9. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/climate-change/report/2018indicatorssummary.pdf
10. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001210
11. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf fivefold increase in the annual area burned, very
likely due to increased atmospheric temperatures
caused by climate change.10 Over the last century
sea levels have risen by more than 5.9 inches
along Central and Southern California coast,
which has accelerated coastal erosion, disrupted
wetlands and natural habitats, and threatened
levee systems and other coastal infrastructure.11 Many of these hazards caused by climate change could have direct effects on Livermore
and other communities throughout California,
including water shortages, power outages, and
property damage. An overview of climate hazards
and their impacts is shown below in Figure 1-3
and a detailed vulnerability assessment for the
City of Livermore is summarized in Chapter
2 and included in detail in Appendix B.
Figure 1-3. Climate Hazards and Impacts in California
Increased
Temperatures
GRADUAL CLIMATE
CHANGES
LOCAL
CLIMATE HAZARDS
DIRECT
IMPACTS
Fluctuations in
Precipitation
Sea Level Rise
Increased Droughts
Increased Wildfires
Increased Coastal
Flooding
Worsened Air Quality
Extreme Heat Events
Power Outages
Increased Beach Tourism and Congestion
Asthma & Respiratory Impacts
Water Shortages
Increased Utility Rates
Crop Loss & Increased Food Prices
Property Loss & Damage
School & Business Disruption
Transportation Impacts
Heat-related Illness or Death
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Climate Change 6
EXHIBIT B
626
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
1-3. Legislative Context
CLIMATE LEGISLATION IN CALIFORNIA
California is recognized globally as a leader on climate change, having established a variety of ambitious GHG-reduction targets and associated strategies. The primary legislation that has driven statewide GHGemissions reductions are Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB) 32, and most recently, Executive Order (EO) B-55-18. Aligning with State targets is one of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for streamlining. Livermore's CAP meets the requirements of a CEQA Qualified CAP and can be used to streamline new development which is consistent with the CAP's measures and actions.
More information on the CEQA requirements can be found in Appendix D.
12. Both the State of California and the City of Livermore exceeded this goal as of 2017.
AB 32 – Global Warming Solutions
Act (2006)
AB 32 set a statewide goal for reducing GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and required the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to prepare
a Scoping Plan to outline the main strategies
California would take to achieve this goal. The
first Scoping Plan was adopted in 2008.12
SB 32 (2016)
SB 32 set a new statewide goal for reducing
GHG emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels
by 2030, extending upon the 2020 goal
already established by the Global Warming
Solutions Act. In 2017, CARB adopted an
update to the Scoping Plan which provided a
framework for achieving the 2030 target.
EO B-55-18 (2018)
Governor Jerry Brown’s Executive Order (EO)
B-55-18 (2018) set a new statewide GHGemission reduction goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintain net negative
emissions afterwards. While not yet codified
into law, it is generally seen as superseding
the previous statewide goal of reducing GHG
emissions 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050.
Other Key Legislation
California’s GHG-emissions-reduction strategies
that will help achieve these reduction targets are
developed through its Scoping Plan and various
Sustainable Communities Strategies passed
by local Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Other important climate legislation that will
help California achieve its GHG-reduction
targets include the state’s green building
code (Title 24), SB 1383, which set targets for
reducing organic waste to landfills, and SB
100, which mandated 100 percent carbon-free
electricity by 2045. A timeline of major
California climate legislation is shown in Figure
1-4. For a complete list of California’s climate
change regulations please see Appendix E.
A qualified CAP allows Livermore to
streamline new developments that
meet our climate goals, decreasing
costs and effectively incentivizing
climate smart development.
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Legislative Context 7
EXHIBIT B
627
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2.Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Figure 1-4.California Climate
Legislation Timeline
'02
'04
'06
'09
'03
'05
'08
'07
'10
'14
'12
'16
'11
'15
'13
'17
'18
SB 1078: Renewable
Portfolio Standards
Established
EO S-3-05: GHG Emissions
Reduction Targets
Established
AB 32: Global Warming
Solutions Act
EO S-1-07: Low Carbon
Fuel Standard
SB X7-7: The Water
Conservation Act of 2009
AB 341: Mandatory
Commercial Recycling
SB 32: 40% Below 1990
by 2030
SB 1383: Short-lived
Climate Pollutants
AB 32: Scoping Plan
SB 32: Scoping Plan Update
SB 100: RPS Increases
Adopted
EO B-55-18: Carbon
Neutrality by 2045
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan| Legislative Context8
EXHIBIT B
628
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
1-4. Livermore’s Past Climate Action Success
13. https://ebce.org/about/
14. https://www.ca-ilg.org/award/city-livermore-sustainability-best-practice-activities-0
15. https://www.plugshare.com/directory/us/california/livermore
16. https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/community-development/planning/climate-action-plan The City of Livermore (City) is no stranger to
taking bold, progressive action on climate change.
The City adopted a Climate Change Element into
its General Plan in 2009 that established policies
for addressing climate change in Livermore. The
Climate Change Element called for the City to
adopt a CAP to set forth strategies to reduce GHG
emissions. The City adopted its first CAP in 2012,
which established a target to reduce emissions
15 percent below 2008 levels by 2020. This target
was in accordance Assembly Bill (AB) 32. The City
conducted a 2017 GHG emissions inventory that
revealed Livermore had surpassed the 2020 target
by 2017, three years ahead of schedule. More
details about the 2017 inventory and the City’s
emissions reductions are included in Chapter 2.
Since adopting the CAP, the City has adopted
additional plans that help implement key
components of its overarching sustainability
strategy, including an Active Transportation
Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, and Tri-Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. The most
relevant plans referenced in the CAP Update
are highlighted below in more detail.
Livermore was a founding member of East
Bay Community Energy, a Community
Choice Energy service which has provided
the city with clean electricity options for
both residents and businesses since 2018.13
In 2017, Livermore was awarded the Gold
Level Spotlight Award for Sustainability Best
Practices by the Institute of Local Governments,
as a part of the Beacon Program.14 Livermore
has also been recognized by the Arbor Day
Association, which awarded Livermore the
Sterling City USA designation in 2018 for
achievements in urban forestry education,
partnerships, tree planting, and maintenance.
There are currently 96 electric vehicle chargers
available to the public in Livermore, and the
City has over a dozen electric and hybrid
vehicles as a part of its public fleet.15 Livermore
also holds annual electronic waste recycling
events, reuses damaged asphalt, and purchases
recycled materials for City operations.16 In 2011,
Livermore banned the use of Styrofoam to-go
containers for food service businesses, reducing
Solar array on the City of Livermore Civic Center Campus.
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Livermore’s Past Climate Action Success 9
EXHIBIT B
629
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
litter and water pollution.17 The City also utilizes
a recycled water system for irrigation, fire
protection, and other uses to conserve water.
Since adopting the first CAP, Livermore, like
many communities in California, has increasingly felt the impacts of climate change. In recent years wildfires have become more
severe, degrading air quality and impacting
residents with smoke that can last weeks, such
as during the SCU Lightning Complex Fire in
2020. The extended drought of the 2010s was
one of the most intense in California’s history,
17. https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/public-works/environmental-services. straining water supplies and putting the local
agriculture and wine industry at risk. Extreme
heat events have become more common,
worsening public health risks for vulnerable
communities and those with existing health
conditions. These climate impacts have only
reinforced the City of Livermore’s commitment
to taking meaningful climate action, in order
to ensure a prosperous and livable climate for
future generations. The City’s past efforts provide
the foundation for Livermore’s CAP Update and
will be key to its successful implementation.
Click on the plan name or image below to view the document.
General Plan
Climate Change Element
2009
Climate Action Plan
2012
Tri-Valley Local Hazard
Mitigation Plan
2018
Bicycle, Pedestrian, & Trails
Active Transportation Plan
2018
Stormwater Green
Infrastructure Plan
2019
Urban Water
Management Plan
2020
Storm Drain Master Plan
2022
FACT: Livermore reached their 2020 GHG reduction goal in 2017, exceeding the goals set by the 2012 Climate Action Plan.
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Livermore’s Past Climate Action Success 10
EXHIBIT B
630
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
1-5. CAP Goals and Development Process
The Climate Action Plan creates a roadmap to
prepare the community for climate impacts
and establish a pathway to carbon neutrality by
2045. Implementation and funding strategies are
a key consideration of the plan to ensure that
strategies are actionable and lead to meaningful
improvements in resilience and reductions in
GHG emissions. Additionally, implementation of
the CAP will be based upon inclusivity, focusing
on equity, youth involvement, and open dialogue
with local leaders in vulnerable communities.
The CAP update leveraged several unique characteristics of the city including its active and engaged community, the technological prowess
of Livermore’s two National Laboratories, and
its strong agricultural heritage. Additionally,
Livermore’s neighboring communities of Dublin
and Pleasanton have both recently updated
their own CAPs, setting GHG reduction and
climate adaptation goals that are in-line with
those of Livermore. This presents an opportunity
to work together on regional implementation
efforts, whether through the passage of unified
codes, joint funding of regional infrastructure
projects, or cooperative resilience planning. The
risks posed by climate change do not occur in a
vacuum and neither should climate mitigation
or adaptation planning. Together, Livermore and
other Tri-Valley communities can help create a
better more sustainable East Bay. The Livermore
CAP development process is shown in Figure 1-5.
Quest Science Center’s Science @ Stockmen’s Park event. Photo credit: Mike Carter City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | CAP Goals and Development Process 11
EXHIBIT B
631
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Figure 1-5. Livermore CAP Update Development Process
1. Complete a Climate Change Vulnerability Analysis. The first step of the CAP Update was to identify the climate change impacts that are expected in Livermore and analyze how those changes would affect the community.
2. Complete a GHG Inventory and Forecast and Establish Reduction Targets.
At the same time, the City quantified existing GHG emissions to create a baseline, used growth factors to estimate future emissions, and established targets for reducing GHG emissions that align with established state goals.
3. Conduct Community and Stakeholder Engagement. The City engaged with the community and stakeholders and incorporated feedback and input into the CAP. This engagement included a Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee made up of Livermore residents.
4. Establish a GHG Reduction and Adaptation Strategy. The CAP includes community-specific strategies and actions that will achieve Livermore’s GHG emissions reduction targets, build community resilience to climate impacts, and protect vulnerable communities.
5. Complete CAP Document and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Environmental Review. The City combined the data and strategies into an accessible, implementable document and completed CEQA review.
6. Implement the Strategies in the Plan. Following City Council adoption, the City will take action and implement the CAP strategies in the community.
7. Monitor and Track Progress. The City will monitor implementation progress to ensure that it is on-track to meet its goals, and make adjustments to the CAP as needed.
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | CAP Goals and Development Process 12
EXHIBIT B
632
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
BENEFITS OF CLIMATE ACTION
The City is committed to creating a more
sustainable, equitable, and healthy community
that balances the needs of a growing population
and economy. Through implementing the CAP
Livermore expects to see several important
benefits. Together, the CAP’s measures
and actions will contribute to the creation
of a stronger community based upon:
Public Health – Creating a
healthier community by improving air
quality and active transportation.
Community Connectivity –
Promoting a strong sense of community
by creating complete, accessible
neighborhoods, opportunities to engage, and
resources for underserved communities.
Resilience + GHG Reduction –
Some GHG reduction strategies can
have resilience benefits as well, and
vice versa. For example, increasing local energy
storage and power generation can increase
energy resilience while decarbonizing the grid.
Environmental Quality –
Improving natural environments within
the city to protect biodiversity and
ecosystem services like cleaner air and water.
Green Economy – Diversifying
local economic opportunities
by attracting high-quality jobs
in sustainability industries such as those
focused on developing zero emission
vehicles or battery storage technologies.
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | CAP Goals and Development Process 13
EXHIBIT B
633
CHAPTER 2.
Climate Change in Livermore
14 EXHIBIT B
634
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Climate Change Impacts in Livermore 15 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
2-1. Climate Change Impacts in Livermore
As a part of Livermore’s CAP Update, a Vulnerability Analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential impacts of climate change on community assets and populations. This analysis provides a deeper understanding of Livermore’s vulnerabilities to the impacts of climate change that served as a foundation for the climate adaptation strategies and actions included in the CAP to increase resilience. The main findings of Livermore’s Vulnerability Analysis are summarized here with additional information provided in Appendix B.
A SUMMARY OF CLIMATE CHANGE IN LIVERMORE
Extreme Heat: Maximum and minimum
temperatures are expected to increase by the
mid-to-late twenty-first century. The extent of these
increases and the associated impacts have a high
degree of uncertainty in the near-term.
Wildfires and Air Quality: Wildfire risk will
decrease within the city limits, but smoke from
increased wildfires statewide will continue to have
adverse effects on public health and quality of life in Livermore.
Precipitation Variability: Precipitation variability
is expected to increase throughout the twenty-first
century with larger flashier storms and less consistent precipitation in between. This is expected to result in both flooding and drought conditions.
Vulnerable Populations and Infrastructure:
Vulnerable populations, vital community infrastructure, and the city’s transportation system are most sensitive and at-risk to climate impacts. Livermore currently
has a low-to-medium adaptive capacity rating due to
the high number of existing measures but low overall
implementation rates.
EXHIBIT B
635
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
INCREASED TEMPERATURES AND EXTREME HEAT EVENTS
1. https://barc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020-12/20190116-sanfranciscobayarea.pdf
2. https://cal-adapt.org/
3. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/california-global-warming-impacts 4 https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patients-health/ health-effects-ozone-general-population
5. https://cal-adapt.org/
By the end of the twenty-first century, average
annual temperatures in the Bay Area are
projected to increase anywhere from 4.2 °F to
7.2 °F depending on the emissions scenario,
when compared to the historic baseline period
of 1950 to 2005.1
Inland areas like Livermore
are expected to experience the most significant
changes. The Vulnerability Analysis found that
temperature projections for Livermore show
a consistent increasing trend through the end
of the century, with average annual maximum
temperatures projected to increase between
4.5 °F to 8.7 °F when compared with 1990.
Average annual minimum temperatures are
also projected to increase between 3.2 °F and
8 °F by the end of the century, which indicates
less cooling off at night.2
In a medium-to-high
emissions scenario, rising temperatures could
also cause 75 percent to 85 percent more days
with weather conducive to ozone formation
when compared to today.3
Ozone is a compound
that when inhaled can cause both short-term
and long-term adverse health effects.4
The frequency and duration of extreme
heat events are also projected to increase in
Livermore by the end of the century. Under a
high emissions scenario, Livermore is expected
to experience 25 extreme heat days annually
(defined as days with temperatures over 102.7 °F)
by the end of the century, compared to four
in 1990. The annual number of heat waves
(defined as four or more extreme heat days
in a row) is expected to be from 0 to 3 under
the same scenario, with the longest duration
of consecutive extreme heat days increasing
from 2.2 days in 1990 to just over 7 days.5
Average
Annual Minimum
Temperature
Projected to Increase
3.2°F-8°F
By the End
of the Century
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Climate Change Impacts in Livermore 16
EXHIBIT B
636
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
INCREASED HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS FROM LARGE WILDFIRES
6. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/20180827_Summary_Brochure_ADA.pdf
7. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUMCCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf
8. https://barc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020-12/20190116- sanfranciscobayarea.pdf
9. https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/wildfires/smoke.html
Wildfire risk is determined by multiple factors,
including climate variability, local topography,
land cover, and human activity. Increasing
acreage burned by wildfire is being driven by
increasing air temperatures and periods of
drought.6
Statewide, the mean area burned is
projected to increase by 77 percent by the end
of the century under a high-emissions scenario
when compared to 1961-1990.7
Livermore’s
Vulnerability Analysis, however, found that the
annual average of acres burned in Livermore
is projected to decrease through the end
of the century. This is likely due to wildfires
throughout the century reducing the amount
of vegetation available to burn, changes in
plant communities due to the local warming
climate, and the low number of CAL FIRE Very
High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the city.
There is a strong connection between human
activity and wildfires, with fire activity peaking
in wildland-urban interface areas due to
increased ignitions. Future land use patterns and
development will thus heavily impact wildfire
risk throughout the twenty-first century.8
While wildfires may not pose a direct threat to
life and property within Livermore, smoke from
wildfires throughout the state continues to have
detrimental effects on quality of life and public
health in Livermore. Wildfires have the potential
to cause smoky days thousands of miles beyond
the areas that they burn, worsening air quality
and putting vulnerable populations at risk. The
particulates that make up wildfire smoke are
pollutants that present a substantial public health
risk. This could result in increases in eye and
respiratory tract irritation, reduced lung function,
pulmonary inflammation, bronchitis, asthma and
other lung diseases, cardiovascular disease, and
premature death by the end of the century.9
77%
Increase in
Mean Area Burned
Statewide
Compared to
1961-1990
Photo credit: Glen Florey
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Climate Change Impacts in Livermore 17
EXHIBIT B
637
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Climate Change Impacts in Livermore 18 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
CHANGES IN PRECIPITATION PATTERNS
10. https://cal-adapt.org/
11. https://barc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020-12/20190116-sanfranciscobayarea.pdf
12. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/20180827_Summary_Brochure_ADA.pdf
13. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf
14. https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/water-and-drought/article240394281.html
15. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/warming-winters-and-dwindling-sierra-nevada-snowpackwill-squeeze#:~:text=Snowmelt%20from%20the%20Sierra%20Nevada,of%20Southern%20California's%20water%20 resources.&text=Based%20on%20the%20new%20study,in%20average%20winter%20air%20temperature.
Average annual precipitation in Livermore will
increase slightly by the end of the century.10
Precipitation will likely be more variable
and unpredictable overall, resulting
in more whiplash events where
extremely dry periods are
followed by extremely wet
periods.11 This could pose
difficulties for local drinking
water supplies and the agricultural industry, both of which rely on the predictability of
annual precipitation patterns.
The frequency and intensity of extreme
precipitation events (successive days where
the total two-day rainfall is above 1 inch) is
expected to increase in the Bay Area region
through the end of the twenty-first century.
However, this trend is not as clear in Livermore.12
Projections show the number of extreme precipitation events increasing from three in 1990 to five to seven by mid-century,
depending on the emissions scenario.
If extreme precipitation events
increase, Livermore can expect
more flooding in low-lying areas.
REDUCTION IN THE SIERRA NEVADA SNOWPACK
The state’s average snow water is anticipated to
decline to less than two-thirds of its historical
average by 2050,13 likely to lead to water supply
challenges statewide. The snowpack in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains is responsible for about 30
percent of the state’s annual water supply14 and
provides roughly 75 percent of statewide agricultural water.15 Wineries and other agricultural businesses in Livermore are highly sensitive to
changes in water availability, which could lead to
decreased agricultural output from the Tri-Valley
region. Reduced water
runoff from snowpack
may also reduce
the amount of
electricity that
can be produced
from hydropower.
Sierra Nevada
Mountain
Snowpack Provides
~30%
State’s Annual
Water Supply
Increase of
3-7 Extreme Precipitation
Events Annually
From 1990 to
Mid-century
2017 storm damage along the Arroyo Mocho in Livermore.
EXHIBIT B
638
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
SENSITIVE STRUCTURES, FUNCTIONS, AND POPULATIONS
Sensitivity describes aspects of Livermore that will
be most affected by the identified stressors and
hazards that the community will be exposed to as
a result of climate change. These can generally be
broken down between community structures and
functions, and populations. Community structures
and functions that were identified include:
• Essential facilities are needed for the
health and welfare of the population of
Livermore and are especially important
following climate-influenced hazard events.
Essential Facilities include City of Livermore
municipal buildings, healthcare facilities,
schools, and senior living facilities
• Sensitive facilities are those places where
damage would have large environmental, economic, or public safety consequences, are also considered particularly vulnerable to climate change. These include
water collection, storage, and distribution infrastructure, the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, and Lawrence Livermore
and Sandia National Laboratories
• Community functions include the energy
delivery system, emergency services such
as police and fire, recreation spaces, and
agricultural businesses and facilities
• Transportation systems include roads and
freeways, bike and trail network, and public
transit systems, such as the Altamont Corridor
Express and Wheels Bus (also known as the
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority)
Sensitive populations in Livermore include its
senior citizens, chronically ill individuals (e.g.,
heart and lung disease, diabetes), socially or
economically disadvantaged populations, and
outdoor workers, such as those in the agriculture
industry. Sensitive community structures, functions, and populations may be the most affected by climate impacts, particularly in areas where
multiple or compounding vulnerabilities exist.
Adaptive capacity describes Livermore’s ability to
cope with extreme events and make changes in
the community to moderate potential damage.
The City has a variety of both reactive and
proactive adaptation measures included in its
General Plan Climate Change Element, Emergency
Operations Plan, Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation
Plan, and others. An analysis conducted for the
CAP found that while Livermore has over 200
sustainability and adaptation measures, there is
a relatively low level of implementation of these
measures, resulting in an overall low-to-medium
adaptive capacity rating for the community.
The
ability of
a community
to withstand an
extreme climate
event is called
Adaptive
Capacity
Livermore Water Reclamation Plant
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Climate Change Impacts in Livermore 19
EXHIBIT B
639
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Livermore’s GHG Emissions 20 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
2-2. Livermore’s GHG Emissions
16. https://developer.epa.gov/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator-widget/ An important part of the climate action planning
process is the development of a GHG inventory.
GHG inventories measure emissions from various
sources or sectors within a jurisdiction and allow
for monitoring progress, reducing GHG emissions,
and achieving established GHG-reduction targets.
Livermore’s CAP includes community-wide
GHG emissions inventories for 2010, 2015, and
2017, as well as an updated 2005 baseline GHG
inventory (originally conducted for the 2012 CAP).
Emissions from municipal operations are included
as part of the community emissions. They
were not calculated separately from community-wide emissions due to their relatively small contribution to Livermore’s overall emissions.
Due to CO2
, CH4, and N2O comprising the
large majority of GHG emissions in Livermore,
this CAP focuses on these three gases for
its GHG emissions inventory, forecast, and
reduction strategy, consistent with the ICLEI
– Local Governments for Sustainability’s U.S.
Community Protocol for Accounting and
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. All
emissions are converted to the equivalent of
one metric ton of carbon dioxide, or MT CO2
e.
One MT CO2e is the equivalent of using 113 gallons of gasoline or driving 2,492 miles in a standard combustion vehicle.16 =
2,482
MILES*
* in a standard combustion vehicle
113
GALLONS
OF GASOLINE
OR
1 MT of
CO2
e
EXHIBIT B
640
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Livermore’s GHG Emissions 21 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
2017 GHG INVENTORY
17. On-road vehicle emissions were calculated using vehicle miles travelled (VMT) that was adjusted using recommended methods from the Senate Bill 375 Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) and converted to GHGs using emissions factors from CARB’s Emissions Factor (EMFAC) model.
The 2017 GHG inventory was utilized to track
progress reducing GHG emissions and to develop
updated forecasts and GHG emissions reduction
targets for the CAP through 2045. Emissions
from residential and commercial energy usage,
on-road passenger and commercial transportation, off-road transportation, landfilled waste, water, and wastewater are all included in the
inventory. Livermore’s total GHG emissions
for 2017 were estimated to be 535,566 MT
CO2
e, as depicted below in Figure 2-1. More
information on the data and methodologies used can be found in Appendix A.
According to the results of the 2017 GHG
inventory, the largest source of GHG emissions
in Livermore was from on-road passenger and
commercial transportation, which accounted for
59 percent of total emissions. This is primarily
related to single-passenger automobiles, as
well as commercial trucks and delivery vehicles
within the city.17 The second largest amount of
GHG emissions was from natural gas usage in
both residential and nonresidential buildings,
which combined accounted for 23 percent of
Livermore’s total GHG emissions. Natural gas
is used to heat water, homes, and businesses,
as well to run natural gas-powered appliances.
Electricity usage accounted for the third
largest source of emissions, with residential
and nonresidential sectors combining for nine
percent of total emissions in Livermore.
Figure 2-1. GHG Emissions Summary for Livermore, 2017
* Off-road includes mobile emissions from construction, recreation, agriculture, lawn and garden, and others.
