low–Med
Drought High—
Apartments in this
area have fared
well against past
droughts
High—Project is
served by a utility
that draws from
multiple water
sources to aid
resilience
Not applicable
for this hazard
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
High
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 420 Climate
Hazard
Question #1.
(Impact of Past
Events)
Question #2.
(Elements that
Mitigate Climate
Hazards)
Question #3.
(Climate
Change
Standards)
Question #4.
(Climate
Change
Funding)
Final
Adaptive
Capacity
Score
Decrease in
Snowpack
High—This
hazard has not
been an issue in
the past
High—Few
impacts expected
from this hazard
Not applicable
for this hazard
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
High
Air Quality
Degradation
Med—Apartments
in this area have
applied some cost
and effort to
manage this issue
Low–Med—This
project does not
have air filters that
allow individual
operability
High—
Building
follows latest
standards
Low—Little
funding for
climate
adaptation
activities
Med
Develop Potential Impacts Score
The exposure and sensitivity scores for each climate hazard should be averaged to develop potential impacts scores. If the result is a decimal score (e.g., 2.5), round up or down using best judgment of the potential impacts from that climate hazard on the user’s project.

Calculate the project’s potential impact scores by averaging the scores for exposure and sensitivity.

Use Case Example: Table 4-6 shows the potential impact score for each climate hazard and the associated justification.

Table 4-6. Potential Impacts Scores and Justifications for Use Case Example Climate Hazard
Exposure
Score
Sensitivity
Score
Potential Impact Score & Justification
(if not a whole number)
Sea Level Rise 1 3 2
Flooding 1 4 2 (rounded down from 2.5); flooding is not a big concern in this area
Temperature and
Extreme Heat
5 5 5
Extreme Precipitation 2 2 2
Wildfire 2 4 3
Drought 5 2 4 (rounded up from 3.5); drought impacts
on water supply may become more
significant, particularly when also
considering extreme heat
Decrease in Snowpack 3 1 2
Air Quality
Degradation
5 4 5 (rounded up from 4.5); air quality is a
major issue in Los Angeles and residents
are highly sensitive
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 421 Develop Overall Vulnerability Score
The potential impacts and adaptative capacity assessments should be combined to obtain an overall vulnerability score for each climate hazard. Figure 4-3 provides a matrix to convert the results of the two assessments into a single score. Users should locate their potential impacts score (1 to 5) in the first column and their adaptive capacity rating (low to high) in the bottom row. The intersection between these two data points is the resulting vulnerability score for the climate hazard.

Use the results from the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessment to develop an overall vulnerability score for each climate hazard.

Figure 4-3. Vulnerability Score Matrix Potential Impacts 5 5 5 4 3 2
4 5 4 3 2 1
3 4 3 2 2 1
2 3 2 2 1 1
1 2 1 1 1 1
Low Low-Med Med Mid-High High
Adaptive Capacity
Note: Color coding indicates severity of the score, with green cells showing the lowest (least vulnerable) scores and dark red showing the highest (most vulnerable).

Use Case Example: Figure 4-4 shows how the exposure and sensitivity scores were combined to develop the potential impacts score, and then how the potential impacts score and adaptive capacity rating were combined to develop the overall vulnerability score for each climate hazard.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 422 Figure 4-4. Hypothetical Exposure, Sensitivity, Potential Impact, Adaptive Capacity, and Vulnerability Scores for An Affordable Housing Unit in Los Angeles Select Highest-Scoring Vulnerabilities
From the previous sub-steps, users should now have a climate vulnerability score between 1 and 5 for the following climate hazards.

1. Sea level rise.

2. Flooding.

3. Temperature and extreme heat.

4. Extreme precipitation.

5. Wildfire.

6. Drought.

7. Decrease in snowpack.

8. Air quality degradation.

Next, users should choose the priority climate hazards based on the final vulnerability scores. These priority hazards will be the focus for reducing vulnerabilities through adaptation measures in the following section.

Use Case Example: Figure 4-4 shows the vulnerability scores for the Los Angeles housing project example. Because the project scored a 5 for Temperature and Extreme Heat and a 4 for Air Quality Degradation, we will select these two as priority climate hazards.

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 423 It may be helpful to use a vulnerability score threshold (e.g., all hazards exceeding a score of three) for identifying priority climate hazards. This threshold may depend on the user’s risk tolerance. For example, if a user has a high risk tolerance, the user may only wish to look at adaptation measures for climate hazards for which there was a vulnerability score of 4 or above. If the user has a lower risk tolerance, the user may wish to also consider addressing climate hazards for which the user’s vulnerability score was 3 or above.

Once the user has chosen the priority climate risks that the user wants to address, the user can begin to choose and analyze adaptation measures.