** Direct Access Electricity - Electricity purchased directly by an organization/facility from the wholesale market.
On-Road Transportation
59%
4% Off-Road Transportation*
4%Waste
<1% Water
<1% Wastewater
4% Residential Electricity
5% Nonresidential Electricity
1% Direct Access Electricity**
12% Residential Gas
11% Nonresidential Gas
2017
GHG
Emission
Inventory
535,566
MT CO2e
EXHIBIT B
641
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Livermore’s GHG Emissions 22 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
LIVERMORE’S GHG EMISSIONS OVER TIME
Between 2005 and 2017 Livermore’s total
GHG emissions have decreased by 17 percent,
achieving the 2020 reduction target adopted
by the City’s previously adopted 2012 CAP. GHG
emissions decreased across all sectors from
2005 to 2017, except for nonresidential gas and
off-road transportation, which likely increased
due to the addition of the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and Sandia National
Laboratory to the City’s boundary in 2012 as
well as growth of the commercial sector within
the city and offroad vehicles. Additional details
including emission factors and activity data for
all inventory years can be found in Appendix A.
During the time period that these GHG emission
reductions took place, Livermore experienced a
population increase of 16 percent. Despite this
population growth, Livermore still achieved an
overall reduction in GHG emissions (Figure 2-2).
Figure 2-2. Historic Emissions in Livermore, 2005–2017
EXHIBIT B
642
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Livermore’s GHG Emissions 23 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST
While GHG inventories provide data on
Livermore’s current emissions, GHG emissions
forecasts estimate the city’s projected GHG
emissions into the future. Forecasts are developed
from the most recent GHG inventory and provide
an estimate of how Livermore’s emissions
might change over time based on demographic
projections including population, employment,
housing, and transportation activity. Forecasts
also include future State legislation that will
help lower Livermore’s emissions over time.
A GHG emissions forecast was developed to
quantify future GHG emissions within the city
through 2045. It was developed based off future
demographic forecasts from the Association
of Bay Area Government’s Plan Bay Area 2040
and Livermore’s 2003-2025 General Plan. The
forecast provides a projection of how GHG
emissions are likely to change over time due
to the implementation of State regulations
described in Chapter 1. The forecast includes
several regulations including SB 100 and
Advanced Clean Fleets. More information on
these regulations and how they were accounted
for in the forecast can be found in Appendix A.
Livermore’s forecast projects that the City’s
GHG emissions will decrease through 2030,
and continue to decrease, but at a slower
rate, through 2045. The slower reduction in
GHG emissions after 2030 is due to current
State legislation, including Title 24 and
California’s GHG vehicle emission standards,
being fully phased in and then being offset
by population and job growth. Potential new
State legislation could be adopted in the
future to continue driving down emissions
statewide. A summary of Livermore’s forecast
through 2045 is shown below in Figure 2-3.
FigFigure 2-3. ure 2-31 GGHG E HG Emmissions Forecast for Livermore, 2017–2045 issions Forecast for Livermore, 2017 – 2045 0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MT CO2e
Year
Off-Road Transportation and Equipment
On-Road Transportation (Commercial)
On-Road Transportation (Passenger)
Wastewater
Water
Waste
Nonresidential Gas
Residential Gas
Direct Access Electricity
Nonresidential Electricity
Residential Electricity
* Due to the relative low contribution of
emissions from water and wastewater, they
may not be visible in the graph. The order of
sectors are the same in the key and graph.
*
*
EXHIBIT B
643
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Livermore’s GHG Emissions 24 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
LIVERMORE’S GHG EMISSION REDUCTION
TARGETS FOR 2030 AND 2045
18. Association of Environmental Professionals, Final White Paper, Beyond 2020 and Newhall, October 18, 2016. https://califaep.org/docs/AEP-2016_Final_White_Paper.pdf By defining specific reduction targets, Livermore
can track its progress towards meeting its goals
and measure the success of its CAP. Livermore’s
CAP includes GHG reduction targets for 2030 and
2045, calculated based on the GHG emissions
forecast and State requirements set forth by
SB 32 and EO B-55-18. These GHG reduction
targets were established to be consistent with
the State’s climate goals, which would result in
Livermore’s “fair share” of emissions reductions
in support of California’s overall statewide
reductions.18 Additionally, the City established
per-capita targets for 2030 and 2045 instead
of mass emissions targets, as recommended by
CARB in the 2017 Scoping Plan, due to per-capita
target’s flexibility in the event of greater than
expected population growth or decline. The
pathway to achieve Livermore targets is shown
below in Figure 2-4. The emissions gap between
the forecast and the target pathway represents
the amount of GHG emissions that Livermore
will need to reduce through locally adopted
GHG reduction strategies and actions. For 2030,
this translates to mass emission reductions of
128,238 MT CO2
e in 2030, and 430,965 MT CO2e
in 2045 based on current population projections.
Livermore will reduce GHG Emissions by 40% below 1990
by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.
Figure 2-4. Per-Capita GHG Emission Reduction Targets Summary for Livermore
EXHIBIT B
644
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Community Perspectives on Climate Action 25 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
2-3. Community Perspectives on
Climate Action
In addition to the Vulnerability Analysis and the
GHG inventory and forecast, the City’s climate
action strategy was informed by extensive
community engagement. The City provided an
open and inclusive community engagement
process with ample opportunities to welcome
residents, businesses, and other partners into
the CAP process and inspire them to be a
part of Livermore’s climate-resilient future.
The engagement process brought community
members into the project early and often, keeping
a pulse on their level of support and being
responsive to their concerns. The engagement
process was driven by three primary goals.
GOAL A
Cultivate a shared understanding of
the purpose, motivation, and value of
the CAP to the City and individuals and
the process of developing the CAP.
GOAL B
Gather community perspectives
and feedback on the CAP that are
representative of the makeup of the
community to inform CAP development.
GOAL C
Build community- wide support for
advancing CAP priorities and implementing
mitigation and adaptation actions.
EXHIBIT B
645
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Community Perspectives on Climate Action 26 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Due to the project’s timing and the impacts of COVID-19, the initial outreach and engagement scope shifted away from traditional in-person events to more virtually based approaches. The City held a variety of virtual events that provided wide-reaching public engagement.
Climate Action Plan Advisory
Committee Meetings (8/20–11/22)
The Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee
(CAPAC) was made up of nine Livermore
residents selected by the City Council to provide
input and feedback to City staff throughout
the development of the CAP. Each meeting
offered opportunities for members of the
public to submit comments in writing.
Online Survey (4–8/20)
The City released a bilingual (English-Spanish)
online survey that included questions regarding
community perspectives about climate action,
priorities for climate action focus areas, and
levels of concern about climate impacts.
Online Open House (1/21)
The City developed interactive pages on the
project website to mimic an in-person open
house. The pages contained information in both
English and Spanish about the GHG inventory,
vulnerability analysis, and broad strategies
the City could take to address climate change
in Livermore. They also contained survey
questions and comment boxes for members of
the public to write their ideas and reactions to
the content on each page. The City concluded
the online open house engagement with a live
Zoom event that gave community members
an opportunity to discuss the content directly
with representatives from the City and the
Climate Action Plan consultant team.
Online Workshop (3/21)
The City hosted an interactive workshop
to gather community feedback on the
preliminary list of CAP strategies and actions.
Targeted Focus Groups and
Presentations (4–8/21)
The City hosted focus groups and presentations
to targeted groups that were underrepresented
in the engagement activities above. The City met
with members of the local business community,
stakeholders in the winegrowers and open space
community, students from Livermore High School
and Junction Avenue School, and service providers
such as La Familia and Partners for Change.
Farmers Market (4/21)
As COVID-19 restrictions eased towards the end
of the outreach process, City staff were able to
host a table at the Livermore Farmers Market.
Interactive Mural Board from the Online Workshop
EXHIBIT B
646
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Community Perspectives on Climate Action 27 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
OVERARCHING FEEDBACK FROM ENGAGEMENT
The overall response to Livermore’s climate goals and strategies was positive. Over 75 percent of the community has at least some concern over the impacts of climate change. In addition, a strong majority of Livermore’s community ranked taking action on climate change as important. The quotes below were received from Livermore community members during outreach events or submitted through surveys.
How worried are you about
climate change?
How important is it to you that the
City of Livermore community
take action on climate change?
16%
9%
9%
20%
47%
Not at all Worried (54) Not Very Worried (31)
Slightly Worried (29) Quite Worried (68)
Very Worried (159)
17%
7%
10%
15%
47%
Not Important (57) Not Very Important (25)
Slightly Important (35) Quite Important (52)
Very Important (171)
How important is it to you that the
City of Livermore community
take action on climate change?
9%
9%
20%
47%
Not at all Worried (54) Not Very Worried (31)
Slightly Worried (29) Quite Worried (68)
Very Worried (159)
17%
7%
10%
15%
47%
Not Important (57) Not Very Important (25)
Slightly Important (35) Quite Important (52)
Very Important (171)
“I believe that the health and safety of all
Livermore residents will be impacted.”
“I'm concerned about long periods of drought
and blackouts during hot weather months.”
“I'm very concerned that climate change will have the
worst impact on the most vulnerable people.”
“We will reap the benefits from important actions taken in 2021 to ensure nobody’s livelihood is threatened by climate change.” Livermore resident responses
to online survey.
EXHIBIT B
647
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Community Perspectives on Climate Action 28 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Throughout the outreach process several key themes developed. Many residents expressed concern over climate change impacts such as water availability, extreme heat, and poor air quality. Residents supported efforts related to expanding renewable energy sources, water conservation, alternative transportation modes, and improving resiliency in public infrastructure. Overall, most residents wanted the City to act on climate, but with cost effective and equitable strategies that preserve Livermore’s status as a place where people can live, work, and raise families. These themes and how they were included in the CAP development are summarized in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5. Summarized Community Feedback by Theme
Theme Community Feedback Where to Find it in the CAP
Affordability Participants encouraged the City to provide incentives and financial assistance to
property owners and expressed concern
that appliance replacements and ongoing
electricity costs will be expensive.
Economics and cost effectiveness were made
a top priority through the inclusion of the
economics guiding principle (Chapter 3). Many
actions are no or low cost for the community.
Community
Connectivity
Participants value the feeling of community in
Livermore and want it to continue to be a place
where people want to live, work, raise families,
and visit. The ability to move around the City easily
through active transportation was also identified.
Community connectivity was made a key
benefit in action development. This benefit
is reflected throughout Chapter 3.
Outreach and
Partnerships
Participants were interested in continued
outreach and education to residents and
had ideas for partnerships with the local
laboratories, homeowners associations, local
businesses, transit agencies, and schools.
Partnerships were included as a guiding
principle of the CAP and many actions
including Priority Area 4 and Strategy I-3 are
dedicated to partnerships and outreach.
Awareness
and Action
Many participants feel that the City is not
acting urgently enough and urge Livermore
to be a leader in climate action.
The CAP provides a clear implementation
section, funding and financing strategies,
and a dedicated implementation action
section to spur progress (Chapter 4).
Quality of
Life Decline
Participants expressed concern about the decline
in quality of life that will be caused by climate
change impacts like extreme heat, drought, and
wildfire smoke. The impacts on lower income
communities was of particular concern.
The CAP focuses heavily on adaptation
strategies and actions related to
Livermore’s most pressing climate issues.
A summary of Livermore’s adaptation
strategy is found on page 33.
Housing and
Jobs Balance
Participants are concerned about the availability
of housing and jobs in Livermore and want to
ensure that there is enough affordable housing
to support everyone who works in Livermore.
Through the CAP transportation and
land use section (Chapter 3) and the
General Plan update, the City is working
to increase housing in the city and
manage the jobs/housing balance.
Equity Participants noted that people who are lowincome, experiencing homelessness, or have recently secured housing don’t have the
resources to consider their carbon footprints
or the ability to adapt to climate change.
Equity was made a guiding principle and
benefit of the CAP. Actions with specific equity
benefits are noted throughout Chapter 3.
EXHIBIT B
648
CHAPTER 3.
Livermore’s Climate Action Strategy
29 EXHIBIT B
649
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 30 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
3-1. Strategy Overview
Livermore’s climate action strategy outlines a plan for how the City can prepare for climate change impacts while reducing GHG emissions to meet its 2030 and 2045 targets. This CAP builds upon Livermore’s previous efforts with actions that are equitable, achievable, and implementable. The strategies and actions in the CAP were developed through a collaborative process between City staff, the Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, City Council, key stakeholders, and the community (as described in Chapter 2).
HOW TO READ THIS SECTION
The strategies are organized by adaptation and mitigation topic (e.g., Wildfire, Flooding, Buildings and Energy, Transportation and Land Use). Each topic identifies primary objectives the City will use to measure success. The City will aim to complete these objectives before 2030.
Each strategy includes a summary that details why the strategy was chosen and major considerations for implementation. The mitigation topics include a breakdown of the total GHG emissions reductions expected from each strategy. The strategies identify specific actions the City will take to achieve its objectives. Each action includes a table with the following additional detail:
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s Climate
Action Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions 66 Strategy B-2: Decarbonize electricity from the grid and increase local renewable energy generation.
In order for Livermore to reach its 2030 reduction target and 2045 carbon-neutrality target, the majority of
energy utilized in the City will need to be carbon-free.
Renewable electricity procurement is essential for decarbonizing the communities emissions from electricity and will create the foundation for a carbon-free future.
The focus of Livermore’s energy strategy is procuring
100 percent carbon-free electricity for both residents
and businesses as soon as possible. Decarbonizing
electricity works hand-in-hand with building electrification and EVs to achieve carbon neutrality in both the building and transportation sectors in Livermore.
One of the primary actions in the energy decarbonization strategy is opting all community accounts into a 100
percent carbon-free or renewable electricity tier through EBCE. As this is a one-time action by City Council, the major costs are staff time (preparing staff reports and conducting community outreach). The community may
experience a marginal increase in electricity costs as a result of this action. However, increased electricity cost is dependent on the rate plans used by the household
or business: certain plans will experience no increase, and others may experience a marginal on-bill cost. Other actions under B-2 include conducting outreach to low/
moderate income households to increase awareness
about EBCE’s CARE Program, which provides a discounted
rate for electricity to qualifying low-income households.
Other actions within Strategy B-2 provide important
benefits including increased energy-system resilience
through storage and continued analysis of other energy
opportunities like hydrogen. Geographic diversification of energy generation reduces the impact of a single event, like a storm or technology failure, on central location.
Increasing generation and storage of local renewable
energy is considered to be high-cost, as specific financing and funding opportunities have not yet been identified.
However, these actions yield long-term substantial
climate impacts and can provide long-term savings.
Stakeholder collaboration between the City, PG&E,
EBCE, and other community partners will be key
to increasing local energy generation and storage
incentives. Promoting energy storage at the same time
as increased local renewable energy, like community
solar, will be an essential strategy for success.
B-2 ACTIONS
B-2.1 Opt-up community EBCE accounts to 100 percent renewable electricity Opt-up community EBCE accounts in Livermore to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2024. Achieve an opt-out rate lower than 4 percent from 100 percent renewable. Conduct public outreach and education to highlight the benefits of 100 percent renewable energy. Partner with community-based organizations to ensure low/moderate income households are aware of EBCE’s CARE program to receive decreased electricity rates.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
25,505 MT CO2
e
2045:
0 MT CO2
e
Health Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green Economy Env.
Quality
$ Short-term
ACTION NUMBER AND
ACTION DESCRIPTION
Identifies and defines
what the City will do.
GHG REDUCTIONS
The expected GHG
reductions from
completing this
action in 2030 and
2045. Adaptation
actions do not
have this data.
BENEFITS
Beyond GHG reductions or increasing
resilience, many actions provide
additional community benefits. If an
icon is highlighted, the action provides
that benefit. A definition of each benefit
is included under Strategy Benefits.
CITY COST
Identifies the
city cost as high,
moderate, low,
or no cost.
TIMELINE
Identifies the implementation timeline as
short-term, mid-term,
long-term, or ongoing.
EXHIBIT B
650
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 31 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
LIVERMORE CAP STRATEGY OVERVIEW
Table 3-1. Working Towards Climate Resilience and Carbon Neutrality STRATEGY 2030 OBJECTIVES
ADAPTATION
Extreme
Heat
• Increase resilience to extreme heat events
• Cool neighborhoods by expanding the urban canopy
• Identify vulnerable areas and populations
• Develop cooling centers that are energy-resilient
Wildfire • Mitigate wildfire risk
• Facilitate building retrofits and operate clean air centers • Stockpile personal protective equipment
• Reduce fire risk through fire-safe landscaping standards • Improve emergency alert systems
Flooding • Improve stormwater management
• Harness Livermore’s natural landscapes to improve stormwater management • Reduce the expansion of urban hardscapes
MITIGATION & ADAPTATION
Drought • Improve water conservation
• Develop on-site water and water reuse standards
• Provide-water efficiency devices
• Develop water-efficient demonstration programs
Energy
Resilience
• Enhance community energy resilience
• Expand microgrid deployment
• Increase local and regional grid reliability
• Improve building resiliency
Buildings and
Energy
↓19,379 MT CO2
e
• Provide 100% renewable electricity by 2024
• Require all-electric new construction by 2023
• Incentivize electric retrofits in 12% of existing buildings • Develop equitable funding and financing
• Incentivize local on-site energy generation
Carbon
Sequestration
↓1,950 MT CO2
e
• Plant 1,000 trees by 2030
• Update City landscaping standards to expand shade trees • Provide free or reduced cost-trees to residents
• Preserve open space
• Implement carbon farming projects
• Explore technology-based carbon capture and storage
MITIGATION
Transportation
and Land Use
↓49,494 MT CO2
e
• Add 1,283 publicly available chargers
• Reduce VMT by 2%
• Achieve a 10% bike mode share
• Support sustainable land use practices
Waste and
Materials
↓19,379 MT CO2
e
• Reduce the amount of organics that is landfilled by 75% • Maintain or exceed 75% waste diversion each year
• Improve local re-use and repair programs
• Expand the use of low-carbon and recycled building materials
EXHIBIT B
651
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 32 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
ADAPTATION STRATEGY SUMMARY
Even if all GHG emissions sources stopped emitting today, the current concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere would continue to change California’s climate and directly impact Livermore.1 Specifically, as
described earlier in Chapter 2, Livermore is likely to experience impacts from extreme heat and weather events, drought, and statewide wildfires. These impacts will have cascading effects on Livermore’s residents, businesses, infrastructure, environment, and economy. The City developed a suite of adaptation strategies to increase Livermore’s resilience to climate change impacts, prioritizing vulnerable communities and vital public facilities.
1 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/HeatBucket/heatbucket4.php • ENERGY RESILIENCE – Adding distributed energy resources like solar and batteries and working with partners to improve electrical grid reliability and capacity will be key to the City’s energy resilience strategy. • DROUGHT – The City’s drought strategy uses a range of policy and planning strategies to support water efficiency and on-site water reuse. • FLOODING – The City will implement a suite of natural (green) and engineered (grey) stormwater solutions to capture and infiltrate water while protecting infrastructure. • EXTREME HEAT – Cooling urban areas via expanded shade structures and the urban tree canopy, ensuring energy resilience at cooling centers, and building partnerships with trusted communityfacing facilities, as well as incorporating emergency heat response into emergency operations. • WILDFIRES – The City’s wildfire adaptation strategy includes updated planning initiatives in the wildland/urban interface to protect infrastructure from potential fires as well as retrofitting existing buildings to protect occupants against poor air quality.
Table 3-2. Adaptation Strategies
Strategy # Strategy
Energy Resilience
E-1 Enhance community energy resilience
Drought
D-1 Improve water conservation and reuse
Flooding
F-1 Improve stormwater management
Extreme Heat
H-1 Increase resilience to extreme heat events
Wildfire
WF-1 Mitigate wildfire risk and improve preparedness
EXHIBIT B
652
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 33 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
MITIGATION STRATEGY SUMMARY
As the City works to protect the community from climate impacts, it will continue its efforts to reduce community-wide emissions. With full implementation of the CAP, Livermore expects to exceed the 2030 reduction target by 692 MT CO2
e and provide substantial progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 (see Appendix D for more information regarding the calculated emission reductions anticipated from each strategy and action, including substantial evidence). The following four sectors form the core of Livermore’s GHG reduction strategy to achieve the 2030 target and establish a pathway to carbon neutrality by 2045:
• BUILDINGS AND ENERGY – Building electrification will shift energy use from natural gas to electricity, maximizing GHG reductions from increasingly clean electricity, while also being cost-effective and improving indoor air quality for residents and businesses. • TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE – Emissions reductions will come from increased adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), as well as increasing alternative transportation usage, such as transit, biking, and walking • WASTE AND MATERIALS – These strategies focus on implementing the requirements of SB 1383, which will decrease the amount of organic waste that is landfilled and in turn reduce methane in landfills. • CARBON SEQUESTRATION – New management practices on natural lands and protecting existing open spaces will help reduce net emissions.
Figure 3-2 details the GHG-reduction trajectory established by the 2022 CAP. Table 3-3 includes a summary of the strategies and their estimated GHG emissions reduction potential.
Figure 3-2. Livermore’s GHG Reduction Pathway
Figure 3.2 Livermore’s GHG Reduction Pathway
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
2005 2010 2015 2017 2030 2035 2040 2045
MT CO2e Per Capita
Emissions After Reductions 2017 Baseline Emissions Forecast Target Goal Pathway Historical Actuals
Gap to Target: 1.43 MT
CO2e per person
2030 Target Met:
3.09 MT CO2e per Person
EXHIBIT B
653
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 34 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Table 3-3. GHG Mitigation Strategies
Strategy # Strategy 2030 Emissions
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
2045 Emissions
Reduction
(MT CO2e)
Buildings and Energy
B-1 Require new buildings to be all-electric and incentivize electrification retrofits of existing buildings 27,383 121,493 B-2 Decarbonize electricity from the grid and
increase local renewable energy generation 25,505 0
Transportation and Land Use - 42% of Total Reductions
T-1 Facilitate a transition to electric vehicles 49,494 93,458 T-2 Facilitate a transition to transit and shared mobility services 3,033 4,656 T-3 Improve and expand active transportation infrastructure 2,127 2,111 T-4 Support sustainable land use practices Not Quantified Not Quantified Waste and Materials
W-1 Reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled 19,379 22,646 W-2 Expand use of low-carbon and recycled building materials Not Quantified Not Quantified Carbon Sequestration
S-1 Maximize local carbon sequestration 2,008 2,434
OVERALL REDUCTIONS
Emissions Reduction Needed to Achieve State Targets 128,238 430,965 Estimated Reduction Achieved by Full Implementation of Strategies 128,929 246,798 Absolute Emissions Reduction from 1990 (%)1, 2 -40% -66% Per Capita Emissions Reduction from 1990 (%) -68% -85%
Gap to SB 32 Target (692)3 184,167
MT CO2e = metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Emissions reductions go to zero by 2045 due to Senate Bill 100 and the Renewable Portfolio Standard. 2 Absolute emissions reduction values are estimated based on current population projections and are for reference.
Actual progress toward the 2030 target will be determined by comparison to the per capita GHG emissions target of 3.08 MT of CO2e per person pursuant to guidance in the 2017 Scoping Plan. 3 Parentheses denote a negative number or an exceedance of the target.
Note: Quantitative GHG emissions reduction values were rounded to the nearest tenth to reflect the level of estimation involved in calculations.
EXHIBIT B
654
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 35 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS AND PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SUMMARY
The CAP includes important actions the City will take to lead the community by example to address climate change. The City will reduce emissions and improve resilience in its own operations, dedicate resources to implement the CAP, and develop equitable outreach programs to educate the community on ongoing climate initiatives. Additionally, the City will track and assess CAP implementation progress on a regular basis and adjust its strategies every 5 years (as outlined in Chapter 4) to account for future changes to technology and State law. By taking action, the City can build a meaningful momentum in the community and achieve its goals.
Table 3-4. Municipal Operations and Plan Implementation Strategies Strategy # Strategy
Municipal
M-1 Enhance resilience at public facilities
M-2 Electrify municipal facilities and operations
M-3 Electrify the City’s vehicle fleet and encourage employees to utilize alternative transportation and teleworking opportunities M-4 Conserve water in municipal landscaping and improve on-site stormwater management M-5 Purchase more sustainable products to reduce waste from City operations M-6 Utilize public lands to increase local carbon sequestration and reduce urban heat island effect
Implementation
I-1 Make climate impacts and resilience a standard consideration during planning and development processes
I-2 Dedicate City resource to CAP implementation and consistently monitor progress I-3 Create a public outreach campaign to educate the community about CAP initiatives I-4 Foster green innovation in Livermore
EXHIBIT B
655
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 36 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
To develop the strategies and action in the CAP, the City utilized guiding principles and considered factors such as costs, benefits, and readiness. Each of these elements is described in more detail below.
Guiding Principles
The CAP lays out a comprehensive approach to meeting the City’s climate goals through a range of strategies and actions. Each strategy was developed by carefully considering a set of guiding principles.
The guiding principles are highlighted below in Figure 3-2. Additional information on how the guiding principles shaped the strategy and action development can be found in Appendix D.
Figure 3-2. Guiding Principles
Mitigation
and/or
adaptation
benefit:
Strategies
should achieve
measurable
reductions in
GHG and/or
improvements
in resilience.
Structural
change:
Strategies
should establish
institutional
and policy
framework
to facilitate
long-term
change.
Education:
Strategies
should include
community
engagement
and empower
residents and
stakeholders to
take action.
Equity:
Strategies
should promote
inclusive
participation
in decision
making and
equitable access
to benefits.
Partnerships:
Strategies
should utilize
partnerships
with outside
agencies and
community
organizations
to leverage
expertise and
resources and
maximize the
City’s capacity.
Economics:
Strategies
should strive to
be cost-effective
for the City and
the community.
EXHIBIT B
656
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 37 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Strategy Costs
Each CAP strategy was categorized as either
no-cost, low-cost, moderate-cost, or high-cost
based on its costs to both the City and the
community. The descriptions for these categories
are included in Table 3-5. Implementing CAP
strategies and actions can be extremely variable
in cost, as strategies range from outreach and
education (low-cost) to major investments in
new infrastructure such as microgrids and bike
lanes (high-cost). While it is tempting to consider
just the upfront costs of new policies or actions,
there are many other cost considerations that
should be part of the decision-making process.
For a complete description of the cost considerations for CAP strategies please see Appendix D.
DID YOU KNOW?
1. A new electric vehicle may cost
more upfront than its gas-powered
counterpart. However, an electric vehicle
can cost less over the lifetime of the
vehicle once the costs for
gas, oil changes, and other
maintenance requirements
for gas-powered vehicles
are taken into account.
2. Investing in climate action pays
off. The World Resources Institute
found that every dollar
invested in resilience and
adaptation will result in
$2 to $10 dollars’ worth
of benefit in the future.
Table 3-5. Cost Framework Summary
Cost Segment Description
No-Cost Actions that have zero costs to the community or City. This includes actions that will save money both upfront and over time.
Low-Cost Actions with relatively low upfront costs or city staff time, (e.g., policy ordinances or outreach). For community members, this represents costs between $1 and $100 per year.
Moderate-Cost Actions involving consultants or moderate infrastructure changes, (e.g., feasibility studies, program development, and retrofitting existing infrastructure). For community members, this represents costs between $100 per year and $500 per year.
High-Cost Longer term projects requiring substantial investments into major infrastructure or technology over time, (e.g., energy storage, bike lanes, or other infrastructure changes). For community members, this represents costs between $500 per year and $1,000 per year.
?
EXHIBIT B
657
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 38 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Strategy Readiness
It is important to understand the overall readiness or speed at which a strategy can be deployed. Some policies and actions are ready to be implemented today with existing resources and community support, while others will need additional feasibility studies, community engagement, or funding before implementation can occur. Each CAP strategy was categorized as short-term, mid-term, long-term, or ongoing. The description of each readiness category in included in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. Readiness Framework Summary
Readiness Timeframe Description
Short-term Actions that are ready to be implemented today such as certain ordinances and community outreach efforts. This can also include studies and pilot projects that will set up implementation of longer term actions.
Mid-term Actions that require additional study, funding, or partnerships to be completed before implementation.
Long-term Actions that require longer lead times to fully implement.
Ongoing Actions that are underway and ongoing.
To see a full breakdown of the methods to assess cost, benefit, and readiness, please refer to Appendix D.
EXHIBIT B
658
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Strategy Overview 39 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
STRATEGY BENEFITS
Public Health
Creating a healthier community by improving air quality and active transportation. Reducing fossil fuel use in Livermore will improve public health in the community. Natural gas-powered appliances like gas stoves are a major source of indoor air pollution which worsen health conditions like asthma.2 Fossil-fuel powered vehicles emit carcinogens and air pollutants that negatively impact public health.
All-electric buildings, electric vehicles, and a well-connected active transportation network, residents will provide residents with cleaner air and more opportunities for physical activity.3 Community Connectivity
Promoting a strong sense of community by creating complete, accessible neighborhoods, opportunities to engage, and resources for historically underserved communities. Facilitating a city where community members can participate in public life and build deep ties to their neighbors is foundational to building a sustainable Livermore. Research indicates that this type of community cohesion is also important for community mental and physical health outcomes.4
Resilience and GHG Reduction
Some GHG reduction strategies can have resilience benefits as well, and vice versa. For example, increasing local energy storage and power generation can increase energy resilience while decarbonizing the grid. Urban greening harnesses the carbon sequestration potential of natural land, while providing shade and urban cooling during extreme heat events.
Environmental Quality
Improving natural environments within the city to protect biodiversity and ecosystem services, like cleaner air and water. Healthy ecosystems can reduce pollutants in the air and local waterways, provide species habitat, and offer natural areas for community recreation. Healthy ecosystems can help alleviate extreme weather impacts as well, passively absorbing rainwater and relieving the burden on Livermore’s built infrastructure. Finally, increasing green and natural space within Livermore contributes to increased quality of life for the community.
Green Economy
Diversifying local economic opportunities by attracting high-quality jobs in sustainability industries, such as those focused on developing zero emission vehicles or battery storage technologies. As Livermore decarbonizes, nearly every sector from energy to waste management will experience a green jobs transition, and many will experience green job growth. A recent study by the UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation found that 100,000 full-time equivalent jobs would be created across various sectors of the economy as the result of electrifying all of California’s new and existing buildings by 2045. In the waste and materials sector, the process of re-using materials was found to create 200 times as many jobs as sending those materials to landfills and incinerators while recycling increased jobs by a factor of 60.5
2 https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/living-with-asthma/resources/patients-carers/factsheets/gas-stoves-and-asthma-in-children
3. Potential of active transport to improve health, reduce healthcare costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions: a modeling study, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6636726/#:~:text=Increasing%20active%20transport%20by%20switching,also%20 reduce%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.
4. https://www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf
5. https://ilsr.org/new-report-from-global-anti-incineration-alliance-zero-waste-creates-200-times-more-jobs-than-landfills-andincinerators/
EXHIBIT B
659
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions Energy Resilience
2030 Objectives
• Enhance community energy resilience
• Increase local and regional grid reliability
• Expand microgrid deployment
• Improve residential and nonresidential building resiliency 3-2. Adaptation Strategies and Actions
Strategy E-1: Enhance community energy resilience
6. Asmus, Peter, Adarm Forni, and Laura Vogel. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2017. Microgrid Analysis and Case Study Report. California Energy Commission.
Online at https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-500-2018-022/CEC-500-2018-022.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021.
As natural gas-powered appliances are replaced with
electric appliances as part of climate change mitigation, and heating and cooling become increasingly important
to adapt to extreme heat and high-smoke days, it is more important than ever to have uninterrupted carbon-free
energy generation. Strengthening community energy
resilience in Livermore also contributes to Livermore’s carbon neutrality goals through increased generation of local renewable energy in addition to implementing a
microgrid pilot project. Energy resilience also is foundational for achieving heat and wildfire smoke adaptation actions, which involve cooling and filtering indoor
air to increase the health and wellbeing of Livermore
residents during these events. Energy resilience also
means developing and implementing strategies to reduce
the impacts from Public Safety Power Shutoffs which
have become more common due to climate change.
Building grid resiliency will rely on a multifaceted approach of assessing existing grid vulnerabilities, building-out local energy generation and storage, and implementing energy
efficiency strategies. Improving building resiliency will also emphasize incentives and resources for rental property
owners and low-income residents so that energy resilience at the individual-building level is implemented for all.
Benefits from this strategy could include the generation of local green jobs as the City promotes on-site power
generation and green retrofits. As residential and nonresidential buildings continue to pursue weatherization, both residents and businesses will see long-term savings on
energy bills because of more efficient heating and cooling.
Implementing actions for energy resiliency will require strong partnerships and leveraging new sources of
funding. Actions that require partnership with other
cities, and stakeholders like East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory will
be relatively low-cost to the City, as most costs will stem from staff time spent on partnership development and
coordination. Other actions will require new infrastructure investments. Microgrids, which allow a grid to function autonomously even during power outages, have relatively large upfront costs. The best strategy of the cost of
microgrids is the cost per unit capacity ($/megawatt [MW]).
In California, the average cost per MW of storage added is $3.5 Million.6
However, these costs can be financed
or even completed through public private partnerships
and can significantly increase resilience in the City.
Windmill at the Scott Haggerty Wind Energy Center just outside Livermore. 40 EXHIBIT B
660
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions E-1 ACTIONS
E-1.1 Increase local and regional grid reliability
Work with EBCE, PG&E, other Tri-Valley cities, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to create a regional grid reliability strategy, with the goal of assessing vulnerabilities to maximize local resilience.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Long-term
E-1.2 Expand microgrid deployment
Based on the results of the municipal pilot (M-1.2) expand microgrid deployment to provide resilience at critical facilities (fire, police, city hall) and in vulnerable communities. Partner with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on microgrid projects and identify and pursue opportunities to obtain state and federal funding.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$$ Mid-term
E-1.3 Improve resilience of residential buildings
Implement a Neighborhood Retrofit Program to improve resilience in residential buildings (i.e., on-site power generation and storage, weatherization, air conditioning, etc.), with an emphasis on connecting incentives and resources with rental property owners and low-income residents. Partner with community organizations to leverage existing resources.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
E-1.4 Improve resilience of non-residential buildings
Develop an equitable incentive program to improve resilience in nonresidential buildings to prevent disruptions in the local economy during power outages.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
41 EXHIBIT B
661
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions Drought
2030 Objectives
• Improve water conservation and reuse
• Study and establish standards
for on-site water reuse
• Develop a water-efficient demonstration program
• Continue to provide water-efficiency devices and
encourage residential water capture and reuse
Strategy D-1: Improve water conservation and reuse
7. www.livermoreca.gov/water
Drinking water in Livermore is a combination of local
groundwater and imported water from the State Water
Project. Water availability in Livermore is variable and is dependent on rainfall and snowpack in the Sierra
Mountains, both of which are expected to be negatively
impacted by climate change.7 As the City’s water supplies fluctuate and shrink, it is critical to build-up resilience and reserves of water that can be used during droughts
that are sourced independently of the State Water
Project and leverage on-site water reuse and recycling.
Livermore’s water resilience strategy levies multiple
actions for on-site water reuse and water conservation.
Actions to bolster drought resiliency will transform the way Livermore currently uses water, from implementing water efficient landscaping to updating wastewater treatment methods to increase recycled water availability. A keystone part of Livermore’s drought resilience strategy will be to develop on-site water reuse standards.
Implementing drought resiliency actions will also depend on showing businesses and residents ways to reduce
water demand in landscaping through a water-efficient
demonstration program, and the continued provision
of free or subsidized water conservation devices to
residents in collaboration with Zone 7 and Cal Water.
Costs associated with strategy D-1 include staff and
consultant time to develop and implement new plans and
standards for water reuse as well as costs for subsidized water-use reduction devices. Community costs include
upfront costs for developing on-site water reuse systems for new development and retrofit costs for drought
tolerant landscaping and water capture devices. However, these upfront costs will be offset by long-term water
savings and the priceless value of a reliable water supply.
Winners of the City of Livermore’s Beautification Committee Award. 42 EXHIBIT B
662
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions D-1 ACTIONS
D-1.1 Study on-site water reuse
Partner with Zone 7, Cal Water, large water users, and other stakeholders to study a broad range of strategies for on-site stormwater capture, wastewater treatment, and reuse in commercial and residential settings.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
D-1.2 Establish standards for on-site water reuse
Establish standards to expand on-site water reuse, such as requiring new developments and major renovations to meet certain plumbing and irrigation demands with greywater or stormwater Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
D-1.3 Continue implementing the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Continue implementing the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance during plan check and inspections of new and renovated landscaping.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$
Short-term
D-1.4 Develop a water-efficient demonstration program
Collaborate with residents, businesses, and agency partners to promote native, drought-tolerant landscaping through demonstration projects. Identify and promote incentives and financing opportunities.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
D-1.5 Continue to provide water-conservation devices and encourage residential water capture and reuse
Continue working with Zone 7 and Cal Water to provide free or subsidized water-conservation devices to residents with a focus on low-income communities. Encourage the installation of cisterns and other water-storage devices for single-family homes to capture rainwater for irrigation uses.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Ongoing
43 EXHIBIT B
663
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions Flooding
2030 Objectives
• Improve stormwater management
• Harness Livermore’s natural landscapes to
improve stormwater management through
wetland restoration and tree planting
• Update standards to expand permeable
hardscapes and passive rain capture
Strategy F-1: Improve stormwater management
8. https://www.fbiic.gov/public/2010/mar/FloodingHistoryandCausesFS.PDF
9. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/flooding-and-climate-change-everything-you-need-know Floods are among the deadliest and most common type
of natural disaster in the United States.8 They are caused by an overflow of inland waters (like rivers or streams) or accumulation of water from heavy rains. As an inland city, Livermore is most vulnerable to urban flooding,
where heavy rainfall overwhelms the local stormwater
drainage capacity due to runoff from roads, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces.9 As storm events increase in duration and intensity, Livermore will need to increase local capacity to absorb and channel stormwater while
not having it overwhelm the local management system.
Actions to reduce flood risk harness existing ecosystems in Livermore to passively absorb rainwater in the urban environment through green spaces like vegetative swales and tree planting. Policies and incentives will also be levered to improve stormwater management through
expanded standards for passive rainwater capture in
new infrastructure and development projects and new
incentives for passive rain capture features in existing landscapes developed in partnership with water and
wastewater providers. Hardscapes like impervious parking lots and buildings will be reduced in future developments, ensuring that flood-vulnerable hardscapes do not expand as a result of local economic development.
Implementing these actions for resiliency will require staff time and cost and maintenance of permeable surfaces.
On the community side, businesses will need to consider the cost of incorporating pervious materials. However,
benefits may also be seen from savings associated
with decreased flood damage. Wetland restoration
and tree planting as part of this adaptation strategy
will deliver benefits in increased environmental quality as the urban canopy expands and urban creeks and
floodplains are revitalized with native plant species.
The expansion of green spaces, particularly the urban
canopy, will also bring down the temperature and help
Livermore adjust to rising temperatures. Finally, flood reduction actions can also help to capture rainwater
for future reuse, increasing drought resiliency.
44 EXHIBIT B
664
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions F-1 ACTIONS
F-1.1 Prioritize wetland restoration
Implement projects in the Stream Maintenance Plan that will revitalize urban creeks and floodplains, encourage groundwater recharge, and use native plant species to reduce flood risk and restore riparian habitats. Support and promote local programs such as Living Arroyos.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Long-term
F-1.2 Prioritize flood-resiliency projects
Implement stormwater management projects identified in Livermore’s Storm Drain Master Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, and Capital Improvement Program that improve flood resilience from future storms. Ensure new infrastructure and retrofits are adequately sized to handle future flows exacerbated by climate change.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$$ Long-term
F-1.3 Expand passive rain capture standards
Expand the requirements for passive rain capture features, such as vegetative swales and planting trees, in new infrastructure and development projects, particularly in areas of the city that are vulnerable to flooding.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
F-1.4 Provide incentives to increase passive rain capture Work with water and wastewater providers to create and promote incentives for existing landscapes to incorporate passive rain capture features.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
45 EXHIBIT B
665
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions F-1.5 Require new hardscape to be permeable
Update standards for new development hardscape to be consistent with CALGreen Tier 1 and/or increase the current fee for installation of new impervious surfaces.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
F-1.6 Combine tree planting and stormwater management
Include stormwater management strategies like bioswales when implementing tree planting and other urban greening programs, with a focus on low-income communities.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Long-term
46 EXHIBIT B
666
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions Extreme Heat
2030 Objectives
• Increase resilience to extreme heat events
• Cool neighborhoods by expanding the
urban canopy and sources of shade
• Identify heat vulnerable areas and
populations and enhance equity-focused
heat response in emergency planning
• Develop cooling centers that are energy-resilient
Strategy H-1: Increase resilience to extreme heat events Adapting to rising temperatures, extreme heat events,
and longer, more frequent heat waves will become a
fixture of life in Livermore. Without resiliency strategies, extreme heat can be fatal, and disproportionately
affects community members who are elderly, children,
have pre-existing physical or mental health conditions, and do not have access to indoor air conditioning.
Ensuring that Livermore’s vulnerable populations have
access and awareness of indoor cooling options and
reducing the heat in Livermore’s urban areas through
expanded shade and urban greening will be critical
to ensuring that Livermore’s community can stay
comfortable and healthy during a hotter future.
Actions to address heat events will rely partially on
planning efforts. Specifically, the development of a heat vulnerability index to identify Livermore’s most heat-vulnerable areas and populations and developing a heat mitigation plan to reduce urban heat and prepare for
higher temperatures. Syncing with actions for carbon
sequestration, heat planning also connects with the
implementation of an Urban Forest Management Plan,
which will expand tree canopy shade, reducing the
urban heat island effect. These urban greening efforts
will contribute to environmental quality and biodiversity in Livermore, while providing key cooling benefits.
The cost to the City of implementing these actions will be moderate, entailing staff time, tree planting costs, shade structure implementation, and retrofit program
implementation. The community is not expected to
incur any mandatory costs but will certainly experience the benefits of cooler neighborhoods and robust heat
emergency strategies. Residents who participate in
heat resilience strategy implementation in their homes
may see some costs if they decide to participate.
The City will also improve energy resilience in cooling centers, ensuring that they are not vulnerable to power outages and are also using carbon-free electricity to
provide indoor cool air to the populations that need them most. Finally, actions to help the Livermore community
withstand higher temperatures include integrating
heat into Livermore’s Emergency Operations Plan and
providing well-being checks to vulnerable populations
including low-income families, older adults, speakers
of non-English languages, and Livermore’s unsheltered
population. These outreach efforts are both low-cost
and have high levels of positive public health impact.
Shade structures at May Nissen Park
47 EXHIBIT B
667
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions H-1 ACTIONS
H-1.1 Study heat vulnerability
Building off efforts in the 2023 Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, create a Heat Vulnerability Index to identify and map heat-vulnerable areas and populations in the city. Explore actions to reduce urban heat and prepare for higher temperatures and more frequent extreme heat events.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
H-1.2 Expand tree canopy cover in the city
Utilize the City’s new street tree inventory and other available tools to identify areas of the city with low tree canopy cover. Focus tree planting in areas with underserved and vulnerable populations.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
H-1.3 Create a neighborhood cooling program
As part of a Neighborhood Retrofit Program (E-1.3), implement cooling strategies consistent with the Heat Mitigation Plan. Strategies could include planting trees, using heat-resistant materials, and installing heat pump HVAC units. Partner with local nonprofits and organizations to provide resources to low-income residents for retrofits. Partner with manufacturers or installers to make bulk purchases and installations in the community.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
H-1.4 Establish shade standards
Establish and implement shade standards to encourage continuous shade for human movement in areas with high public transit use to protect public transit riders from extreme heat and precipitation events. Standards may encourage shade-providing building features, such as galleries, arcades, and awnings, bus and train shelters, and tree planting.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
48 EXHIBIT B
668
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions H-1.5 Install additional shade structures
Build shade structures at public destinations that lack adequate tree cover, major transit stops, and along nonmotorized transportation corridors, such as those identified in the City's Active Transportation Plan. Prioritize communities with high-heat vulnerability.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$$ Long-term
H-1.6 Increase resilience at cooling centers
Ensure cooling centers have backup power systems in place to operate during power shutoffs. Explore the use of public libraries and other trusted community-serving facilities as additional cooling centers.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Short-term
H-1.7 Enhance heat response in emergency planning
Integrate an emergency heat plan into the City of Livermore's Emergency Operations Plan that provides an emergency notification and well-being checks to protect the most vulnerable populations, such as Livermore's unsheltered population, low-income families, speakers of non-English languages, and older adults.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
49 EXHIBIT B
669
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions Wildfire
2030 Objectives
• Mitigate wildfire risk and improve preparedness
• Facilitate building retrofits, operate
clean air centers, and stockpile personal
protective equipment to protect the
community during wildfire smoke events
• Reduce fire risk through fire-safe landscaping
standards and fire fuel-load reduction programs
• Improve emergency alert systems through
updated hazard planning and outreach
Strategy WF-1: Mitigate wildfire risk and improve preparedness Although wildfire events are not expected to increase
within Livermore’s city limits, vulnerable populations
will still be affected by wildfire smoke, and experience negative health outcomes due to decreased air quality
during smoke events. Livermore is also surrounded
by natural and working lands that are vulnerable to
wildfire. Livermore’s wildfire resilience strategy combines updated hazard planning, fire prevention, and increased supports and infrastructure for maintaining public
health and indoor air quality during smoke events.
A major part of the CAP strategy for wildfire resilience is reducing the potential for wildfires to occur. The City will continue to implement the community fire and fuel-load
reduction programs while conducting outreach for
fire-safe landscape management in multiple languages.
These planning and outreach strategies are relatively
low-cost but contribute significantly to Livermore
community preparedness, safety, and fire reduction.
Planning for the changing risk profile for wildfire will be updated in the General Plan Safety Element and Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. This updated planning
will be combined with encouraged use of the Alameda
County (AC) Alert system to let business owners and
residents know about wildfire and smoke events via
multilingual and culturally appropriate outreach. Finally, the City will strengthen resiliency for indoor air quality during smoke events by stockpiling personal protective
equipment and operating energy-resilient clean air centers.
Implementing these strategies across the community
may entail a small increase in development cost as new
fire standards are adopted. However, the City will bear most of the cost of implementation to adapt to wildfires.
The City and LARPD use goats for weed abatement to prevent wildfires. 50 EXHIBIT B
670
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions WF-1 ACTIONS
WF-1.1 Update hazard planning for wildfires
Update the General Plan Safety Element and Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to reflect the changing risk profile for wildfire including emergency response capabilities and evacuation plans.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Short-term
WF-1.2 Create fire-safe landscaping standards
Adopt fire-safe landscaping standards for new construction and major renovations that are based on the risk profile.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
WF-1.3 Facilitate building retrofits that maintain indoor air quality As part of the Neighborhood Retrofit Program, incentivize building retrofits that help maintain indoor air quality during wildfires, including ventilation, filtration, and cooling, with an emphasis on connecting incentives and resources with low-income residents.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Short-term
WF-1.4 Continue to implement community fire fuel-load reduction programs Continue to update and implement the annual Vegetation Management Program and Weed Abatement Program to remove and thin vegetation.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Ongoing
51 EXHIBIT B
671
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Adaptation Strategies and Actions WF-1.5 Continue to conduct outreach on fire prevention measures Continue to conduct multilingual public education programs to raise awareness of the new standards and best practices for fire-safe buildings and landscape management. This should include information about maintaining defensible space and implementing low-cost fire prevention measures, such as vegetation management and screening attic vents.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Ongoing
WF-1.6 Operate clean air centers
Ensure cooling centers can also function as clean air centers. Maintain temperature/air quality thresholds that dictate when these facilities become available. Gather input from users to determine how these facilities can continue to be improved and support daily life, such as by offering indoor exercise and recreation activities/spaces.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
WF-1.7 Stockpile personal protective equipment
Stockpile masks and other personal protective safety equipment for community use during wildfire and/or smoke events and prioritize distribution to vulnerable communities.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
WF-1.8 Encourage use of the AC Alert system
Promote the AC Alert system to residents and business owners through multilingual, proactive, and culturally relevant outreach methods, with a focus on boosting enrollment in vulnerable communities.