Estimating Risk Reduction and Co-Benefits from
Adaptation Measures
Following a similar process to establish a baseline vulnerability score, this section outlines steps that Handbook users can take to identify the reduction in vulnerability associated with specific adaptation measures. With this information, users can better prioritize and select adaptation actions to manage climate risks threatening their project. Users should consider priority climate risks and project budget in assessing measures and their benefits.

Refer to Climate Risk Reduction Measures for a comprehensive list of potential measures.

Identify Adaptation Benefits
The following steps provide guidance on assessing the impact of a measure on overall vulnerability. Users can follow these steps using the worksheet provided in Appendix D, Climate Vulnerability Worksheets.

After selecting a climate hazard from the identified priority climate hazards, users will determine risk reduction from an adaptation measure in the following steps.

1. Identify the extent of the measure’s reduction of potential impacts. a. Determine the exposure reduction.
b. Determine the sensitivity reduction.
c. Assess the overall effect of the measure on potential impacts on a scale of 0–4 reduction points (No effect, Low, Medium, High, and Very High).

2. Evaluate the extent to which the measure bolsters adaptive capacity on a scale of 0–4 reduction points (No effect, Low, Medium, High, and Very High).

3. Estimate impacts on the vulnerability score by considering the measure’s effect on reducing exposure and sensitivity (i.e., potential impacts), and increasing adaptive capacity.

Use Case Example: The proposed affordable housing unit being developed in Los Angeles has a high vulnerability to temperature and extreme heat (5) and low-medium adaptive capacity. The developer elects to incorporate adaptation solutions by improving the B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 424 building envelope efficiency to protect against extreme heat, such as by installing wellsealed doors and windows, adding window treatments such as solar shades, and increasing shading through enhanced landscaping.

The following section outlines guiding questions and applies the framework to adaptation measures for the use case discussed above. Measures may impact all the components of vulnerability to a hazard, or only target exposure, sensitivity, and/or adaptative capacity.

Determine Exposure Reduction
As discussed in the section Determine Exposure Score, the primary driver of exposure is location. A project’s proximity to areas susceptible to a hazard will affect the extent to which the project will be subjected to a climate hazard. For example, a project located in a flood zone or in the WUI will be exposed to flooding and wildfire, respectively. While location primarily drives exposure, Handbook users can use adaptation actions to lessen the degree to which a project is exposed to a hazard. The degree to which an adaptation measure lessens the amount of exposure determines its exposure reduction. The following guiding questions can help users determine the extent to which a measure lowers exposure to a specific hazard.
▪ How does the measure remove exposure (e.g., relocating a project)? ▪ How much does the measure change the project design to reduce future exposure (e.g., raising a building to reduce flood exposure)?
▪ Does the measure change post-construction operations and management to reduce future exposure (e.g., wildfire fuel removal or management)? Use Case Example: Enhancing building envelope efficiency does not change the location or otherwise reduce the exposure of the project. It instead reduces its sensitivity (see Determine Sensitivity Reduction section). Not all measures apply to each component of vulnerability.

In this use case example, exposure from the priority hazards of extreme heat and impaired air quality cannot be avoided without physically relocating the project, which is not feasible. The project developer can seek to reduce vulnerabilities by decreasing sensitivity or increasing adaptive capacity through adaptation measures.

Determine Sensitivity Reduction
To lower sensitivity, a measure must reduce the degree to which a project is affected by exposure to a hazard. The following guiding questions can support users in determining the extent to which a measure decreases harm to a project.
▪ How much does the measure mitigate the hazards’ effect on fragile or critical components of the project (e.g., cooling systems for equipment sensitive to overheating)? ▪ Does the measure lower the hazard’s effect on individuals, particularly members of vulnerable populations (e.g., greater access for underserved populations to parks)? B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 425 ▪ Does the measure lower the impact to an operational component affected by the climate hazard (e.g., conduct regular cleaning and maintenance of storm drains along key roadways)?
Use Case Example: The measure reduces how severely building occupants will experience extreme heat. Given that the project is for affordable housing, the measure also has the potential to provide protection from heat events for those in vulnerable communities.

Overall, the measure has a low sensitivity reduction.

Determine Potential Impact Reduction
To qualitatively determine the degree to which the measure reduces potential impacts from a climate hazard, Handbook users should consider the extent to the which the measure lowers each component of the potential impacts score (i.e., sensitivity and exposure). Then, users should combine the benefits of the measure’s mitigation of sensitivity and exposure to determine the net effect using the following reduction rating scale. 0 = No Effect
1 = Low
2 = Medium
3 = High
4 = Very High
Points associated with the scale (0–4) will be used to assess vulnerability reductions.

However, no measure, with the exception or relocating a project, can completely remove the threat from a particular climate hazard with a defined geographic footprint (e.g., floodplain). Measures mitigate, rather than remove, potential impacts from a hazard. The extent to which a measure will lower potential impacts from a climate hazard depends on the Handbook user’s project.