Benefits City Cost Timeline
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
52 EXHIBIT B
672
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Buildings and Energy
2030 Objectives
• Provide 100 percent renewable electricity by 2024
• Require all-electric new construction by 2023
• Incentivize electric retrofits in 12%
of existing buildings by 2030
• Develop equitable funding and financing
for building electrification
• Incentivize local on-site energy generation and storage GHG Reductions
Strategy B-1 = 27,383 MT CO2e
Strategy B-2 = 25,505 MT CO2e
41%
of Total
2030 GHG
Reductions
3-3. Mitigation Strategies & Actions
53 EXHIBIT B
673
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy B-1: Require new buildings to be all-electric and incentivize electrification retrofits of existing buildings.
10. https://gridworks.org/initiatives/cagas-system-transition/
11. U.S. EPA. Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (Final Report, Jul 2008). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/071, 2008. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645.
12. Weiwei, L., Brunekreef, B., & Gehring, U. (2013). Meta-analysis of the effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and gas cooking on asthma and wheeze in children. International Journal of Epidemiology, 42(6), 1724–1737. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt150.
13. Klepeis, N. E., Nelson, W. C., Ott, W. R., Robinson, J. P., Tsang, A. M., Switzer, P., ... & Engelmann, W. H. (2001). The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 11(3), 231–252.
14. California Air Resources Board. 2016 SIP Emission Projection Data: 2012 Estimated Annual Average Emissions. https://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm
15. Dedoussi, I. C., Eastham, S. D., Monier, E., & Barrett, S. R. (2020). Premature mortality related to United States cross-state air pollution. Nature, 578(7794), 261–265.
Electrification is the most feasible and reliable
way that Livermore can meaningfully reduce
its GHG emissions to meet its 2030 target.
With the adoption of SB 100 (which requires 100 percent carbon free electricity), all-electric buildings will be carbon neutral by 2045, while buildings with natural
gas systems will continue to produce GHG emissions.
Buildings generated 33 percent of Livermore’s total GHG emissions in 2017. As the grid decarbonizes, electricity used in buildings will become carbon-free, leaving natural gas used for cooking, water, and space heating as the
remaining significant sources of emissions. Reducing
future natural gas use by preventing it in new construction and making strides towards electric retrofits of natural gas-powered appliances will be essential
in achieving Livermore’s carbon-neutrality goals.
Building new all-electric buildings in Livermore is more cost-effective than building traditional mixed-fuel
buildings, mostly due to cost savings resulting from not needing to install natural gas infrastructure. All-electric homes are also more efficient than those that use natural gas in Livermore’s climate zone, reducing lower utility bills for low-income families. Electrification will further relieve the expected future energy burden on low-income families, as natural gas prices are projected to increase significantly due to decreased gas consumption and aging infrastructure.10 Switching to electric appliances also has the benefit of improving public health, as burning natural gas in poorly ventilated buildings can significantly increase harmful indoor air pollutants that are linked with a higher risk of respiratory illnesses, particularly in vulnerable populations.
Peer reviewed studies have documented that residences
with gas stoves have a 50 to 400 percent higher average nitrogen dioxide concentrations than homes with electric stoves.11 Living in a home with a gas stove may increase children’s risk of asthma by 42 percent.12 Given that
Californians spend 70 percent of a given day indoors,13 and potentially more given the context of the COVID pandemic, indoor air quality is an important health consideration for many. Gas usage that occurs within our buildings
also causes outdoor air pollution and generates six times more nitrogen oxides emissions than all in-state power
plants combined.14 Outdoor air pollution from buildings has been linked to pre-mature deaths in California.15
This strategy, and its resulting actions will be predominantly implemented through City ordinance and partnerships, which tend to be cost-effective to implement while providing long-term climate benefits. Passing an
electrification ordinance will include staff time spent by existing personnel, in addition to consultant time.
Livermore residents will experience cost savings as well:
cost-effectiveness studies show that new building electrification costs less to build than mixed-fuel buildings, particularly when built with heat pumps instead of
resistance heating. Though electrifying existing buildings to reduce natural gas consumption can have higher
upfront costs, retrofitting existing buildings also provides significant long-term climate benefits. Community costs include retrofitting existing infrastructure, which varies depending on the appliance. Providing financing and
incentives from the City could significantly reduce the cost burden on communities to replace non-electric appliances.
More information on costs related to building electrification can be found in the Cost Technical Appendix. 54 EXHIBIT B
674
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions B-1 ACTIONS
B-1.1 Require new construction to be all-electric
Adopt an electrification ordinance which requires all new construction to be all-electric. Conduct a costeffectiveness study to develop an ordinance that facilitates both construction and on-bill cost savings. Minimize the number of exemptions associated with the ordinance to limit the number of stranded natural gas lines in the city. Allow case by case allowances for certain site development standards when an applicant can demonstrate infeasibility. Leverage partnerships with the Building Decarbonization Coalition, EBCE, StopWaste, and others, to engage with local building industry stakeholders in development of the ordinance.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
10,891 MT CO2
e
2045:
28,056 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
B-1.2 Incentivize electric retrofits in existing buildings Incentivize voluntary electrification of existing buildings through incentives, rebates, permit streamlining, and education. Develop a suite of equity strategies to limit displacement and promote equitable distribution of electrification benefits like resilience, improved health and safety, and reduced energy cost burden. Partner with stakeholders such as EBCE and PG&E to establish funding pathways to ease community costs for electrification upgrades.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
16,492 MT CO2
e
2045:
93,437 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
B-1.3 Conduct a cost analysis and feasibility study for existing building electrification requirements
Conduct an existing building electrification feasibility and cost study to understand the potential for, and associated costs of, electrification retrofitting requirements. This would include an analysis for implementing requirements for newly permitted heating and cooling systems, hot water heaters, and other electric appliances.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
55 EXHIBIT B
675
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions B-1.4 Partner with stakeholders to conduct electrification outreach, promotion, and education
Leverage partnerships with stakeholders to conduct multilingual outreach, promotion, and education around building electrification, including:
• Creating a list of water heater, space heating, and appliance (electric stove/dryers) replacement programs and incentives.
• Hosting an induction/electric stove cooking competition to demonstrate the benefits of electric stoves. • Organizing events to educate the public on the potential health and cost benefits of replacing gas stoves with electric.
• Offering workforce development trainings for installers and building owners/operators to discuss benefits and technical requirements of electrification.
• Conducting internal trainings with planners and building officials on state decarbonization goals and incentives available for electric homes.
• Conducting targeted outreach to rental property owners to facilitate upgrades that benefit renters.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
56 EXHIBIT B
676
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy B-2: Decarbonize electricity from the grid and increase local renewable energy generation.
In order for Livermore to reach its 2030 reduction target and 2045 carbon-neutrality target, the majority of
energy utilized in the City will need to be carbon-free.
Renewable electricity procurement is essential for decarbonizing the communities emissions from electricity and will create the foundation for a carbon-free future.
The focus of Livermore’s energy strategy is procuring
100 percent carbon-free electricity for both residents
and businesses as soon as possible. Decarbonizing
electricity works hand-in-hand with building electrification and EVs to achieve carbon neutrality in both the building and transportation sectors in Livermore.
One of the primary actions in the energy decarbonization strategy is opting all community accounts into a 100
percent carbon-free or renewable electricity tier through EBCE. As this is a one-time action by City Council, the major costs are staff time (preparing staff reports and conducting community outreach). The community may
experience a marginal increase in electricity costs as a result of this action. However, increased electricity cost is dependent on the rate plans used by the household
or business: certain plans will experience no increase, and others may experience a marginal on-bill cost. Other actions under B-2 include conducting outreach to low/
moderate income households to increase awareness
about EBCE’s CARE Program, which provides a discounted
rate for electricity to qualifying low-income households.
Other actions within Strategy B-2 provide important
benefits including increased energy-system resilience
through storage and continued analysis of other energy
opportunities like hydrogen. Geographic diversification of energy generation reduces the impact of a single event, like a storm or technology failure, on central location.
Increasing generation and storage of local renewable
energy is considered to be high-cost, as specific financing and funding opportunities have not yet been identified.
However, these actions yield long-term substantial
climate impacts and can provide long-term savings.
Stakeholder collaboration between the City, PG&E,
EBCE, and other community partners will be key
to increasing local energy generation and storage
incentives. Promoting energy storage at the same time
as increased local renewable energy, like community
solar, will be an essential strategy for success.
B-2 ACTIONS
B-2.1 Opt-up community EBCE accounts to 100 percent renewable electricity Opt-up community EBCE accounts in Livermore to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2024. Achieve an opt-out rate lower than 4 percent from 100 percent renewable. Conduct public outreach and education to highlight the benefits of 100 percent renewable energy. Partner with community-based organizations to ensure low/moderate income households are aware of EBCE’s CARE program to receive decreased electricity rates.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
25,505 MT CO2
e
2045:
0 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
57 EXHIBIT B
677
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions B-2.2 Coordinate with stakeholders to provide local energy generation and storage incentives Partner with PG&E, EBCE, and/or other community partners to support and incentivize local on-site energy generation and storage. This could include:
• Connecting home and business owners, particularly those in vulnerable communities, to incentives for renewable energy and storage projects.
• Promoting installation of storage technology in concert with renewable energy infrastructure through multilingual education programs, outreach, and information provided via City platforms. • Installing a co-located community solar and storage facility to demonstrate the benefits.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
B-2.3 Establish renewable energy facility standards and permitting requirements Establish renewable energy facility standards and permit requirements, including solar arrays and battery storage systems, to allow for easier implementation of these technologies in the city.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
B-2.4 Explore hydrogen and renewable fuel opportunities Seek assistance from Sandia National Laboratory to identify opportunities to expand hydrogen and renewable fuel projects, particularly in the transportation and industrial sectors.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
58 EXHIBIT B
678
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Transportation
and Land Use
2030 Objectives
• Add 1,283 publicly accessible
electric vehicle chargers
• Reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) by 2%
• Achieve 10% bike mode share
• Support sustainable land use practices
GHG Reductions
Strategy T-1 = 49,494 MT CO2e
Strategy T-2 = 3,033 MT CO2e
Strategy T-3 = 2,127 MT CO2e
42%
of Total
2030 GHG
Reductions
Public electric vehicle chargers at the San Francisco Premium Outlets in Livermore
59 EXHIBIT B
679
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy T-1: Facilitate a transition to electric vehicles Reducing transportation GHG emissions will require
reducing the number of miles driven by on-road fossil
fuel-powered vehicles, from both passenger and
commercial vehicles. On-road transportation accounts
for almost 59 percent of total GHG emissions in
Livermore, with 58 percent of those emissions coming
from passenger vehicles, and 42 percent coming from
commercial vehicles (see Appendix A). It is important
to electrify the transportation sector so it can benefit from increasingly clean electricity as a result of SB 100.
Additionally, reducing tailpipe air pollution through
EV adoption provides public health benefits as it
reduces a major source of outdoor air pollution.
Actions under Strategy T-1 expand the adoption of
EVs across the residential and commercial sectors,
primarily through electrification infrastructure
installation and ordinances for new construction which will require lifecycle cost saving steps like installation of conduit and panel capacity.
Costs to the City in implementing actions to promote EV adoption include the development of an EV Readiness Plan.
A key part of this plan will be identifying funding sources for installing chargers. Implementing these actions rides heavily on effective outreach and education, as well as partnership development with major employers like the
Lawrence Livermore National Lab to expand employer
adoption of EV use and charging infrastructure. On the
community side, developers may see increased costs of
conduit and panel capacity for EV capable charging spaces in new development as well as the costs of charger installation. The long-term cost savings of owning an EV could offset the purchase of an internal combustion vehicle.
T-1 ACTIONS
T-1.1 Expand EV infrastructure to support EV adoption
Expand EV infrastructure to support EV adoption in the community by doing the following:
• Establishing standards for EV chargers in new development that expand requirements for EV-Capable, EV-Ready, and/or EV-Installed spaces; Introduce preferential parking for EVs near building entrances at popular destinations; Require all new gas stations and major remodels to install an EV charger; Establish universal, accessible, and multilingual EV signage and marking requirements for EV parking spaces; • Partnering with stakeholders, like EBCE, BayREN, and affordable housing providers, to coordinate incentives and/or rebates for at-home electric circuits, panel upgrades, and Level 2 chargers, with a focus on supporting EV upgrades for low-income households. Provide multilingual education and outreach to the community on available programs.
• Working with the Livermore Valley Chamber of Commerce, Livermore Downtown Inc, and major employers (e.g., Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Kaiser Permanente, GILLIG, Topcon, LARPD, and LVJUSD) to encourage EV adoption and improvements to EV infrastructure.
• Promoting the availability of public chargers on social media and the City website.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
49,494 MT CO2
e
2045:
93,458 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Short-term
60 EXHIBIT B
680
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions T-1.2 Identify barriers to electric vehicle adoption
Assess EV infrastructure needs and challenges, strategies to increase EV infrastructure and EV adoption, particularly in underserved communities, and identify funding for charging infrastructure.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Short-term
T-1.3 Electrify retail delivery vehicles
Establish licensing fees for vehicles making deliveries, such as online retail deliveries, to provide funding for new active transportation and EV charging infrastructure, and/or provide discount licensing fees for delivery companies which utilize electric vehicles.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
T-1.4 Reduce sources of idling emissions
Adopt an ordinance limiting new drive thru businesses and other sources of idling emissions.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
T-1.5 Develop an EV car-share pilot program
Work with stakeholders to develop an EV car-share pilot program to provide access to a low-cost and emissionfree mobility option in low-income communities.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
61 EXHIBIT B
681
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy T-2: Facilitate a transition to transit and shared mobility services
16 https://www.wheelsbus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/FINAL-SRTP.pdf
17. https://www.valleylinkrail.com/valleylink-project
Providing expanded access to mobility programs and
transit service will be a vital part of reducing transportation emissions for Livermore, as well as improving
transportation equity in the region.
Livermore will support regional transit providers, including the Altamont Corridor Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART), and the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA)16, to expand service lines and increase the convenience of transit by reducing the time it takes to reach a destination via transit as well as reducing wait times (headways) for transit. Improving shared mobility and transit programs and infrastructure will also help
to shift mode share to public transit. Working with the recently created Tri-Valley – San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority will also be key to achieving greater use of public transportation, specifically on the proposed Valley Link project which would connect the existing BART station in Dublin/Pleasanton to the approved ACE North Lathrop
Station in San Joaquin County.17
Most City costs associated with implementation of this
action involve developing partnerships to expand and
improve transit systems, as well as outreach and education.
If the City chooses to pursue a pilot program for e-bikes or scooters, installation and implementation would entail additional city costs. Members of the Livermore community would experience minimal costs and expanded walletfriendly options to get between destinations in the city.
Improving transportation equity is also a critical part of this strategy and involves identifying and removing barriers for Livermore’s vulnerable communities to take public transit, walk, bike, or use rideshare/carshare.
T-2 ACTIONS
T-2.1 Improve transit and shared mobility services.
Improve transit and shared mobility services to reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel by doing the following:
• Supporting efforts by transit providers to offer more frequent and reliable transit service; improve service/communication through multilingual interactive service maps, mobile payments, and real-time arrival info; improve active transportation access to transit stops; and provide enhanced, comfortable stops and stations. • Consider a pilot program downtown, ideally with e-bikes or scooters. • Conducting a shared mobility services (e.g., car-share, bike-share, scooter-share) feasibility study, possibly in coordination with neighboring communities Pleasanton and Dublin. • Based on the feasibility study, establish standards for shared mobility services to operate in Livermore. • Identify local equity issues and remove barriers for people of color, low-income, people experiencing homelessness, and senior populations to take transit, walk, bike, use rideshare, or carshare.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
3,033 MT CO2
e
2045:
4,656 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
62 EXHIBIT B
682
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions T-2.2 Conduct a local transportation survey
Include multilingual National Citizens Survey questions related to transportation to better understand the community’s needs and motivation for travelling by car versus other alternatives such as by bike or bus. Use the survey results to inform transportation projects.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not Quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-term
T-2.3 Establish ride-share loading/unloading zone requirements Establish requirements for ride-share parking and loading/unloading zones in new nonresidential development.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
Strategy T-3: Improve active transportation infrastructure Tailpipe emissions are a major source of Livermore’s
GHG emissions. Reducing the number of miles driven by
fossil fuel-powered vehicles, particularly when replaced with public-health boosting active modes of transportation, provides a critical way to reduce GHG reductions while connecting communities and keeping Livermore
residents healthy. As part of the CAP strategy, Livermore will prioritize active transportation by expanding access to safe, low-stress, and convenient biking and pedestrian infrastructure. Expanding active transportation infrastructure will increase quality of life and public health through increased exercise and increased community connectivity.
A key part of this strategy, and the largest quantified contribution to GHG reduction comes from Implementing
the Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Active
Transportation Plan (ATP). This is projected to add
around 77 miles to the active transportation network
in Livermore by 2030. An ATP fee study will explore
potential funding mechanisms for implementing the ATP.
City costs associated with the expansion of active transportation include staff time devoted towards the implementation of the City’s ATP. Developing bike lanes and boulevards will require costs to install (estimated $10,000 per mile), while separated bike lane cost between $1.5
and $3 million per mile. Community costs will be minimal, though may include potential funding mechanisms
including sales taxes, or revenues generated through an ATP fee for new development. For more information on
City and community cost, please refer to Appendix D.
63 EXHIBIT B
683
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions T-3 ACTIONS
T-3.1 Accelerate implementation of the Livermore ATP
Implement 50 percent of the Livermore Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails ATP by 2030 in accordance with its goals, objectives, and policies so that the City adds approximately 77 miles to the active transportation network.
Continually improve methods for engaging the community, gathering input, and utilizing it to prioritize projects that implement the ATP. Work with local active transportation organizations like Bike East Bay to identify projects and funding to accelerate implementation of the ATP. Review all ATP projects to ensure ATP projects are deployed equitably across all Livermore neighborhoods with an emphasis on connecting low-income communities to downtown and public transportation.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
2,127 MT CO2
e
2045:
2,111 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$$ Long-term
T-3.2 Conduct an ATP fee study
Conduct a fee study and adopt an ordinance requiring development projects to pay fees that will be dedicated to implementing active transportation routes and infrastructure citywide.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
T-3.3 Promote active transportation through car-free events Identify areas of town to periodically close streets to cars, potentially coupled with the Farmer's Market or other large and regular events.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
64 EXHIBIT B
684
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy T-4: Support sustainable land use practices
Livermore’s climate strategy includes supporting land
use practices that promote sustainable development.
Auto-oriented, low-density development increases vehicle miles traveled, destroys natural lands, and increases
impervious surfaces that cause polluted stormwater
runoff, affecting local waterways. Sustainable land use practices increase density, promote a jobs-housing match, encourage development of vacant and underutilized
urban sites, and facilitate walkable and transit-oriented neighborhoods. These strategies will preserve the carbon-sequestration potential of Livermore’s
surrounding natural lands and reduce total driving and
energy consumption. Though these actions do not have
quantified GHG reductions, they lay the foundation for
sustainable development in Livermore by creating a
denser, better-connected, less car-dependent city.
T-4 ACTIONS
T-4.1 Promote a jobs-housing match
Update the General Plan to identify and plan for a housing supply that meets the needs of Livermore’s workforce.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
T-4.2 Maximize infill development
Update the Development Code and Specific Plans to maximize opportunities for infill development.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
T-4.3 Revise parking standards for developments
Adjust parking minimums and establish parking maximums where appropriate, such as near transit.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
T-4.4 Facilitate complete and walkable neighborhoods
Update zoning in neighborhoods lacking amenities like grocery stores and parks. Work with community partners to focus these efforts in low-income communities.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Long-term
65 EXHIBIT B
685
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Waste and Materials
2030 Objectives
• Reduce the amount of organic waste that is
landfilled 75% from 2014 levels by 2025
• Maintain or exceed 75% solid
waste diversion each year
• Improve local reuse and repair programs
• Expand the use of low-carbon and
recycled building materials
GHG Reductions
Strategy W-1 = 19,379 MT CO2e
15%
of Total
2030 GHG
Reductions
66 EXHIBIT B
686
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy W-1: Reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled
18. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/
19. https://www.nrdc.org/food-waste
Emission reductions in the waste sector will be driven
through compliance with SB 1383, which requires all jurisdictions in California to reduce organic waste disposal by 75 percent and increase edible food recovery by 20 percent relative to 2014 levels by 2025. SB 1383 also requires
Livermore to procure 7,297 tons of compost or organic
material per year. When organic materials like food scraps and yard waste get sent to landfills, they emit methane as they decompose. Methane is considered a climate super
pollutant and is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Landfills are the third largest source of methane emissions in California and also emit air pollutants, including PM2.5 which are detrimental to human health.18 Furthermore,
analysis from the Natural Resources Defense Council
argues that when we landfill edible food, we also should consider the lifetime emissions of getting food from farm to fork to landfill, including water inputs, fertilizer, packaging, labor, and GHGs emitted during shipping.19
Reducing food waste by prioritizing human consumption
and increasing options for composting are critical for
mitigating methane emissions.
CalRecycle has provided a suite of recommendations and
requirements for jurisdictions to comply with SB 1383.
Livermore primarily plans to meet the requirements of
SB 1383 by a holistic strategy of expanding organics
collection, edible food recovery, conducting outreach
and education programs, and ensuring that stakeholders
comply through an inspection program. Partnership with
stakeholders like Tri-Valley Haven will be critical to the success of Livermore’s food recovery strategy, which ties into SB 1383 implementation as well. SB 1383 is state
law and therefore, must be implemented by the City. The costs to the City are expected to include planning and
implementation costs while each household is expected
to see an increase of waste costs of approximately $17
per year. More information is available in Appendix C.
Source: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy 67 EXHIBIT B
687
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions W-1 ACTIONS
W-1.1 Implement the requirements of SB 1383
Implement SB 1383, which includes expanded organics collection, edible food recovery, municipal compost procurement, outreach and education programs, and an inspection and compliance program.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
19,379 MT CO2
e
2045:
22,646 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Short-Term
W-1.2 Maintain or exceed the City’s solid waste diversion goal Maintain or exceed the City Council mandated goal of 75 percent solid waste diversion every year.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Short-Term
W-1.3 Reduce landfill waste at public events
Increase reuse, recycling, and composting and encourage reduction/reuse at temporary public events by mandating the use of recycling and organics collection co-located at every garbage can; encourage reusable food ware, when relevant, according to the California State Retail Food Code.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
W-1.4 Improve waste management in commercial industries Develop policies to reduce waste and increase reuse in the food industry (e.g., restaurants, facilities serving prepared food and prepackaged food, home meal delivery services), hospitality industry, and other commercial industries. Efforts may include adopting ordinances for compostable food ware, a ban on single-use individual toiletry bottles in hotels/motels, grant/discount programs for switching to reusables, and working with home meal delivery services (e.g., Blue Apron), etc. to reduce single-use packaging and encourage reuse. Provide resources for multilingual technical assistance and financial incentives for low-income entrepreneurs.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-Term
68 EXHIBIT B
688
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions W-1.5 Reduce construction waste
Require construction sites to separate waste for proper diversion and reuse or recycling, consistent with CALGreen voluntary requirements.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
W-1.6 Improve reuse and repair
Partner with state and other public institutions to develop and implement programs that improve reuse and repair, such as Fix-it-Clinics and tool-lending libraries. Work with retailers to develop programming around reuse and repair.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-Term
W-1.7 Work with community partners to recover food
Support community partners such as the Alameda County Community Food Bank and Tri-Valley Haven to divert edible food waste and support food insecure community members.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Short-Term
69 EXHIBIT B
689
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy W-2: Expand use of low-carbon and recycled
building materials
20. https://www.buildinggreen.com/feature/urgency-embodied-carbon-and-what-you-can-do-about-it
21. https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings Embodied carbon, which can be defined as the
GHGs emitted to construct a building, is a significant
source of carbon emissions in the building and
materials sector and comprises 11 percent of global
GHG emissions.20 Embodied carbon emissions for
buildings in Livermore are not included in the GHG
inventory for this CAP, as the manufacturing of
building materials takes place outside of Livermore’s
boundaries. Nonetheless, the CAP includes actions to
reduce embodied carbon emissions in construction.
This strategy takes place at the local, regional, and
statewide level, as construction practices and norms
happen beyond the bounds of a single jurisdiction. As part of Livermore’s CAP actions, the City will explore standards for embodied carbon performance in new buildings,
while ensuring that housing and rent costs would not be negatively impacted. The costs associated with moving
towards low-carbon building materials includes outreach and engagement costs to the City, while new construction could see marginal costs increases of around 1 percent.21 W-2 ACTIONS
W-2.1 Raise awareness for low-carbon and recycled building materials Work with local, regional, and state partners to promote the availability and cost-effectiveness of low-carbon and/ or recycled construction materials.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$
W-2.2 Explore standards for new construction that limit embodied carbon emissions Consider implementing embodied carbon performance standards and material-efficient building practices, with exemptions for cost barriers as needed to prevent these changes from directly increasing housing or rent costs.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$
70 EXHIBIT B
690
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Carbon
Sequestration
2030 Objectives
• Maximize local carbon sequestration
• Plant 200 trees by 2025 and 1,000 trees by 2030
• Update City landscaping standards to expand
shade tree requirements for new development
• Provide free or reduced cost-trees
to residents in Livermore
• Preserve open spaces
• Implement carbon-farming projects
• Explore technology-based carbon
capture and storage opportunities
GHG Reductions
Strategy S-1 = 2,008 MT CO2e
2%
of Total
2030 GHG
Reductions
71 EXHIBIT B
691
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions Strategy S-1: Maximize local carbon sequestration
Livermore’s carbon neutrality strategy includes carbon
sequestration or “negative emissions” mechanisms
that remove carbon from the atmosphere. Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a leader in
developing pathways to achieve carbon neutrality
and eventually a carbon negative future. LLNL recent
report, “Getting to Neutral: Options for Negative Carbon Emissions in California” cites three key ways California can sequester enough carbon to reach carbon neutrality:
• Capture and store carbon through natural
and working lands (lowest cost)
• Convert waste biomass to fuels and store
carbon dioxide (moderate cost)
• Implement direct air capture and carbon
dioxide storage (highest cost)
The CAP prioritizes nature-based actions such as increasing the urban tree canopy, updating landscaping standards,
preserving existing open space, and implementing soil
carbon farming projects that maximize the carbon sequestration potential of natural lands. Nature-based solutions provide relatively small amounts of sequestration but
maximize other benefits and minimize costs. Over time, the City will track opportunities to cost-effectively sequester carbon through biomass conversion and direct air capture.
Nature-based actions for carbon sequestration have
numerous benefits, including improving environmental
quality, reducing urban heat through increased shade,
and improving quality of life through expanded green
spaces and access to open spaces and natural landscapes.
Costs for these actions include staff time for planning and implementation and the cost of materials for new tree
planting and urban greening initiatives. Partnerships will be essential for implementing carbon farming projects and exploring technology-based carbon capture opportunities.
S-1 ACTIONS
S-1.1 Expand tree canopy cover in the city
Consistent with Action H-1.2, utilize the City’s new street tree inventory to identify areas of the city with low tree canopy cover. Conduct tree planting efforts in these areas, with a focus on underserved and vulnerable populations. Update the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance to expand canopy coverage and climate-ready tree species. Additionally, identify strategies to repurpose timber waste (rather than incineration or chipping).
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
58 MT CO2
e
2045:
58 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Mid-term
72 EXHIBIT B
692
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Mitigation Strategies & Actions S-1.2 Implement carbon farming projects using SB 1383-compliant organic materials SB 1383 requires Livermore to procure approximately 7,297 tons of compost or other organic material annually.
Partner with agricultural and public agency stakeholders, including the parks district and school district, on carbon farming projects to apply SB 1383-compliant organic material locally.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
2030:
1,950 MT CO2
e
2045:
2,376 MT CO2
e
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$$ Mid-term
S-1.3 Update the City’s landscaping standards
Update standards to expand requirements for shade trees and plant species that sequester a high amount of carbon. Ensure that the new trees are native and/or low or very low water needs per Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS).
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Mid-term
S-1.4 Preserve open spaces
Continue the City’s open space preservation efforts to preserve open space as conservation or working land to maintain carbon sequestration and other benefits.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$$ Ongoing
S-1.5 Explore technology-based carbon capture and storage opportunities Partner with carbon-restoration leaders, including the national laboratories, to explore opportunities for technology-based carbon capture and storage projects.
GHG Reduction Benefits City Cost Timeline
Not quantified
Public
Health
Resilience and
GHG Reduction
Community
Connectivity
Green
Economy
Environmental
Quality
$ Long-term
73 EXHIBIT B
693
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Municipal Strategies & Actions 3-4. Municipal Strategies & Actions
The CAP includes several municipal strategies that
complement the other mitigation and adaptation
strategies within the plan. Municipal operations
contribute a relatively small proportion of overall
community GHG emissions. However, actions to reduce
these emissions are important to show community
leadership and promote more sustainable uses of local
resources. GHG-emissions reductions from municipal
strategies and actions were not quantified to avoid
double counting with reductions from other strategies.
The municipal strategies and actions include electrification of municipal buildings, vehicle fleets, and reductions in energy usage, water, and waste. The
municipal strategies also include utilization of public lands for local carbon sequestration and improving
the resilience at critical municipal facilities. Each of the strategies builds on adaptation and mitigation
strategies already outlined in the plan and represent a key part of the City’s plan to achieve its climate goals.
Strategy M-1: Enhance resilience at public facilities.
M-1 ACTIONS
M-1.1 Demonstrate the feasibility of community wide energy resilience through a municipal pilot project
Through the development of a municipal microgrid project at a critical facility, the City will demonstrate the feasibility of expanding local electricity generation and storage to improve community resilience.
M-1.2 Expand renewable energy and battery storage projects Install renewable energy and battery back-up systems at municipal facilities (City Hall, Police Department, Water Reclamation Plant) to increase energy independence and reliability during blackouts, extreme heat events, and other emergency incidents
M-1.3 Retrofit municipal facilities to withstand climate-related hazard conditions Ensure that City facilities are sufficiently hardened to withstand climate-related hazard conditions, such as weatherization for extreme storm events and better seals to outdoor air during wildfire smoke days. 74 EXHIBIT B
694
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Municipal Strategies & Actions Strategy M-2: Electrify municipal facilities and operations.
M-2 ACTIONS
M-2.1 Opt-up municipal EBCE accounts to 100 percent renewable electricity Opt-up municipal accounts to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2023.
M-2.2 Conduct energy audits of City facilities and evaluate life cycle costs of energy upgrades Complete energy audits for all City facilities and implement feasible recommendations for fuel switching and efficiency upgrades. Develop a policy for the City which would require all new building upgrades to include lifecycle costing over 30 years and tie this directly to energy consumption and building electrification. This would include the building’s operational and maintenance costs and ensure that the City has the most cost-effective (and sustainable) buildings possible.
M-2.3 Electrify existing buildings and increase energy efficiency Adopt a retrofitting policy for City-owned buildings such that electrification and energy efficiency retrofits are incorporated into City buildings as part of building upgrades and repairs identified in the Capital Improvement Program.
M-2.4 Replace gas-powered landscaping equipment
Transition to all-electric landscaping equipment, including leaf blowers, for municipal operations. Use this to promote all-electric equipment in the community, providing information on the City website outlining available incentives for residents and businesses.
Strategy M-3: Electrify the City’s vehicle fleet and encourage City employees to utilize alternative transportation and teleworking opportunities.
M-3 ACTIONS
M-3.1 Prepare a Fleet Electrification Plan
Prepare a Fleet Electrification Plan that outlines the transition of the municipal fleet to EVs where possible.
M-3.2 Expand EV charging at public facilities
Install new public and employee EV chargers at City-owned facilities.
M-3.3 Increase bike facilities at public buildings
Establish bike lockers at City facilities that are usable by employees and the public. Add bike locker facilities at offstreet parking lots.
M-3.4 Increase teleworking opportunities
Adopt an internal policy to allow City employees to work from home on a regular basis, as specific job positions allow.
75 EXHIBIT B
695
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Municipal Strategies & Actions Strategy M-4: Conserve water in municipal landscaping and improve on-site stormwater management.
M-4 ACTIONS
M-4.1 Conserve water in City landscaping
Implement water conservation strategies, such as increasing efficiency and use of recycled water, in City landscaping and grounds maintenance procedures.
M-4.2 Convert existing turf areas on municipal sites
Reduce water use by converting existing turf areas to drought tolerant and/or native landscaping.
M-4.3 Convert impermeable surfaces on municipal sites
Identify impermeable surfaces that can be targeted for a transition to increased infiltration.
Strategy M-5: Purchase more sustainable products to reduce waste from City operations.
M-5 ACTION
M-5.1 Adopt a green purchasing policy
Adopt an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy for municipal operations.
Strategy M-6: Utilize public lands to increase local carbon sequestration and reduce urban heat island effect.
M-6 ACTIONS
M-6.1 Expand open space management
Expand management of City-owned public lands and landscaping to improve carbon sequestration; evaluate and ensure that landscaping plans utilize native species where feasible.
M-6.2 Coordinate with other public agencies and stakeholders on carbon sequestration Coordinate with other public agencies, including the parks district and school district, and other stakeholders on carbon-sequestration efforts including soil-carbon farming and carbon capture and storage. 76 EXHIBIT B
696
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Implementation Strategies & Actions 3-5. Implementation Strategies & Actions
The most important facet of Livermore’s CAP is how the
strategies and actions are implemented in the community and how success is monitored over time. Dedicating City resources to climate efforts, tracking implementation
progress, considering climate change in all City plans and processes, and communicating important initiatives to
residents and business will be key to the successful implementation of the CAP. This section includes a framework for ensuring successful implementation of the strategies and actions listed in the CAP. Implementation actions
like hiring or designating a climate action manager will be important drivers for the CAP’s overall success.
Strategy I-1: Make climate impacts and resilience a standard consideration during planning and development processes.
The City can facilitate consistent implementation of the CAP by building climate mitigation and resilience into its regular decision-making structures. Since climate will touch nearly all of the community in one way or another, it makes sense to make climate a core decision-making variable.
I-1 ACTIONS
I-1.1 Evaluate climate impacts and risk in development review Implement an internal process to consider climate change impacts and risks during development review. Amend the standard Planning Commission and City Council agenda report template to include a statement on how the project or program supports or addresses CAP goals.
I-1.2 Consider climate impacts and risk in Capital Improvement Program projects Ensure that new infrastructure will be designed with forecasted changes in climate (precipitation, temperature, wildfire) in mind. Utilize the Livermore Vulnerability Tool, as well as Google Environmental Insights Explorer tools and data, to evaluate the potential climate impacts when assessing new public infrastructure projects. Utilize materials that reduce environmental impact, such as low-carbon concrete and drought tolerant plants.
I-1.3 Conduct a carbon fee study
Conduct a study and explore an ordinance requiring development fees from projects that exceed a determined threshold of carbon emissions. Dedicate revenues to implement CAP programs.
I-1.4 Evaluate the financial risks of climate impacts
Evaluate existing and potential financial risks posed by climate change to both the City and community.
Recommend strategies to mitigate these risks as available and appropriate, including options for insurance products, green infrastructure bonds, real estate strategy and other appropriate mechanisms.
I-1.5 Integrate mitigation and adaptation planning in other City plans Coordinate mitigation and adaptation planning with other City plans, including the Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, General Plan, ATP, Green Infrastructure Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, Development Code, and Specific Plans.
77 EXHIBIT B
697
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Implementation Strategies & Actions Strategy I-2: Dedicate City resources to CAP implementation and consistently monitor progress.
While most of the strategies and actions developed for the CAP are cost effective and feasible, it will still take resources to implement. By designating a climate action manager, tracking progress, and prioritizing equitable implementation, the City can better implement the CAP for everyone in the community.
I-2 ACTIONS
I-2.1 Designate a Climate Action Manager
Create a new Climate Action Manager position responsible for implementing CAP strategies and actions by drafting ordinances, managing technical studies, leading outreach efforts, updating the online portal, networking with partners and stakeholders, and pursuing grant opportunities.
I-2.2 Establish local incentives, rebates, and streamlined permitting to facilitate CAP implementation
Establish local incentive and rebate programs to assist residents and businesses in areas such as building electrification, weatherization, water conservation, and EV charging. Streamline permitting processes to further incentivize implementation of CAP efforts.
I-2.3 Create a CAP tracking program
Develop a tracking program for CAP efforts to track annual implementation progress.
I-2.4 Report implementation progress
Report progress on CAP implementation annually to the City Council on strategy progress and establish accountability in achieving CAP goals. Report GHG emissions and CAP information to a Public Disclosure Program, such as the Carbon Disclosure Program and SEEC Clear Path.
I-2.5 Prioritize equitable implementation
Implement CAP strategies and actions through an equity lens. Work to ensure that communities who are most impacted by climate change, including people of color, low-income families, and people experiencing homelessness, benefit the most from adaptation and mitigation efforts.
I-2.6 Utilize Assistance Programs and Pursue Funding Opportunities Pursue funding opportunities to implement CAP actions. Utilize guidance, resources, and technical expertise from partners like East Bay Community Energy and StopWaste. Expand staff capacity through programs like Civic Spark and Climate Corps.
78 EXHIBIT B
698
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Implementation Strategies & Actions Strategy I-3: Create a public outreach campaign to educate the community about CAP initiatives.
Many of the strategies and actions in the CAP Update can only be initiated by the City. In the end, it will take the entire community to make behavioral changes, ranging from the appliances the community buys to how the community moves around the City. However, the community cannot make these changes without the right information. The City will take a leadership role in communicating with the public, listening to hurdles, and making corrections along the way.
I-3 ACTIONS
I-3.1 Create a brand and identity
Develop a consistent brand for all climate action campaign activities, which may be used in logos and hashtags.
I-3.2 Promote transparency to the public
Communicate the City’s climate action goals and progress to the public regularly, with information displayed prominently on physical and digital outlets citywide.
I-3.3 Engage with the community regularly
Hold regular climate action outreach events, such as workshops, presentations, focus groups targeted at specific community groups, public contests or challenges, and an annual event such as Earth Day or New Year’s Green Resolutions. Inform the community on potential climate change impacts, as well as weatherization and other actions that community members can take to increase resilience in their home or business.
I-3.4 Target commercial stakeholders and both public and private institutions Develop workforce trainings and information that is specifically targeted to large commercial stakeholders in the city. This may include businesses in the agriculture and viticulture sector, parks district, contractors, realtors, restaurants, school district, retail stores, and landscapers. Encourage climate change resilience planning and strategies in private companies, institutions, and systems essential to a functioning Livermore.
I-3.5 Target rental and multifamily property owners
Conduct targeted outreach to rental and multifamily property owners to incentivize upgrades for tenants, including electrification and weatherization.
I-3.6 Expand outreach and education to Livermore’s youth Partner with the school district to expand on current outreach targeted towards students within Livermore to provide opportunities for education and action implementation.
I-3.7 Establish an online resource portal
Develop an online portal that provides climate action information and resources for all stakeholders and community members. Content may include resources on rebates and regulations, guides for reducing individual GHG emissions and preparing for climate emergencies, and a calendar of upcoming climate action events.
I-3.8 Increase social resilience
Increase community resilience/social capacity by supporting Neighbors Helping Neighbors programs. These programs enable neighbors to exchange contact information, acquire supplies, and establish a neighborhood plan to assist each other, particularly vulnerable residents, during climate emergencies. 79 EXHIBIT B
699
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Implementation Strategies & Actions 80 Strategy I-4: Foster green innovation in Livermore.
The future of the economy is green. Green job growth has accelerated in recent years, regularly outperforming other sectors.22 Livermore is already at the forefront of these types of jobs and with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and other local institutions, the City is in prime position to be at the forefront of green technology and other industries. These actions will help support this growth into the future.
22. https://www.epi.org/publication/bp349-assessing-the-green-economy/#:~:text=Greener%20industries%20grow%20faster%20than,was%20
0.034%20percentage%20points%20higher.
I-4 ACTIONS
I-4.1 Expand the local green economy
Coordinate economic development efforts identified in the 2021–2025 Economic Development Strategy with CAP actions. Attract companies and organizations to Livermore that will expand the local green economy and are innovators in sectors related to climate action and resilience.
I-4.2 Partner with the national laboratories
Partner with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia to identify new technologies and potential pilot projects.
Livermore Farmers Market
EXHIBIT B
700
CHAPTER 4.
Implementation Plan
81 EXHIBIT B
701
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Implementation Plan Overview 82 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
4-1. Implementation Plan Overview
The City of Livermore developed the CAP to be a visionary yet feasible roadmap to both decrease GHG emissions and improve overall resilience to climate change. The timelines, costs, legislative environment, and benefits assumed in this plan will continue to evolve as new information and opportunities become available. Therefore, this CAP should be viewed as a strategic framework that will be reevaluated over time.
This chapter describes the nine priority areas on which the City will focus during the first five years of CAP implementation. While other actions will likely be implemented as opportunities arise, the City will focus its resources on these foundational actions. Together, these actions will significantly reduce GHG emissions, improve resilience, spark innovation and collaboration, and engage the community.
The implementation plan also outlines the City’s approach to funding and financing the priority actions, tracking and reporting implementation progress, and updating the CAP to respond to changes in legislation, technologies, and priorities.
TEAM LIVERMORE
Making meaningful progress towards reducing Livermore’s GHG emissions and improving resilience starts with City leadership. The City’s efforts can act as catalysts for change throughout the wider community, however, successful implementation of the CAP also depends on participation from community partners, residents, and businesses. Figure 4-1 describes the communitywide efforts that will be required transition to a resilient and carbon-free Livermore.
Figure 4-1. Team Livermore
CITY: The City can
adopt ordinances,
build infrastructure,
streamline permitting,
and connect the
community to
resources.
PARTNERS: Partners
like EBCE, Quest, and
the national labs
provide education,
leadership, financial
assistance, and
technical expertise.
BUSINESS: Businesses can
adopt new technologies and
behaviors, utilize programs
and incentives, and promote
the benefits of adopting more
sustainable business practices.
RESIDENT: Residents can
adopt new technologies
and behaviors, utilize
programs and incentives,
and promote the benefits of
living more sustainably.
EXHIBIT B
702
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Five-year Priority Areas 83 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
4-2. Five-year Priority Areas
The City identified nine priority areas on which
to focus for the first 5 years of CAP implementation. These priority areas were selected, because they are critical to jumpstart and sustain CAP
implementation, are cost-effective and feasible
steps to significantly reduce emissions, and
improve resilience and align with existing efforts
and available resources in the city, region, and
state. This section includes more detailed costs,
responsible departments, implementation
timelines, and budget availability for the actions
in these priority areas. The nine priority areas for
the next five years are summarized in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2. Livermore’s Five-year Priority Areas
1. Lay the Groundwork
2. Decarbonize Electricity and Materials
3. Electrify Buildings and Vehicles
4. Partner with Livermore’s National Laboratories
5. Engage with the Community Regularly
6. Support Related City Efforts
7. Utilize Assistance Programs and Funding
8. Study Heat and Drought Strategies
9. Develop a Neighborhood Retrofit Program
EXHIBIT B
703
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Five-year Priority Areas 84 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
FUNDING AND FINANCING
While some of the City’s priority areas are
already budgeted for and in some cases already
underway, other actions will need additional
funding or financing to be implemented. Action
costs vary widely throughout the CAP and
while many actions are low or no cost, other
infrastructure related projects like microgrids
and bike lanes can require significant upfront
funding. However, many tools exist for cities
to cover upfront costs including federal and
state grants, low interest financing, bonds, and
public/private partnerships. For a complete
description of the costs and funding approaches
the City can deploy as well as several case
studies for specific measures see Appendix C.
PRIORITY AREA 1: Lay the Groundwork
The City’s first step is to lay the groundwork required to jumpstart implementation. As part of this focus area, the City will establish a brand and identity for the City’s ongoing climate efforts, create an online resource hub for residents to learn about climate actions, build a tool to track and communicate implementation progress, and hire a Climate Action Manager to spearhead CAP implementation and drive change throughout the city. These foundational actions will be completed within the first year.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Costs Budgeted
I-3.1 Create a brand and identity CDD - Planning In progress Yes I-3.7 Establish an online
resource portal
CDD - Planning In progress Yes
I-2.3 Create a CAP
tracking program
CDD - Planning Q4 -2022 Yes
I-2.1 Designate a Climate
Action Manager
CDD - Planning Q1 - 2023 Yes
CMO - City Manager's Office
CDD - Community Development Department
PWD - Public Works Department
EXHIBIT B
704
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Five-year Priority Areas 85 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
PRIORITY AREA 2: Decarbonize Electricity and Materials
A foundational aspect of Livermore’s carbon-neutrality strategy is to use carbon-free electricity. Once Livermore’s electricity is carbon-free, not only will emissions from electricity drop significantly, but also will transform fossil fuel uses that are electrified by ultimately making them carbon-free.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Costs Budgeted
M-2.1 Opt-up municipal EBCE accounts
to 100% renewable electricity
CDD - Planning Complete Yes
M-5.1 Adopt a green purchasing policy PWD -
Environmental
Services
Complete Yes
B-2.1 Opt-up community
EBCE accounts to 100%
renewable electricity
CDD - Planning Q1 -2023 Yes
W-2.1 Expand awareness of low-carbon
and recycled building materials
CDD - Planning Q1-2024 No
W-2.2 Explore standards for new
construction that limit
embodied carbon emissions
CDD – Planning,
Engineering,
Building
Q1 - 2024 No
PRIORITY AREA 3: Electrify Buildings and Vehicles
Once Livermore’s electricity is carbon-free, the next priority will be to electrify buildings and vehicles to reduce GHG emissions and improve air quality.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Cost Budgeted
B-1.1 Require new construction
to be all-electric
CDD – Planning In progress Yes
T-1.4 Establish standards
for EV charging
CDD - Planning In progress Yes
B-1.3 Conduct a cost analysis and
feasibility study for existing
building electrification
requirements
CDD – Planning,
Building
Q1 - 2024 No
M-3.1 Prepare a Fleet Electrification Plan PWD –
Maintenence
In progress Yes
M-3.2 Expand EV charging at
public facilities
CDD – Planning,
Engineering
In progress Yes
EXHIBIT B
705
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Five-year Priority Areas 86 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
PRIORITY AREA 4: Partner with Livermore’s
National Laboratories
Livermore is home to two national laboratories that conduct cutting edge research and hold a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the fields of energy and climate change. The City will deepen its collaboration with the labs to field pilot projects on cutting edge technologies. Specifically, the City will partner with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on carbon farming and other sequestration technologies, microgrids and energy resilience, and opportunities to utilize biogas from the City’s wastewater treatment facility. The City will also pursue a partnership with Sandia National Laboratory to identify opportunities to expand the use of hydrogen fuels. The City will pursue these efforts throughout the first 5 years. However, actual projects will largely rely on the ability to secure grant funding.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Cost Budgeted
I-4.2 Partner with the National
Laboratories
CDD - Planning In progress Yes
E-1.2 Expand microgrid deployment CDD – Planning,
Engineering
PWD
Q1 - 2023 No
B-2.5 Explore hydrogen and
renewable fuel opportunities
CDD - Planning Q1 - 2023 Yes
PRIORITY AREA 5: Engage with the Community Regularly
While the City can take meaningful action to reduce emissions and improve resilience, partnership and collaboration with the community is imperative to successful CAP implementation. Therefore, the City will prioritize engagement with the community, including Livermore’s youth, through a variety of communication channels and community events. The City will also explore opportunities to establish an ongoing community advisory or working group to assist with climate efforts. Additionally, the City will regularly report implementation progress to the community.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Cost Budgeted
I-3.2 Promote transparency
to the public
CDD – Planning,
CMO
Q4 -2022 Yes
I-3.3 Engage with the
community regularly
CDD – Planning,
CMO
Q4-2022 Yes
I-3.6 Expand outreach and education
to Livermore’s youth
CDD – Planning Q1-2023 Yes
I-2.4 Report implementation progress CDD - Planning Q4-2023 Yes
EXHIBIT B
706
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Five-year Priority Areas 87 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
PRIORITY AREA 6: Support Related City Efforts
Many existing City efforts are supported by the CAP and vice versa. Combining these efforts and identifying synergies is a major priority of the City. In the first 5 years, the City will integrate climate mitigation and adaptation into other City plans, such as the General Plan Update and Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, implement SB 1383 and the Active Transportation Plan, and replace gas-powered landscaping equipment.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Cost Budgeted
W-1.1 Implement the requirements
of Senate Bill 1383
PWD –
Environmental
Services
In progress Yes
I-1.5 Integrate mitigation and
adaptation planning in
other City plans
CDD – Planning;
PWD
In progress Yes
T-3.1 Accelerate implementation
of the Livermore Active
Transportation Plan
CDD – Planning,
Engineering
Q4-2022 Partial
M-2.4 Replace gas-powered
landscaping equipment
PWD -
Maintenance
Q1-2023 No
T-4.1 Promote a jobs housing match CDD – Planning In Progress Yes T-4.4 Facilitate complete and
walkable neighborhoods
CDD – Planning In Progress Yes
PRIORITY AREA 7: Utilize Assistance Programs and Funding The major limiting factors of Livermore’s previous CAP was funding and staff time. For the CAP Update, Livermore will focus on securing additional funding from both the State and other sources (as defined in Appendix C).