Use Case Example: The building envelope enhancement measure has no effect on exposure to the hazard but has a relatively low effect on reducing building occupants’ sensitivity to increased temperature and heat events. Combined, the measure provides a low potential impacts reduction rating (which results in a one-point reduction).

Identify Adaptive Capacity Gains
Adaptation measures can also increase a project’s adaptive capacity. A measure provides adaptive capacity benefits if it improves the project’s capacity to take advantage of opportunities or mitigate the hazard’s consequences. These guiding questions support Handbook users in considering how a measure bolsters adaptive capacity. ▪ Does the measure add climate resilient components to the project (e.g., drainage system, cool roof)?
▪ Does the measure incorporate policies or standards that account for climate change (e.g., adopt or update heat emergency plan)?
B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 426 ▪ How does the measure improve the project’s management of climate hazards (e.g., incorporating projected changes in precipitation and flooding into planned wastewater systems)?
▪ Does the measure reduce how project users are exposed to the hazard (e.g., using a notification system to provide evacuation information)? After evaluating the measure’s impacts using the guiding questions, the user should determine the net effect of the measure on adaptive capacity using the following rating increase scale.
0 = No Effect
1 = Low
2 = Medium-Low
3 = High
4 = Very High
Points associated with the scale (0–4) will be used to assess adaptive capacity gains. As with potential impacts, no measure can increase adaptive capacity to the extent to which overall vulnerability is eliminated. Rather, measures can only strengthen a project’s overall adaptive capacity score.

Use Case Example: The building envelope enhancement measure improves adaptive capacity and climate resilience because it protects occupants more effectively from heat events and keeps cool air inside the building. Overall, the measure has a medium increase rating for adaptive capacity (which result in a 2-point increase).

Estimate Measure’s Effect on Overall Vulnerability
After evaluating the measure’s effect on potential impacts and adaptive capacity, the user can estimate the extent to which the measure reduces overall vulnerability. To determine a measure’s overall reduction of overall vulnerability, the user should do the following.

1. Subtract the points associated with the potential impact reduction rating (0–4) from the existing potential impact score to get a net potential impacts score.

2. Add the points associated with the adaptive capacity increase rating (0–4) to the existing adaptive capacity score to get a net adaptive capacity score.

By adopting a measure, the Handbook user can move the project down and right in the vulnerability matrix (see Figure 4-5) as the measure lowers potential impacts and increases adaptive capacity respectively. The evaluation of net changes in potential climate impact and adaptive capacity scores help guide the user in considering the extent to which a measure can decrease the overall vulnerability of a project.

The Handbook user should remember that the rating points act as a guide to estimate the overall effect of an adaptation measure on vulnerability and are not an absolute determination of the measure’s effect on the project’s vulnerability. The Handbook user B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 427 should apply this process with careful consideration. For example, if a project has a potential impacts score of 4, and the measure has a high potential impacts reduction rating (3 reduction points), the net potential impacts score could be 1. However, the Handbook user might believe that the project could be considerably affected by a hazard despite adopting the measure and determine the net potential impacts score is 2. The example below highlights how a Handbook user can follow the process as a guide to determine the project’s overall vulnerability score after applying a measure.

Use Case Example: The measure provides a low potential impacts reduction rating (1 reduction point) and a medium adaptive capacity increase rating (2 addition points). Given the project started at a vulnerability score of 5, the measure reduces the project’s vulnerability score to a 2, as seen in Figure 4-5.

Figure 4-5. Vulnerability Score Matrix for Use Case Example Identify Adaptation Co-Benefits
Adaptation measures may also result in co-benefits for a project, as shown in Climate Risk Reduction Measures. Possible co-benefits include improved air quality, energy and fuel savings, VMT reductions, water conservation, enhanced pedestrian or traffic safety, improved public health, improved ecosystem health, enhanced energy security, enhanced food security, and social equity. Some of these co-benefits are qualitative, while others are quantifiable. Chapter 3, Measures to Reduce GHG Emissions, includes methodologies to estimate measures’ co-benefits specifically related to energy and fuel savings, VMT reductions, and water conservation. Additionally, the California Air Resources Board provides an expansive set of methodologies to evaluate co-benefits (CARB n.d.).

B3 Attach #1 of 3
Handbook for Analyzing GHG Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity ASSESSING CLIMATE EXPOSURES AND MEASURES TO REDUCE VULNERABILITIES | 428 Climate Risk Reduction Measures
This section includes 99 potential climate risk reduction measures. All measures include the following descriptors.
▪ Climate Hazard: Identifies the climate hazard(s) for which the measure reduces risk.

Fresno City CouncilDecember 14, 2023

Fresno City Council
December 14, 2023