Additionally, partners like East Bay Community Energy and StopWaste provide both guidance and resources, in areas such as building electrification and energy resilience, that the City will utilize to maximize its capacity. The City is not alone in its efforts to reduce emissions and improve resilience for the community.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Cost Budgeted
I-2.6 Utilize assistance programs and
pursue funding opportunities
CDD – Planning,
Engineering
PWD
In progress Yes
I-3.5 Target rental and multifamily
property owners for outreach
and education related to
incentive programs
CDD In progress Partial
EXHIBIT B
707
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Five-year Priority Areas 88 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
PRIORITY AREA 8: Study Heat and Drought Strategies
Two of Livermore’s most pressing climate challenges are extreme heat and drought. Within the first 5 years, the City will begin additional planning efforts to better define strategies that mitigate heat, conserve water resources, and expand the urban forest.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Cost Budgeted
H-1.1 Study heat vulnerability CDD – Planning
PWD – Maintenance
Q1 - 2025 Partial
D-1.1 Study on-site water reuse CDD – Planning
PWD – Water Resources
Q1 - 2025 No
PRIORITY AREA 9: Develop a Neighborhood Retrofit Program The City will coordinate with partners to develop a holistic neighborhood retrofit program that will provide the information and resources needed for Livermore’s community members to upgrade their buildings to be more resilient, healthy, and decarbonized. The program will include solutions to weatherize homes and businesses, expand solar and battery systems, convert natural gas to electric equipment, improve air quality, plant trees and drought friendly landscaping, and reuse on-site water.
Action Responsible
Department
Action
Start Date
Community
Cost
City
Cost Budgeted
B-1.2 Incentivize electric
retrofits in existing
buildings
CDD
PWD
Q1 - 2026 No
E-1.3 Improve resilience of
residential buildings
CDD
PWD
Q1 - 2026 No
H-1.3 Create a neighborhood
cooling program
CDD
PWD
Q1 - 2026 No
WF-1.3 Facilitate building
retrofits that maintain
indoor air quality
CDD
PWD
Q1 - 2026 No
EXHIBIT B
708
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Progress Tracking and Reporting 89 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Identify
an
action
Plan
for the
action
Implement
the
action
Evaluate
the
outcomes
Learn,
adapt &
innovate
4-3. Progress Tracking and Reporting
Climate action planning is infinitely iterative, as
shown in Figure 4-3. As strategies and actions
are implemented, it is imperative to track and
evaluate the overall impact of each effort. The
City will track CAP implementation in its CAPDash
tracking tool, report progress annually to City
Council, and update the CAP every 5 years. If
the City determines specific actions are not
achieving the anticipated emissions reductions
or resilience improvement, the City will revise
its strategy to stay on track to meet its goals.
Figure 4-3. CAP Implementation and
Monitoring Process
CAPDASH
Figure 4-4. CAPDash
ANNUAL REPORTS
City staff will report implementation progress
to the City Council every year, beginning in
2024. The annual reports will help hold the City
accountable to the commitments in the plan and
identify barriers to implementation that may need
additional focus.
FIVE-YEAR CAP UPDATES
As technology evolves and the State adopts new
mandates, the City may need to revise its existing
strategies and actions or develop new ones. The
City will update the CAP every 5 years to adjust
its approach as necessary. The next CAP update
should be completed by the end of 2027.
CAP implementation will be tracked in CAPDash,
which is a customizable, web-based dashboard
developed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. that
allows Livermore to track the implementation of each strategy. See Figure 4-4 for an example of the CAPDash dashboard. The City
will also conduct GHG-emissions inventories
on a bi-annual basis, which will be available
for the community to review via CAPDash.
EXHIBIT B
709
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Community Activation Guide 90 TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
4-4. Community Activation Guide
YOU CAN HELP CREATE A HEALTHY AND RESILIENT LIVERMORE.
Addressing climate change will require more than just action from the City of Livermore itself. Individuals, businesses, and community groups all have a critical role to play in achieving the City’s climate action goals. You can help create a healthy and resilient Livermore by taking individual actions today.
Purchase renewable electricity
East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) provides
electricity to customers in Livermore. Enroll your
account in the Renewable 100 service option to
support locally generated renewable energy.
Install solar panels & batteries
Solar and battery systems reduce your electricity
emissions and allow you to store solar energy
for use at night or during power outages.
Weatherize your home or business
Weatherize your home or business to save
energy, lower your utility bills, stay cool
during heat waves, and maintain indoor
air quality during smoke events.
Install a heat pump & electric appliances
Install electric, energy-efficient appliances
when your old appliance breaks or is
no longer working efficiently.
Plant trees in your neighborhood
Plant trees in your neighborhood to
reduce heat, sequester carbon, absorb
stormwater, and provide habitat.
Install water-wise & fire-safe landscaping
Reduce your water use by replacing your
lawn with drought-tolerant landscaping and
use water-efficient irrigation. Additionally,
adopt fire-safe landscaping practices if
you live in an area at risk for wildfires.
Bike, walk, or take transit
Biking, walking, skateboarding, scootering,
taking public transit, and carpooling are all
good alternative transportation options to
reduce your transportation footprint.
Drive an electric vehicle
Purchase or rent an electric vehicle to reduce
emissions when you do need to drive.
Compost your yard & food waste
Divert organic waste from the landfill by
composting your yard and food waste. Livermore
Sanitation provides composting to garbage pickup
subscribers for residential use at no charge.
Install a water conservation kit
Taking advantage of water conservation kits from Cal Water and the City that provide free or subsidized water-efficient
showerheads, faucet aerators, and toilet leak
detection tabs is a great way to start.
Use permeable hardscapes
Install permeable hardscape alternatives like loose gravel, permeable asphalt, grass pavers, and permeable interlocking pavers to prevent flooding.
Looking for more ideas?
The City is building an online resource hub to help the community identify and implement climate actions.
The resource hub will be available by the end of 2022 at LivermoreResilientHub.com
EXHIBIT B
710
Closing Remarks
While climate change may seem like an overwhelming challenge and we may not all agree on the solutions, we can all agree that everyone wants a safe and healthy climate for Livermore’s future. Thinking about what we can do locally can also be daunting in the context of a global threat. One thing is for certain and that is while one city can’t solve the problem alone, without action at the local level the problem won’t be solved.
California is a leader in climate action in the U.S. and Livermore can be a leader in California— environmental stewardship is in Livermore’s DNA. There is a role for all of us in this climate action plan —the actions we take individually and collectively can make a difference.
The quality of life in Livermore for future generations depends on the actions we take today. “we respect our
neighbors, our guests,
and our planet.”
“all citizens benefit from the foresight &
courageous actions of past community
leaders, who drove through proven
solutions to mitigate the larger effects
of climate change.”
“we are prepared for
resulting natural disasters.”
“the air is clean and healthy; residents and visitors
easily move around by walking, riding bikes, and
driving electric vehicles; more well-designed
housing is available for workers and families to live
closer to jobs and schools, and City facilities and
equipment are environmentally appropriate.”
“residents, agriculture,
open spaces/wildlife,
and businesses co-exist
in a healthy ecosystem.”
“we are safe and
sustainable.”
In 2050,
Livermore
will be a place
where...
Livermore resident responses to Climate Action Plan survey.
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan | Community Activation Guide 91
EXHIBIT B
711
92 Appendices
EXHIBIT B
712
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan 93
TOC —
Executive
Summary
1. Introduction 3. Livermore’s
Climate Action
Strategy
2. Climate Change
in Livermore
4. Implementation
Plan
Appendix Table of Contents
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology
and Calculations.....................................................................94 Appendix B - Vulnerability Analysis...........................................................147 Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix......................................................177 Appendix D - Measure Quantification and Substantial Evidence...... 218 Appendix E - CAP Regulatory Context......................................................259
EXHIBIT B
713
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast
Methodology and Calculations
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast
Methodology and Calculations
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
prepared for
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
Updated April 2022
EXHIBIT B
714
Table of Contents
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Regulatory Background ....................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Introduction ........................................................... 4 2 Previous GHG Emissions Inventories .............................................................................................. 7
2.1 1990 Reference-Year Inventory .......................................................................................... 7
2.2 2005 Baseline Inventory ..................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Summary of 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 East Bay Energy Watch Inventories .................. 8 3 2017 GHG Emissions Inventory ....................................................................................................16
3.1 Energy Emissions ...............................................................................................................18
3.2 Transportation Emissions..................................................................................................20
3.3 Water and Wastewater Emissions ....................................................................................24
3.4 Solid Waste Emissions .......................................................................................................27
3.5 2017 GHG Emissions Inventory Results Summary ............................................................31 4 Future GHG Emissions Forecasts ..................................................................................................36
4.1 Business-as-Usual Forecast Scenario ................................................................................37
4.2 Adjusted Forecast Scenario ...............................................................................................38 Tables
Table 1 Global Warming Potentials of Greenhouse Gases..............................................................4 Table 2 GHG Emissions Comparison Between the 2012 CAP Baseline Inventory and the CAP 2.0 Update 2005 Inventory..........................................................................................8 Table 3 Livermore GHG Inventories Emissions Summary ............................................................ 11 Table 4 Livermore 2005 GHG Inventory Data ............................................................................... 12 Table 5 Livermore 2010 GHG Inventory Data ............................................................................... 13 Table 6 Livermore 2015 GHG Inventory Data ............................................................................... 14 Table 7 Livermore 2017 GHG Inventory Data ............................................................................... 15 Table 8 Inventory and Forecast Data Sources.............................................................................. 17 Table 9 Energy Emissions by Category for Year 2017 ................................................................... 20 Table 10 Estimated On-Road Transportation Emissions for 2017 .................................................. 21 Table 11 Estimated Off-Road Emissions for Alameda County 2017 ............................................... 23 Table 12 Allocation Method for Off-Road Equipment Categories ................................................. 23 Table 13 Estimated Off-Road Transportation Emissions for 2017 ................................................. 24 Table 14 Water and Wastewater Emissions for Year 2017 ............................................................ 25 Table 15 Summary of Solid Waste Activity Data by Landfill for Year 2017 .................................... 28 Table 16 California Default Solid Waste Characterization1 ............................................................ 30 Table 17 Alternative Daily Cover Waste Characterization1 ............................................................ 30
EXHIBIT B
715
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations ii
Table 18 Summary of Solid Waste Activity Data for Year 2017 ...................................................... 31 Table 19 2017 GHG Inventory ........................................................................................................ 32 Table 20 Summary of Livermore GHG Emissions Changes from 2005 to 2017.............................. 34 Table 21 Summary of Livermore Activity Data Changes from 2005 to 2017 ................................. 35 Table 22 Business-as-Usual Growth Factors................................................................................... 37 Table 23 Business-as-usual Forecast by Sector .............................................................................. 38 Table 24 Summary of Legislative Reductions................................................................................. 39 Table 25 Adjusted Forecast Summary by Sector by Year ............................................................... 43 Table 26 Electricity Sector Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology ........................................... 45 Table 27 Electricity Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year ..................................... 46 Table 28 Natural Gas Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology ................................................... 47 Table 29 Natural Gas Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year ................................. 47 Table 30 Solid Waste Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology ................................................... 48 Table 31 Waste Emissions Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year ......................... 48 Table 32 Transportation Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology .............................................. 49 Table 33 Transportation Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year ............................ 49 Table 34 Water and Wastewater Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology ................................ 50 Table 35 Water Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year .......................................... 50 Table 36 Wastewater Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year ................................. 50 Figures
Figure 1 Energy Emissions by Category for Year 2017 ................................................................... 19 Figure 2 Wastewater Methodology............................................................................................... 26 Figure 3 Waste Generation Methodology ..................................................................................... 29 Figure 4 2017 City of Livermore Community Emissions by Sector ................................................ 33 Figure 5 Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast Results by Sector and Forecast Year ......................... 44 Figure 6 BAU Scenario and Adjusted Scenario Forecast ................................................................ 45
EXHIBIT B
716
Introduction
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 1
1 Introduction
California considers greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) emissions and the impacts of climate change to be a serious threat to the public health, environment, economic well-being, and natural resources of the state and has taken an aggressive stance to mitigate the impact of climate change at the state-level through the adoption of legislation and policies. Many cities and counties within California have developed local climate action plans and aligned goals to correspond with state emissions reduction targets. The two major state GHG emissions-related goals are established by Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32. AB 32 required state agencies reduce California GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, whereas SB 32 requires a 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2030. The goals set by AB 32 were achieved even earlier by the state in 2016, 1 and many
California jurisdictions are completing updated GHG inventories to quantify progress toward their specific 2020 goals as well as develop targets to align with the requirements of SB 32. Additionally, Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, which was passed in 2018 by Governor Jerry Brown, establishes a goal for achieving carbon neutrality statewide by 2045. Executive Orders are only required by law for state agencies, but future climate legislation and goals are anticipated to be passed by the California legislature in the future2.
This technical appendix to Livermore’s Memorandum Detailing GHG Emissions Inventory, Forecast, and Provisional Targets for Livermore Climate Action Plan Update (2020) details the results of the GHG emissions inventories completed for Livermore (2005, 2010, 2015 and 2017) and forecasts of future GHG emissions (2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045). This technical appendix also quantifies the reduction impact that state regulations will have on Livermore’s business-as-usual forecast3 and presents the results in an adjusted forecast.4 This technical appendix covers GHG emissions inventories5 prepared for 2010, 2015 and 2017 and updates made to the original 20056 baseline GHG inventory which was completed to fix discrepancies in the calculation methodologies and align the inventory with current standards. This allows for comparisons between all inventory years and provides accurate measurement of the City’s progress towards the 2020 GHG reduction goals established in the first Livermore Climate Action Plan (CAP)7 in 2012. All inventory years now use the most recent population, employment, and emissions factor data allowing for consistent and comparable methodologies across all inventory years and between Bay Area jurisdictions that are also using the GHG emissions inventories completed by East Bay Energy Watch (EBEW). These various inventories will assist in the 1 California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm. Accessed: April 14, 2020 2 AB 2832 and SB 1362 were both introduced to the California state legislature in February 2020, which would codify the 2045 carbon neutrality target set out by Executive Order B-55-18 in 2018 into law. 3 Forecasts emissions based on population and job growth, with no reduction measures from federal, state, or local governments. 4 The adjusted forecast scenario incorporates expected federal, state, and local GHG reduction measures into the emissions forecast to develop a more accurate forecast of emissions through 2045. 5 Note that all reference to inventories, forecasts, and targets in this memorandum are in reference to communitywide GHG emissions. 6 The Updated 2005 GHG Emissions Inventory is an update of the previously prepared 2005 inventory that informed the first City CAP.
This was done to use the most recent methodology, emissions factors, and data sources available, as well as for consistency between other inventory years. The original updated 2005 inventory was created by East Bay Energy Watch, and then updated by Rincon (for more information on these updates, refer to Section 2.3 of this Technical Appendix). 7 City of Livermore. 2012. City of Livermore Climate Action Plan. Available:
http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/9789/ Accessed: April 12, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
717
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 2 preparation of the Livermore CAP Update by clearly tracking progress in specific GHG emissions sectors and to forecast future GHG emissions and develop a respective GHG target gap analyses that will assist in developing CAP Update policies structured to achieve Livermore’s GHG emissions targets.
1.1 Regulatory Background
The state of California has adopted a variety of legislation and policies to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. This includes legislation that sets clear targets for the state reducing GHG emissions which cause climate change, as well as directing state agencies such as the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop implementation plans for achieving these targets. The most relevant of the climate legislation passed in California are summarized below. ▪ Executive Order S-3-05 (2005), signed by former Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, establishes statewide GHG emissions reduction goals to achieve long-term climate stabilization as follows:
by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels and by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The 2050 goal was accelerated by the 2045 carbon neutral goal established by Executive Order (EO) B-55-18, as discussed below.8 ▪ Assembly Bill 32 (2006), known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020 (approximately a 15 percent reduction from 2005 to 2008 levels). The AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan, first published in 2008, identifies mandatory and voluntary measures to achieve the statewide 2020 emissions limit, and encourages local governments to reduce municipal and community GHG emissions proportionate with state goals.9
▪ Climate Change Scoping Plan (2008), the original California Climate Change Scoping Plan, includes measures to address GHG emissions reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted and implemented since approval of the Scoping Plan.
▪ Climate Change Scoping Plan Update (2013), the first update to the California Climate Change Scoping Plan, defines CARB climate change priorities for the next five years and set the groundwork to reach post-2020 statewide GHG emissions reduction goals. The Scoping Plan Update highlighted California’s progress toward meeting the 2020 GHG emissions goals defined in the original Scoping Plan. The Plan Update also evaluated how to align the state’s longer-term GHG reduction strategies with other state policy priorities, including those for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. ▪ Executive Order B-30-15 (2015), establishes statewide GHG emissions reduction goals of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. ▪ Senate Bill 32 (2016), signed by former Governor Brown in 2016, establishes a statewide midterm GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 8 Executive Orders are binding only unto State agencies. Accordingly, EO S-03-05 will guide State agencies’ efforts to control and regulate GHG emissions but will have no direct binding effect on local government or private actions. 9 Specifically, the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan states CARB, “encourages local governments to adopt a reduction goal for municipal operations emissions and move toward establishing similar goals for community emissions that parallel the State commitment to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 15 percent from current levels by 2020” (p. 27). “Current” as it pertains to the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan is commonly understood as between 2005 and 2008.
EXHIBIT B
718
Introduction
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 3
▪ Second Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017), formally adopted by CARB in December 2017, updated the state Scoping Plan to include the GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 set forth by SB 32. The Scoping Plan outlines the roadmap to achieve this goal and gives guidance on how to achieve substantial progress towards 2050 state goals. ▪ Executive Order B-55-18 (2018), signed by former Governor Brown in 2018, expanded upon EO S-3-05 by creating a statewide GHG goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. EO B-55-18 identifies CARB as the lead agency to develop a framework for implementation and progress tracking toward this goal in the next Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, which is expected in 2021 or 2022.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5
The California Environmental Qualified Act (CEQA) has established specific requirements for climate action plans to qualify for project specific CEQA analysis streamlining. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, project-specific environmental documents can tier from, or incorporate by reference, the existing programmatic review in a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan, which allows for project-level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project’s consistency with the GHG emissions reduction strategy included in the qualified GHG emissions reduction plan. To meet the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, a qualified GHG emissions reduction plan must include the following:
Quantify existing and projected GHG emissions within the plan area; Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable; Identify and analyze sector specific GHG emissions within the plan’s geographic area; Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that if implemented, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level; Establish a tool or mechanism to monitor progress and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels; and
Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
The state of California, via CARB, has issued several guidance documents concerning the establishment of GHG emissions reduction targets for local climate action plans to comply with legislated GHG emissions reductions goals and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). In the first California Climate Change Scoping Plan,
10 CARB encouraged local governments to adopt a reduction target for community emissions paralleling the state commitment to reduce GHG emissions. In 2016, the state adopted SB 32 mandating a reduction of GHG emissions by 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2030 and in 2017 CARB published California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (hereafter referred to as the Scoping Plan Update) outlining the strategies the state will employ to reach these targets.
11 With the release of the Scoping Plan Update, CARB recognized the need to balance population growth with emissions reductions and in doing so, provided a new methodology for proving consistency with state GHG reduction goals through the use of per capita efficiency targets. 10 California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2020 11 California Air Resources Board. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Accessed at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2020
EXHIBIT B
719
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 4 These targets are generated by dividing a jurisdiction’s GHG emissions for each horizon year by the jurisdiction’s total population for that target year and are discussed further in Section 5.
1.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Introduction
The Livermore GHG emissions inventories serve to detail progress towards Livermore’s GHG emissions reduction targets. Each inventory provides the total community GHG emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e).12 Data for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 inventories was originally gathered by EBEW and then reviewed and updated by Rincon for consistency with the latest methodology available in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiative (ICLEI) U.S.
Community Protocol13 and California Supplement14. In order to maintain consistency across all years, the updated 2005 inventory will replace the existing 2005 baseline inventory used in Livermore’s 2012 CAP. Changes to the 2005 inventory methodology include adding emissions from the water and wastewater inventory sectors and removal of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) emissions, because the City of Livermore does not have direct control over BART and is unable to reduce these emissions and because reliable BART data was not available for the subsequent inventories.
Emissions for each inventory year were calculated using the principles and methods from these protocols. Emissions from nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), and carbon dioxide (CO2) are included in this assessment. Each GHG has a different capability of trapping heat in the atmosphere, known as its global warming potential (GWP), which is normalized relative to CO2 and expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent, or CO2e. The CO2e values for these gases are derived from the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change GWP values for consistency with the yearly CARB GHG inventory, as shown in Table 1.15,16 Table 1 Global Warming Potentials of Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse Gas Molecular Formula Global Warming Potential (CO2e) Carbon Dioxide CO2 1
Methane CH4 28
Nitrous Oxide N2O 265
MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
12 Carbon dioxide equivalent is a term for describing GHG emissions in a common unit, signifying for any GHG the amount of CO2 that would have the equivalent global warming impact. The equivalent amount of CO2 is calculated based on the GHG global warming potential value.
13 ICLEI. 2012. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available:
<https://icleiusa.org/publications/us-community-protocol/>. Accessed: April 23, 2020. 14 Association of Environmental Professionals. 2013. The California Supplement to the United States Communitywide GHG Protocol.
Available: <https://califaep.org/docs/California_Supplement_to_the_National_Protocol.pdf>. Accessed: April 23, 2020. 15 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2014. Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change. Direct Global Warming Potentials. 16 All calculations use Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report GWP values.
EXHIBIT B
720
Introduction
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 5
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Sectors
Each of the community inventories for the City of Livermore include estimated emissions for the following sectors:
▪ Energy (electricity, natural gas, direct access electricity) ▪ On-road Transportation (passenger, commercial)
▪ Off-road Transportation
▪ Waste (solid waste, alternative daily cover)
▪ Water
▪ Wastewater (direct, indirect)
Excluded Emissions
The following emissions sectors were excluded from Livermore’s 2012 CAP baseline inventory for 2005 and are also excluded from the updated 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 inventories. Additional updates were also made to the 2005, 2010, and 2015 inventories in order to maintain consistent sources and emissions factors between all inventory years. These changes are summarized in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.
Consumption-based Emissions
GHG emissions from consumption of goods within the city are excluded from the inventory and forecast of future emissions. Consumptive based inventories for municipal jurisdiction are a relatively new the climate planning practice and standardized factors and methodologies are currently being developed. Without consistent methods, factors and established boundaries, the data provided from these inventories is limited and could negatively impact a jurisdictions ability to detail their progress with future GHG reductions.
Natural and Working Lands Emissions
GHG emissions from carbon sinks and sources in natural and working lands are not included in this inventory and forecast due to the lack the specific data necessary to estimate their contribution to the jurisdictions overall GHG emissions. CARB has included a state-level inventory of natural and working lands in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update17 GHG inventory; however, at the time of this City of Livermore community-wide inventory, sufficient data was not available to conduct a jurisdictionspecific working lands inventory. CARB has developed the Natural and Working Lands Implementation Plan18 and the Nature Conservancy and California Department of Conservation19 have developed an inventory tool (TerraCount) which may be able to perform these inventories for Alameda County.
17 California Air Resources Board. 2017. California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. 18 California Air Resources Board. 2019. California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/draft-nwl-ip-040419.pdf. Accessed: April 12, 2020. 19 California Department of Conservation. TerraCount Scenario Planning Tool. Accessed: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/terracount/.
Accessed: April 6, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
721
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 6 Agricultural Emissions
Emissions from agricultural activities are not included in this inventory as the Community Protocol and California Supplement20 both note agricultural activity is not a required component of Community Protocol inventories and should be included only if relevant to the community conducting the inventory. Agricultural emissions are generally inventoried at a County scale, and data is difficult to allocate to local municipal jurisdictions. Regulations exist to encourage urban agriculture within the City boundaries. Many of the emissions from these activities (e.g. energy) are covered under other sectors included in this inventory and no major commercial-scale livestock activity is noted within the city boundaries.
High GWP Emissions
High GWP emissions, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances are not included in this inventory as it is not a required component of the Community Protocol and the California Supplement notes these emissions are not generally included in California inventories, including in Livermore. Furthermore, many of these emissions are from industrial manufacturing sources and are already accounted for in the California Cap-and-Trade program.
20 Association of Environmental Professionals. 2013. The California Supplement to the United States Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Protocol. Available: https://califaep.org/docs/California_Supplement_to_the_National_Protocol.pdf. Accessed: April 8, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
722
Previous GHG Emissions Inventories
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 7
2 Previous GHG Emissions Inventories
2.1 1990 Reference-Year Inventory
The state of California uses 1990 as a reference year to remain consistent with AB 32 and SB 32, which codified the state’s 2020 and 2030 GHG emissions targets by directing CARB to reduce statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The City of Livermore’s initial inventory was conducted for the year 2005. The state indicated in the first Climate Change Scoping Plan in 2008 that local governments wishing to remain consistent with state targets could use a 15 percent reduction from 2005-2009 levels as a proxy for a 1990 baseline.21 The updated 1990 proxy baseline used for target setting by the City of Livermore is 610,604 MT CO2e.22
2.2 2005 Baseline Inventory
In 2008, Livermore collaborated with ICLEI to develop a 2005 community GHG emissions inventory.
The 2005 inventory quantified community emissions and forecast business-as-usual (BAU) conditions to 2020 based on expected population, employment, and growth. It included emissions from the residential energy, commercial/industrial energy, on-road transportation (using data from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for VMT data), and waste sectors. This inventory was used to inform the development of the City’s General Plan Climate Change Element, which includes a goal to reduce GHG emissions by 15% below 2008 levels by 2020.
In 2010, ICF International updated this 2005 inventory to include additional sectors (referred to here as the 2012 CAP baseline inventory), developed an estimate of 2008 emissions based on the 2005 inventory, and updated the 2020 forecast using current socioeconomic factors. The 2012 CAP baseline inventory added emissions from water consumption and wastewater treatment and utilized the Alameda County CMA Travel Demand Model (now known as Alameda CTC) for VMT estimates. These changes led to an overall 40% decrease in GHG emissions for the 2005 baseline inventory year compared to the original 2005 inventory completed by ICLEI.
The 2012 CAP baseline inventory was updated again by Rincon as part of this current 2020 inventory and forecast effort for the CAP Update, using the most recent methodology, data, and emissions factors. As part of the CAP Update, GHG inventories for 2010, 2015, and 2017 that were originally developed by East Bay Energy Watch in 2019 were also updated by Rincon (see Section 2.3 below for more details on changes made by Rincon to these inventories).
Table 2 compares changes in emissions by sector between the original 2012 CAP baseline inventory and the updated CAP 2.0 2005 inventory. Overall, emissions in the updated CAP 2005 inventory increased by 5 percent, mainly due to an increase in emissions from the off-road transportation sector.
21 Due to lack of 1990 inventory data for local governments, page 27 of the 2008 Climate Change Scoping Plan identifies 15 percent below “current” (2005-2008) levels by 2020 as consistent with the State goals of 1990 levels by 2020, allowing local governments to backcast to develop 1990 baselines for future GHG reduction targets. 22 Calculated using updated 2005 CAP 2.0 inventory created by EBEW and completed by Rincon.
EXHIBIT B
723
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 8 Table 2 GHG Emissions Comparison Between the 2012 CAP Baseline Inventory and the CAP 2.0 Update 2005 Inventory
Sector
2012 CAP Baseline GHG
Emissions
(MT CO2e)23
CAP 2.0 Updated 2005 GHG Emissions
(MT CO2e) Percent Change
Residential Energy1 121,572 120,961 -0.50%
Nonresidential Energy1 104,183 95,643 -8.20%
Direct Access Electricity N/A2 15,192 +100%
On-road Transportation 147,327 353,319 +139.82%
Off-road Transportation N/A2 88,179 +100%
Solid Waste Disposal 32,783 38,495 -17.42%
Water and Wastewater 6,072 6,567 -8.15%
Municipal Operations 7.095 N/A3 -100%
Total 411,937 718,358 +74.39%
kWh: kilowatt hours; mgy: million gallons per year; N/A: not applicable; MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT:
vehicle miles traveled
1 The electricity and gas sectors were not separated in the 2005 CAP 1.0 inventory. 2 Direct access electricity data not separated from nonresidential electricity in inventory. Off-road emissions not included. 3 Municipal operations are a subset of community emissions in the updated 2005 CAP 2.0 inventory and were not calculated separately.
2.3 Summary of 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 East Bay
Energy Watch Inventories
In 2019, East Bay Energy Watch (EBEW) developed GHG inventories for jurisdictions across the Bay Area. GHG inventories for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 were established for the City of Livermore as part of this effort (referred to from here as the EBEW inventories). Although the EBEW inventories use slightly different methodologies than the 2005 inventory, due to the availability of data, the consistency of the new methodology between all inventory years and between other local jurisdictions, and the use of the most recent emissions factors and data sources, the City has adopted the EBEW inventories and will incorporate updated versions into the CAP process.
Several updates were performed by Rincon as part of the current effort to adjust the EBEW inventories to create a consistent methodology across the 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 inventories.
These included adding natural gas emissions from the industrial sector in 2015 and 2017 (due to the data being unavailable from PG&E reporting due to CPUC energy data access rules24), adding activity and emissions data for both water and wastewater sectors into the inventories, and updating offroad transportation sector emissions calculations to utilize the most recently available data.
The following section outlines the changes made to the EBEW inventories for consistency with the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol25 and inventory years.
23 Original 2005 CAP 1.0 inventory here refers to the 2012 CAP 1.0 inventory, which had previously been updated from ICLEI’s 2005 inventory (completed in 2008 for use in Livermore’s 2012 CAP 1.0). 24 California Public Utilities Commission Decision (D.14-05-016) establishes the Data Request and Response Process, a protocol for investor owned utilities to follow when providing customer usage data to eligible third-party requesters. 25 ICLEI. 2013. U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version 1.1.
EXHIBIT B
724
Previous GHG Emissions Inventories
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 9
Natural Gas
When examining the available PG&E natural gas data for Livermore (obtained via PG&E’s Green Communities portal) it was determined that an unknown, large natural gas facility came online in Livermore between 2011 and 2012 and triggered the CPUC 15-15 rule26 starting in 2014. This prevented PG&E from reporting industrial natural gas emissions in 2015 and 2017 as a part of the data request for Livermore’s energy data, which was listed as ‘Fail-Dropped’. In other years, industrial natural gas emissions were included with commercial emissions.
To allow for accurate comparison and better consistency of energy sector emissions between all four EBEW inventory years, however, the calculated activity data from Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) was added into the nonresidential natural gas sector for 2015 and 2017 to account for industrial natural gas emissions. CARB reports Cap-and-Trade emissions data to the public as a part of California’s Regulations for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases27, which covers all entities that emit over 10,000 MT CO2e in a given year. Rincon examined this data for large facilities in Livermore to determine the source of the large increase in natural gas usage. By comparing Capand-Trade data to the available PG&E data, it was determined that LLNL, which began reporting as a part of the Cap-and-Trade program in 2012, was largely responsible for the new natural gas usage.
This was confirmed by calculating the activity data for LLNL’s emissions, using the calculated emissions factor for PG&E natural gas28, which matched the increase in natural gas usage shown in Livermore’s PG&E data for 2012 and 2013.
Other industrial emissions were not added into the inventories, as they are under the purview of the CARB Cap-and-Trade Program for emissions reductions and are, therefore, already accounted for in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update. The California Supplement does not recommend including these sources unless they are under the direct jurisdictional control of the reporting agency.29 Direct Access Electricity
Direct Access is an option that allows eligible customers to purchase their electricity directly from third party Electric Service Providers. Direct access electricity30 was not reported by PG&E for the 2017 reporting year due to the CPUC’s data access rules, specifically what is known as the 15-15 rule. It was determined by examining the available PG&E data for Livermore (obtained via PG&E’s Green Communities portal) that direct access electricity users triggered the 15-15 rule in 2017. This prevented PG&E from reporting 2017 direct access electricity activity data as part of the data request for Livermore’s energy data. In all other years, including the 2005, 2010, and 2015 inventory years, this direct access electricity data was reported.
To allow for accurate comparison of energy sector emissions between inventory years, direct access electricity usage and emissions were estimated for 2017. This was done by using the average ratio 26 The 15/15 rule states no data can be provided if there are less than 15 users in any sector or if one user makes up more than 15 percent of the total usage. This applies to natural gas and electricity consumption. 27 Cap-and-Trade emissions data obtained from the California Air Resource Board’s Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas (MRR) data portal. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/mrr-data. Accessed May 7, 2020. 28 Emissions factor for natural gas = .00531051, as calculated and used in the 2017 baseline inventory and GHG forecast for CAP 2.0. See Section 3.1 for more details on energy emissions factors. 29 Association of Environmental Professionals. 2013. The California Supplement to the United States Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol. Page 10.
30 Direct access electricity is retail electric service where customers purchase electricity from a competitive provider called an Electric Service Provider (ESP), instead of from a regulated electric utility. An ESP is a non-utility entity that offers electric service to customers within the service territory of an electric utility. The utility delivers electricity that the customer purchases from the ESP to the customer over its distribution system.
EXHIBIT B
725
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 10 of direct access electricity usage to commercial electricity based off 2015 and 2016, the closest available years with data. Direct access electricity usage was estimated in this way for 2017 also to provide direct access electricity emissions across all four inventory years.
Water and Wastewater
The EBEW inventories did not include data or emissions from water or wastewater, which are standard sectors in the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol. Activity data for these sectors was obtained from the City in April 2020 for 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017, and added into the inventories for all years. Water data was provided in millions of gallons supplied by CalWater and Livermore Municipal Water, and emissions were calculated by determining the amount of electricity used as a part of processing and distribution31, and multiplying by PG&E emissions factors for electricity. Wastewater data was provided in millions of gallons from the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, and emissions were calculated using the following ICLEI Community Protocol methods (determined based on facility information gathered by Rincon): WW.2, WW.8, and WW.12. For more detail on these calculations, see Section 3.3.
BART
The EBEW inventories originally included emissions from Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). It was decided by Rincon and City staff to ultimately remove these emissions from the four EBEW inventory years (2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017). This was due to a lack of emissions data available for years after 2013, which prevented emissions from being accurately calculated and forecasted.
Additionally, all four inventory years originally used the same emissions factor, calculated based off of 2013 data, leading to inaccurate estimation of emissions. The City of Livermore ultimately does not have control over reducing these emissions, and BART already has its own GHG emissions reduction goals in place over the next decade. These emissions also represented a small percentage of Livermore’s overall emissions (0.22% in 2017). For these reasons, these emissions were ultimately removed.
Off-road Transportation
The EBEW inventories originally calculated GHG emissions from off-road equipment using the CARB OFFROAD2007 model. In late 2021, CARB released OFFROAD2021 as a replacement for previous off-road inventory models, which included more up-to-date off-road equipment inventories and activity estimates.32 Rincon updated the 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 inventories to use off-road transportation activity data from the CARB OFFROAD2021 model database. 31 Electricity usage was determined via methods outlined in the California Energy Commission’s Refining Estimates of Water-related Energy Use in California, 2006. https://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF. 32CARB. 2021. Mobile Source Emissions Inventory – Modeling Tools. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-sourceemissions-inventory/msei-modeling-tools.
EXHIBIT B
726
Previous GHG Emissions Inventories
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 11
Summary of GHG Inventory Data by Year
A summary of emissions for the 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 GHG inventories by sector for Livermore can be found below in Table 3, as well as back-casted emissions for 1990.
Table 3 Livermore GHG Inventories Emissions Summary
Sector
19901
(MT CO2e)
2005
(MT CO2e)
2010
(MT CO2e)
2015
(MT CO2e)
2017
(MT CO2e)
Residential Electricity 42,349 49,822 44,872 37,602 19,775 Residential Gas 60,468 71,139 72,206 61,334 65,896
Nonresidential Electricity 55,991 65,872 55,902 52,865 27,836 Nonresidential Gas 25,305 29,771 29,075 52,236 57,462
Direct Access Electricity 12,913 15,192 8,075 9,734 6,545 On-Road Transportation 300,322 353,320 312,355 325,691 314,154 Off-Road Transportation 10,246 12,055 14,061 17,394 18,002 Waste 32,721 38,495 24,315 20,859 23,052
Wastewater 1,604 1,887 1,809 1,661 1,366
Water 3,978 4,680 3,860 2,400 1,479
Total Emissions 545,898 642,233 566,530 581,776 535,567 Emissions per capita 9.62 8.23 7.00 6.72 5.92
MTCO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 All 1990 inventory data calculated as a 15 percent reduction from CAP 2.0 2005 inventory levels per California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan. The original 2012 CAP used this same methodology for calculating 1990 emissions, although a 2008 inventory was developed as a baseline.
2 Includes emissions from direct access electricity.
3Nonresidential natural gas emissions adjusted to include estimated emissions from industrial sources, which were not reported by PG&E due to CPUC privacy rules.
The updated activity data, emissions factors, and total emissions for the 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 inventories for Livermore are summarized below in Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, and Table 7. All of the inventory years utilize the same methodology, except for changes made to the original EBEW inventories by Rincon to specific inventory years (as identified in this section).
EXHIBIT B
727
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 12 Table 4 Livermore 2005 GHG Inventory Data
Activity Data Emissions Factors
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Residential Electricity (kWh) 223,251,790 0.000223 49,822 Residential Gas (therms) 13,395,923 0.00531 71,139
Nonresidential Electricity (kWh) 295,174,279 0.000223 65,872 Nonresidential Gas (therms) 5,606,070 0.00531 29,771
Direct Access Electricity (kWh) 39,378,526 0.000386 15,192 Passenger On-road
Transportation (VMT) 548,153,828 0.000399 218,684
Commercial On-Road
Transportation (VMT) 91,610,896 0.00147 134,636
Off-Road – Diesel (Gallons) 600,655 0.0103 6,212
Off-Road – Gasoline (Gallons) 338,135 0.00905 3,062
Off-Road – NG/LPG (Gallons) 477,673 0.00582 2,780
BART (Passenger Miles) Removed Removed Removed
Solid Waste (tons) 119,384 0.293 35,008
Alternative Daily Cover Waste (tons) 14,193 0.246 3,487 Wastewater (mgy) 2,640 0.000223 1,887
Water (mgy) 5,879 0.000223 4,680
Total 642,233
kWh: kilowatt hours; mgy: million gallons per year; N/A: not applicable; MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT:
vehicle miles traveled; NG: natural gas; LPG: liquefied petroleum gas
EXHIBIT B
728
Previous GHG Emissions Inventories
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 13
Table 5 Livermore 2010 GHG Inventory Data
Activity Data Emissions Factors
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Residential Electricity (kWh) 221,110,304 0.000203 44,872 Residential Gas (therms) 13,596,747 0.00531 72,206
Nonresidential Electricity (kWh) 275,465,613 0.000203 55,902 Nonresidential Gas (therms) 5,475,062 0.00531 29,075
Direct Access Electricity (kWh) 28,367,259 0.000285 8,075 Passenger On-road
Transportation (VMT) 493,823,032 0.000391 193,056
Commercial On-Road
Transportation (VMT) 80,288,169 0.00149 119,299
Off-Road – Diesel (Gallons) 777,146 0.0103 8,038
Off-Road – Gasoline (Gallons) 344,849 0.00905 3,123
Off-Road – NG/LPG (Gallons) 498,303 0.00582 2,900
BART (Passenger Miles) Removed Removed Removed
Solid Waste (tons) 65,600 0.296 19,430
Alternative Daily Cover Waste (tons) 19,881 0.246 4,885 Wastewater (mgy) 2,586 0.000203 1,809
Water (mgy) 5,324 0.000203 3,860
Total 566,528
kWh: kilowatt hours; mgy: million gallons per year; N/A: not applicable; MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT:
vehicle miles traveled; NG: natural gas; LPG: liquefied petroleum gas
EXHIBIT B
729
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 14 Table 6 Livermore 2015 GHG Inventory Data
Activity Data Emissions Factors
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Residential Electricity (kWh) 203,689,656 0.000185 37,602 Residential Gas (therms) 11,549,521 0.00531 61,334
Nonresidential Electricity (kWh) 286,367,883 0.000185 52,865 Nonresidential Gas (therms)1 9,836,396 0.00531 52,236
Direct Access Electricity (kWh) 32,760,434 0.000297 9,734 Passenger On-road
Transportation (VMT) 534,438,400 0.000355 189,523
Commercial On-Road
Transportation (VMT) 95,769,686 0.00142 136,168
Off-Road – Diesel (Gallons) 1,061,791 0.0103 10,982
Off-Road – Gasoline (Gallons) 362,052 0.00905 3,278
Off-Road – NG/LPG (Gallons) 538,354 0.00582 3,134
BART (Passenger Miles) Removed Removed Removed
Solid Waste (tons) 65,091 0.286 18,619
Alternative Daily Cover Waste (tons) 9,118 0.246 2,240
Wastewater (mgy) 2,179 0.000185 1,661
Water (mgy) 3,708 0.000185 2,400
Total 581,777
kWh: kilowatt hours; mgy: million gallons per year; N/A: not applicable; MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT:
vehicle miles traveled; NG: natural gas; LPG: liquefied petroleum gas 1 Data for 2015 industrial natural gas was unavailable due to the CPUC’s 15-15 privacy rule. Emissions from industrial natural gas for 2015 were estimated using reported emissions from the Livermore Lawrence National Laboratory as a part of California’s Cap-andTrade program.
EXHIBIT B
730
Previous GHG Emissions Inventories
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 15
Table 7 Livermore 2017 GHG Inventory Data
Activity Data Emissions Factors
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Residential Electricity (kWh) 205,232,521 0.000096 19,775 Residential Gas (therms) 12,408,537 0.00531 65,896
Nonresidential Electricity (kWh) 288,894,815 0.000096 27,836 Nonresidential Gas (therms) 1 10,820,445 0.00531 57,462 Adjusted Direct Access Electricity
(kWh)2 32,283,926 0.000203 6,545
Passenger On-road
Transportation (VMT) 538,932,050 0.000338 181,900
Commercial On-Road
Transportation (VMT) 96,824,903 0.001422 132,254
Off-Road – Diesel (Gallons) 1,104,596 0.0103 11,425
Off-Road – Gasoline (Gallons) 371,061 0.00905 3,360
Off-Road – NG/LPG (Gallons) 552,683 0.00582 3,217
BART (Passenger Miles) Removed Removed Removed
Solid Waste (tons) 73,437 0.286 21,006
Alternative Daily Cover Waste (tons) 8329 0.246 2046
Wastewater (mgy) 2,132 0.000096 1,366
Water (mgy) 4,378 0.000096 1,479
Total 535,566
kWh: kilowatt hours; mgy: million gallons per year; N/A: not applicable; MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT:
vehicle miles traveled
1 Data for 2017 industrial natural gas was unavailable due to the CPUC’s 15-15 privacy rule. Emissions from industrial natural gas for 2017 were estimated using reported emissions from the Livermore Lawrence National Laboratory as a part of California’s Cap-andTrade program. 2 Data for 2017 direct access electricity was unavailable due to the CPUC’s 15-15 privacy rule. Emissions from direct access electricity for 2017 were estimated using the average ratio of direct access electricity to commercial electricity between 2015 and 2016.
EXHIBIT B
731
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 16 3 2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
The methodologies, data sources, calculations, and results associated with the Livermore community-wide 2017 GHG emissions inventory update are included in this section. This section focuses on the 2017 inventory since it is the most recent inventory, but the methodologies used for the 2017 inventory were also utilized for the 2005, 2010, and 2015 inventories. The 2017 Livermore GHG emissions inventory serves as the inventory to inform development of future GHG emissions forecasts that will assist the City in setting GHG emissions targets that are consistent with state-level goals and the Livermore General Plan 2003-2025.
The 2017 GHG inventory is structured based on emissions sectors. The ICLEI Community Protocol recommends local governments examine their emissions in the context of the sector responsible for those emissions. Many local governments will find a sector-based analysis more directly relevant to policy making and project management, as it assists in formulating sector-specific reduction measures for climate action planning. The reporting sectors are made up of multiple subsectors to allow for easier identification of sources and targeting of reduction policies.
The 2017 inventory reports all Basic Emissions Generating Activities33 required by the Community Protocol34 by the following main sectors:
▪ Energy (electricity and natural gas)
▪ Transportation
▪ Water and Wastewater
▪ Solid Waste
The data used to complete this inventory and forecast came from multiple sources, as summarized in Table 8. Data for the 2017 water and wastewater sector calculations were provided by the City via personal communication with Tricia Pontau.
33 Required emissions generating activities include: use of electricity by the community, use of fuel in residential and commercial stationary combustion equipment, on-road passenger and freight motor vehicle travel, use of energy in potable water and wastewater treatment and distribution, and generation of solid waste by the community. 34 ICLEI. 2012. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Section 2.2.
EXHIBIT B
732
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 17
Table 8 Inventory and Forecast Data Sources
Sector Activity Data Unit Source
Inventory
Energy Electricity Consumption kWh Pacific Gas and Electric; CARB Mandatory GHG Reporting (Cap-and-Trade) Natural Gas Consumption Therms On-road
Transportation
Annual Mileage VMT Metropolitan Transportation Commission Vehicle Miles Traveled Data Portal; EMFAC2017
Model
Off-road
Transportation
Annual Fuel Consumption Gallons OFFROAD2021 Model
Water Water Pumping
Electricity Usage
AF
kWh
Tricia Pontau; Livermore Municipal Water;
California Water Service
Wastewater Electricity Consumption,
Water Treated
kWh
MGD
Tricia Pontau; Community Protocol Estimates;
Livermore Water Reclamation Plant
Solid Waste N/A N/A CalRecycle; California Air Resources Board Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3
Forecast Growth Indicators
Population Residents Persons California Department of Finance E4 and E5 demographic datasets; Association of Bay Area
Governments Plan Bay Area Projections 2040
Commerce Jobs Number of
Jobs
California Department of Finance E4 and E5
demographic datasets; U.S. Census OnTheMap
tool; Association of Bay Area Governments Plan
Bay Area Projections 2040
Transportation Annual Mileage, Emissions N/A EMFAC2017 Model; Metropolitan Transportation Commission Vehicle Miles
Traveled Data Portal
Off-road
Transportation
Annual Fuel Consumption Gallons OFFROAD2021 Model
Building Efficiency Title 24 Efficiency Increases Percent California Energy Commission Electricity Emissions Renewable Portfolio
Standard
Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard; Senate Bill 100
kWh; kilowatt hours; VMT: vehicle miles traveled; AF: acre-foot; MGD: million gallons per day; N/A: not applicable; GHG Inventory data was originally gathered by EBEW and then reviewed and updated by Rincon for consistency with the latest methodology available in the Community Protocol35 and California Supplement36. The updated 2005 GHG Inventory added emissions from the water and wastewater inventory sectors and removed the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) emissions, because the City of Livermore does not have direct control over BART and is unable to reduce these emissions and because BART data was not available for the subsequent inventories. Information regarding updates to the original EBEW 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2017 inventories is in Section 2.3 and information relating to the emissions forecast are located in Section 4 of this technical appendix. 35 ICLEI. 2012. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available:
<https://icleiusa.org/publications/us-community-protocol/>. Accessed: April 23, 2020. 36 Association of Environmental Professionals. 2013. The California Supplement to the United States Communitywide GHG Protocol.
Available: <https://califaep.org/docs/California_Supplement_to_the_National_Protocol.pdf>. Accessed: April 23, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
733
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 18 3.1 Energy Emissions
The energy sector includes GHG emissions resulting from the consumption of electricity and natural gas. Both energy sources are used in residential and nonresidential (commercial and industrial) buildings and for other power needs throughout the City of Livermore. The following subsections describe the data sources, emissions factors and calculation methodologies associated with electricity and natural gas.
Overall, residential energy emissions were about equal to non-residential (commercial and industrial) in their contribution to energy emissions in 2017, at approximately 50.11 percent and
49.89 percent respectively, as shown in Figure 1. It should be noted that, due to data availability issues in reporting years after 2013, large industrial gas data was not provided by PG&E and was instead estimated for 2015 and 2017 to allow for more accurate comparisons between inventory.
Direct access electricity usage was also estimated for 2017 as data from PG&E was not available.
Additional information on why this change was made as well as the methodologies used to estimate 2017 commercial gas data are provided in Section 2.3.
Electricity
Emissions resulting from electricity consumption were estimated by multiplying annual electricity consumed by an emissions factor representing the average emissions associated with generation of one megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity. Electricity is supplied to the City by PG&E. In its 2017 report to the verification body, The Climate Registry, PG&E reported an electricity carbon intensity factor of 210 pounds CO2e per MWh.37 PG&E also reported to the California Energy Commission, an average of 33 percent renewable energy in its portfolio in 2017.38 From 2005, residential electricity use decreased by 18,019 MWh while nonresidential electricity decreased by 6,279 MWh for a total net decrease of 24,298 MWh. Therefore, the 83,275 MT CO2e reduction in GHG emissions from electricity between 2005 and 2017 was due to a decrease in electricity usage and an approximately 57 percent reduction in the PG&E electricity emissions factor.
In 2017, a total 47,611 MTCO2e was generated within the community due to residential and commercial electricity use. Table 7 show the breakdown of emissions from electricity by both category (residential, nonresidential) and by source.
Direct access electricity was also calculated using the same methodology, but with a calculated emissions factor of 0.203 MT CO2e/MWh. This is equivalent to the California state grid (CAMX) average carbon intensity of electricity (reported by the California Energy Commission), as direct access electricity is not provided by PG&E.39 Direct access electricity data was not provided by PG&E due to CPUC privacy regulations, and so was estimated based off the average of 2015 and 2016 direct access activity data. Direct access electricity accounted for 32,284 MWh of electricity use in 2017, which resulted in 6,545 MT CO2e of emissions.
37 The Climate Registry. 2019 Default Emissions Factors. Available: https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/The-Climate-Registry-2019-Default-Emission-Factor-Document.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2020 38 California Energy Commission. Sacramento Municipal Utility District 2016 Power Content Label. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/pcl/labels/2017_labels/PG_and_E_2017_PCL.pdf Accessed April 15, 2020 39 California Energy Commission. Total System Electric Generation. Available:
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/system_power/2017_total_system_power.html. Accessed: May 7, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
734
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 19
Natural Gas
In order to calculate emissions from natural gas consumption, the total therms consumed is multiplied by the PG&E reported emissions factor of .00531 MT CO2/therm. Due to CPUC privacy regulations, data regarding the therms of natural gas consumed in 2017 was not provided by PG&E.
Emissions were instead estimated based on the most recently available data for this category, which was 2013. 40
Residential natural gas usage decreased from 13.4 million therms in 2005 to 12.4 million therms in 2017, and nonresidential natural gas usage increased from 5.6 million therms to 10.8 million therms Overall, this resulted in a 5,243 MT CO2e reduction in emissions from the natural gas sector in 2005 compared to 2017.
In 2017, the residential and nonresidential sectors consumed a total of 23,228,982 therms of natural gas, which, based on the emissions factor of 0.00531 MT CO2/therms, generated 123,358 MTCO2e. A complete breakdown of natural gas use by category and sector is provided in Table 9.
Figure 1 Energy Emissions by Category for Year 2017
40 Emissions were added based on reported emissions from the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory to CARB as a part of California’s Cap-andTrade program. For more information on this calculation and adjustment, see Section 2.3.
Residential
Electricity
13%
Nonresidential
Electricity
18%
Direct Access
Electricity
4%
Residential Gas
43%
Nonresidential Gas
22%
EXHIBIT B
735
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 20 Table 9 Energy Emissions by Category for Year 2017
Source Activity Data Emissions Factor
Total Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Residential 85,671
Natural Gas 12,408537 therms 0.00531 MT CO2e/therms 65,896 Electricity 205,233 MWh 0.09635 MT CO2e/MWh 19,775
Nonresidential 85,298
Natural Gas1 10,820,445 therms 0.00531 MT CO2e/therms 57,462 Electricity 288,895 MWh 0.09635 MT CO2e/MWh 27,836
Direct Access Electricity 6,545
Natural Gas 32,284 MWh 0.2027 MT CO2e/MWh 6,545
Total 177,514
MWh: megawatt hours; MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 1 Large industrial natural gas has been estimated for 2017 due to CPUC privacy rules.
3.2 Transportation Emissions
On-Road
Transportation modeling for VMT attributed to the City of Livermore was obtained using the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) VMT data model. The emissions associated with on-road transportation were then calculated by multiplying the estimated daily VMT and the average vehicle emissions rate established by CARB EMFAC2017 modeling for vehicles within the region. The MTC model does not directly provide VMT projections for 2017, so VMT was estimated by interpolating for years between 2015 and 2020 (for which VMT data is directly available from the MTC model).
The MTC VMT modeling results allocate the total VMT derived from the activity-based model to the City of Livermore using the Origin-Destination (O-D) method. The O-D VMT method is the preferred method recommended by the U.S Community Protocol in on-road methodology TR.1 and TR.2 to estimate miles traveled based on trip start and end locations. Under these recommendations, all trips that start and end within the City are attributed to the City. Additionally, one half of the trips that start internally and end externally and vice versa are attributed to the City, and no “pass through” trips are accounted for.
Due to the MTC model not being able to provide VMT for unincorporated county areas, data was used from the Highway Performance Monitoring System,41 which is published annually by Caltrans.
This data provides VMT counts on local roads for each jurisdiction, as well as County-level VMT for all other roads (state highways, roads on land under state or federal jurisdiction such as military bases or state parks, etc.). This data includes all vehicle types and is allocated using the geographic boundary method.
41 Caltrans. 2019. Highway Performance Monitoring System. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/highway-performance-monitoring-system. Accessed: May 25, 2020
EXHIBIT B
736
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 21
Commercial VMT for heavy-duty vehicles is also provided by MTC, but separately from light-duty vehicles VMT.42 Commercial VMT includes heavy-duty freight trucks, motor homes, public and private buses, and other commercial vehicles. Commercial VMT was assigned to individual communities by MTC using a method called “Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics” (LEHD).
Under this method, MTC first models the county-wide VMT of heavy-duty vehicles using an approach called a geographical boundary method. In this method, all the heavy-duty VMT that occurs within a county’s geographic limits is assigned to that county, regardless of where the trip begins or ends. MTC next looks at the number of jobs in specific economic sectors that generate heavy-duty vehicle trips (such as agriculture, construction, retail trade, and manufacturing) for the entire county and for each jurisdiction in the county. The US Census provides the number of jobs in these sectors through its online OnTheMap tool.43 MTC sums the number of jobs in these sectors, and uses the percent of each community’s share of jobs in these sectors, relative to the number of Alameda County jobs in the sectors, to allocate heavy-duty VMT. In 2017, Livermore was attributed
7.52 percent of commercial VMT in Alameda County, which was 3,553,565.
In 2017 on-road transportation attributed to the City of Livermore resulted in 314,154 MT CO2e. This resulted in a 39,165 MT CO2e reduction compared to 2005. During this time VMT decreased by 0.6 percent or 4 million miles traveled, and the emissions reductions in this sector were driven by an increase in average vehicle efficiency and adoption of electric vehicles. These changes drove the 12 percent decrease in average vehicles emissions per mile.
A summary of the VMT results can be found in Table 10.
Table 10 Estimated On-Road Transportation Emissions for 2017 Source
Activity Data
(VMT)2
Emissions Factor
(MT CO2e per VMT)
Total Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Internal-Internal Daily VMT 319,968 0.000445 142
½ Internal-External Daily VMT 608,864 0.000445 271
½ External-Internal Daily VMT 615,276 0.000445 274
Total Passenger Daily VMT 1,544,108 0.000338 522
Total Adjusted Passenger Daily VMT3 1,553,118 0.000338 525 Total Commercial Daily VMT 267,057 0.001366 365
Total Adjusted Commercial Daily VMT3 279,034 0.001366 381 Yearly Passenger VMT1 538,932,050 0.000338 181,900
Yearly Commercial VMT1 96,824,903 0.001366 132,254
Yearly VMT1 635,756,952 0.000852 314,154
MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT: vehicle miles traveled 1 Weekday to annual conversion of 347 is used per CARB guidance on VMT modeling 2 The origin-destination methodology for VMT calculation attributes 100 percent of internal to internal daily trips, 50 percent of internal-external and external-internal daily trips and excludes all pass-through trips. This sum is then multiplied by 347 to get an annual VMT number.
3 Motorcycle, motor homes, and bus VMT not included in original data, and were estimated based on average prevalence of these vehicles in Alameda County, which is approximately 1 percent. 42 East Bay Energy Watch. 2019. Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodological Summary. Available:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53fe4fcfe4b070b8a2eb623b/t/5c36664b21c67c309508c0ff/1547069004776/EBEWRegionalGHGTool-Methodological-Summary.pdf. Accessed: May 25, 2020. 43 United States Census Bureau. 2018. OnTheMap Version 6. Available: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/. Accessed: April 2020.
EXHIBIT B
737
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 22 Transportation emissions are generated by the community of Livermore through on-road transportation, including passenger, commercial, and heavy machinery. Emissions factors are established using the latest CARB and EPA-approved emissions modeling software, 2017 State EMissions FACtors (EMFAC) Model. Carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions from engine combustion are multiplied by their GWP to determine CO2e per VMT. Emissions for both passenger and commercial vehicles were established using the EMFAC2017 GHG module and weighted by VMT to establish an average emissions factor per VMT for the City. Emissions from electricity used by charging of electric vehicles are captured under the electricity sector. In 2017, the average emissions factor for cars on the road in the County of Alameda was 0.000435 MTCO2e per VMT as calculated using the EMFAC2017 model.44 Technical details on the EMFAC2017 modeling tool can be found on the EMFAC Mobile Source Emissions Inventory Technical Support Documentation Portal.45
Off-Road
Off-road emissions were calculated using the California Air Resources Board’s OFFROAD2021 modeling tool.46 Some categories of off-road equipment are included in the datasets, but were not present in the Alameda County OFFROAD2021 output, and so were not included47. These categories are commercial harbor craft, locomotives, and forestry equipment.. OFFROAD2021 output for Alameda County fuel consumption is shown below in Table 11. This data was supplemented by various demographic, land use, and infrastructure data. Population and household data are from the California Department of Finance’s E5 dataset and jobs data comes from the U.S. Census. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission supplied land use data, and the California Department of Conservation provided necessary data on oil wells. EBEW also used data on road miles in each community, which was obtained from Caltrans.
Since the off-road emissions data is available at a County level, a portion of emissions had to be allocated to the City of Livermore. These allocation methods were developed by EBEW and modified by Rincon for each category, which look at how much of a certain activity or indicator occurs in each community as a percent of how much of that activity or indicator occurs county-wide. These allocations by equipment category are shown below in Table 12. Total emissions from off-road transportation in 2017 was 58,852 MT CO2e, shown in Table 13. 44 California Air Resources Board. 2017. EMFAC2017. Base year 2017, County of Alameda model run. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/ Accessed: April 5, 2020
45 California Air Resources Board. EMFAC Software and Technical Support Documentation. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/mobile-source-emissions-inventory/road-documentation/msei-modeling-tools-emfac Accessed: April 5, 2020. 46 California Air Resources Board. 2021. OFFROAD2021 version 1.0.2 Emissions Inventory. Available: https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/. Accessed:
April 1, 2022.
47 East Bay Energy Watch. January 2019. Regional Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodological Summary. Available:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53fe4fcfe4b070b8a2eb623b/t/5c36664b21c67c309508c0ff/1547069004776/EBEWRegionalGHGTool-Methodological-Summary.pdf. Accessed: June 1, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
738
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 23
Table 11 Estimated Off-Road Activity Data for Alameda County 2017 Source Diesel Gasoline Natural Gas/LPG
Agricultural Equipment 391,247 0 0
Airport Ground Support
Equipment 197,062 968,520 113,373
Cargo Handling Equipment 3,867,750 338,177 65,565
Construction and Mining
Equipment 6,020,196 239,270 0
Industrial Equipment 985,121 2,803,920 5,052,615
Lawn and Garden Equipment 56 2,936 0
Light Commercial Equipment 446,969 794,877 630,231
Ocean Going Vessels 12,631,094,402 0 0
Oil Drilling 8,108 0 0
Other Portable Equipment 5,690,698 0 0
Pleasure Craft 0 23,333 0
Recreational Equipment 0 404,075 0
Transport Refrigeration Units 4,607,216 0 0
Total 12,653,308,824 5,575,110 5,861,784
Notes: LPG: liquefied petroleum gas
All data is presented in gallons per year.
Since the off-road emissions data is available at a County level, a portion of emissions had to be allocated to the City of Livermore. These allocation methods were developed by EBEW and modified by Rincon for each category, which look at how much of a certain activity or indicator occurs in each community as a percent of how much of that activity or indicator occurs county-wide. These allocations by equipment category are shown below in Table 12.
Table 12 Allocation Method for Off-Road Equipment Categories Source Allocation Method
Agricultural Equipment Percent of agricultural acres
Airport Ground Support Equipment Excluded – No airport facilities in Livermore Cargo Handling Equipment Excluded – No port facilities in Livermore Construction and Mining Equipment Percent of service population2 Industrial Equipment Percent of industrial acres
Lawn and Garden Equipment Percent of service population2 Light Commercial Equipment Percent of jobs
Ocean Going Vessels Excluded – No port facilities in Livermore Oil Drilling Percent of active wells
Other Portable Equipment Percent of service population2 Pleasure Craft Excluded – No docking facilities in Livermore Recreational Equipment Percent of population
EXHIBIT B
739
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 24 Transport Refrigeration Units Percent of service population2 1 EBEW allocated all airport ground support equipment emissions to Oakland because it is the only included community with commercial airport operations. Although charter service and general aviation is available at airports in Concord, unincorporated Contra Costa, Hayward, and Livermore, activity and emissions at these facilities is considered insignificant. 2 Service population is the sum of residents plus jobs, or people who live in the community plus people who work in the community. Someone who both lives and works in the community is counted as two people under this method.
After applying the above attribution metrics to the fuel consumption outputs from OFFROAD2021 Alameda County, GHG emission factors were applied to the fuel totals to obtain total GHG emissions. The GHG emission factors used were 0.0103, 0.00905, and 0.00582 MT CO2e per gallon of fuel; for diesel, gasoline, and natural gas/liquefied petroleum gas, respectively. Total emissions from off-road transportation in 2017 was 58,852 MT CO2e, shown in Table 13.
Table 13 Estimated Off-Road Transportation Emissions for 2017 Source Fuel Consumption (Gallons) GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) Diesel 1,104,596 11,425
Gasoline 371,061 3,360
Natural Gas/Liquefied Petroleum Gas 552,683 3,217
Total 2,028,314 18,002
Notes: MT CO2e: metrics tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
3.3 Water and Wastewater Emissions
Water
Water is supplied to Livermore by Livermore Municipal Water and the California Water Service (CalWater), primarily sourced from the State Water Project in the Central Valley. The Livermore Municipal Water receives treated water from Zone 7 Water Agency and serves about one-third of the City, while central and southern parts of the City are served by CalWater. Water supplied to the community contributes emissions through the use of energy to extract, convey, treat, and deliver water. The amount of energy required for community water usage was calculated using embodied energy data emissions factors based on the processes used, taken from the California Energy Commission’s 2007 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California report. It was determined that in 2017 Livermore Municipal Water provided water at an average of 3,808 kWh per million gallons, while CalWater provides water at an average of 3,305 kWh per million gallons. This resulted in Livermore Municipal Water using 6,608 MWh and CalWater using 8,736 MWh to provide the City water in 2017. A breakdown of all water emissions by source are shown below in Table 14.
PG&E is the electricity provider for the City; therefore, PG&E’s energy emissions factor of 210 pounds CO2e/MWh was applied to the calculated electricity used for water consumption in the city.
Energy consumption related to water use in the city of Livermore resulted in the generation of approximately 1,479 MTCO2e in 2017, or 52 percent of total water and wastewater emissions. In 2005, the City used 5,879 million gallons of water. In 2017, Livermore used 4,378 million gallons of water, or about 26 percent less overall. Emissions overall decreased by 3,200 MT CO2e, due to this decrease in water usage as well as the reduction in PG&E’s electricity emissions factor.
EXHIBIT B
740
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 25
Wastewater
The wastewater generated by community residents and businesses creates GHG emissions during the treatment processes, including process, stationary, and fugitive emissions. The sources and magnitude of emissions depend on the type of wastewater treatment plant and the treatment processes utilized.
Wastewater generated in the City of Livermore is collected in local sewer lines which ultimately discharge into the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant managed by Water Resources Division of the Livermore Public Works Department. The wastewater treatment plant treated 2132 million gallons of sewage from Livermore in 2017, according to data obtained from the City. Emissions were calculated using Community Protocol Methodology WW.2, WW.8, and WW.12 based on processes used at the treatment facility (Figure 2). In 2017, a total of 3.32 MT N2O and 1.88 MT CH4 were emitted from the effluent discharge, process and stationary sources at the treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant also used 3,671,304 kWh of electricity in 2017, which resulted in emissions of 354 MT CO2e. As shown in Table 14 the total process emissions and electricity usage for Livermore wastewater treatment and disposal resulted in emissions of 1,366 MT CO2e per year, or 48 percent of the water and wastewater emissions.
Table 14 Water and Wastewater Emissions for Year 2017
Source Activity Data
Kilowatts per
Million Gallons1 Kilowatt Hours
Emissions Factor
(MT CO2e/
MWh)
Total
Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Water Use
Livermore Municipal
Water
1,735 MG 3,808 6,608,374 0.09635 637
California Water
Service
2,643 MG 3,305 8,736,088 0.09635 842
Total 1,479
Wastewater Generation
Livermore Water
Reclamation Plant2
2,132 MG 1,722 3,671,304 0.09635 354
Process Nitrous Oxide
Emissions
0.3034 MT N2O – – 1 N2O to 265 CO2e 80
Stationary Methane
Emissions
1.88 MT CH4 – – 1 CH4 to 28 CO2e 53
Effluent Discharge 3.32 MT N2O – – 1 N2O to 265 CO2e 879 Total 1,366
MWh: megawatt hours; MT: metric tons; CO2e: carbon dioxide equivalent; CH4: methane; N2O: nitrous oxide 1 Calculated based off of the data regarding the processes used for water and wastewater generation. Water factors included: average depth of groundwater wells (160 ft), and sources of water (surface water, groundwater, state water project, recycled water).
Wastewater factors included: type of wastewater treatment technology (activated sludge and digesters), use of pumps to dispose of wastewater, wastewater discharge into the San Francisco Bay, and number of septic tanks in Livermore (144 in 2017) 2 Indirect emissions from electricity use during the wastewater generation process.
EXHIBIT B
741
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 26 Figure 2 Wastewater Methodology
EXHIBIT B
742
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 27
3.4 Solid Waste Emissions
GHG emissions result from management and decay of organic material solid waste. Community waste was calculated by determining lifetime methane emissions from solid waste generated by the community in the year of the inventory, using Community Protocol method SW.448. This 48 ICLEI. 2012. US Community Protocol. Available: https://icleiusa.org/publications/us-community-protocol/. Accessed: April 24, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
743
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 28 methodology attributes 100 percent of lifetime GHG emissions from the tonnage reported in the inventory year.
Waste from the City of Livermore went to 20 landfills in 2017 according to waste data obtained from CalRecycle. Data for the inventory was split between instate solid waste and alternative daily cover waste, 73,437 tons and 8,329 tons respectively. Small quantities of ‘transform’ and ‘AIC’ waste data from two landfill sites were not included in the inventory (Covanta Stanislaus, Inc. and Fink Road Landfill), because only reported in-state waste and alternative daily cover waste were included in the inventory. Activity data for the waste sector of the GHG inventory is shown below in Table 15 by landfill destination.
Table 15 Summary of Solid Waste Activity Data by Landfill for Year 2017 Source Solid Waste (tons) ADC Waste (tons)
Landfills – –
Altamont Landfill & Resource Recovery 9,047 699
Azusa Land Reclamation Co. Landfill 13 0
Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) 26 0
Fink Road Landfill 362 0
Foothill Sanitary Landfill 93 0
Forward Landfill, Inc. 861 0
Keller Canyon Landfill 383 88
Kirby Canyon Recycl. & Disp. Facility 1 0
L and D Landfill 0 1
Monterey Peninsula Landfill 191 0
Newby Island Sanitary Landfill 113 0
North County Landfill & Recycling Center 3 0
Potrero Hills Landfill 204 0
Recology Hay Road 686 0
Redwood Landfill 3 1
Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer) 1 0
Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill 61,443 7,535
Yolo County Central Landfill 1 0
Zanker Material Processing Facility 6 4
Total Tons of Waste Disposal 73,437 8,329
Communities are required to estimate the emissions resulting from waste disposed by the community (SW.4.1)39, regardless of whether the receiving landfill(s) are located inside or outside of the community boundary. Community Protocol Method SW.4.139 is summarized in Figure 3, utilizing mass of waste being disposed, organic content of waste, methane capture ability of the landfill, oxidation rate, and methane GWP. The 2017 emissions factor for generated solid waste and ADC waste in Livermore was derived from the California Air Resources Board California Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3, shown in Table 16 and Table 17, respectively.
EXHIBIT B
744
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 29
Figure 3 Waste Generation Methodology
In 2017, Livermore produced 73,437 tons of solid waste and 8,329 of ADC waste. 49 A CO2e emissions
factor for mixed-waste of 0.286 MT CO2e/ton was established and multiplied by the total solid waste disposed of from the community to calculate emissions from waste generated in 2017 of 21,006 MT CO2e. For ADC waste, a CO2e emissions factor of 0.246 MT CO2e/ton was established and multiplied by the total ADC waste disposed of from the community to calculate emissions from waste generated in 2017 of 2046 MT CO2e. These emissions factors include the expected lifetime emissions associated with the specified tonnage of waste sent to landfill. The emissions factors were developed using SW 4.1 as well as the relative waste stream percentages of different organic materials as shown in Table 16 and Table 17 to establish a methane emissions factor. From 2005 to 2017 GHG emissions from community waste decreased by 15,442 MT of CO2e. This was due to a combination of factors including a reduced solid waste emissions factor as well as an overall reduction in waste generation of 51,812 tons. Total waste emissions for 2017 are summarized in Table 18.
49 CalRecycle. 2017. Local Government Information Center. Available: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/MyLoGIC/. Accessed:
April 18, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
745
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 30 Table 16 California Default Solid Waste Characterization1 Waste Type WIPFRAC TDOC DANF ANDOC
Weighted MT
CO2e/ton
Newspaper 1.44% 47.09% 15.05% 0.12% 0.279029616
Office Paper 0.73% 38.54% 87.03% 0.62% 1.320583313
Corrugated Boxes 3.13% 44.84% 44.25% 0.95% 0.781203158
Coated Paper 12.10% 33.03% 24.31% 0.72% 0.316139414
Food 18.12% 14.83% 86.52% 1.99% 0.505176074
Grass 1.84% 13.30% 47.36% 0.12% 0.247998153
Leaves 3.52% 29.13% 7.30% 0.07% 0.083723708
Branches 3.27% 44.24% 23.14% 0.20% 0.403054324
Lumber 11.91% 43.00% 23.26% 1.45% 0.393788725
Textiles 5.85% 24.00% 50.00% 0.66% 0.472461427
Diapers 4.29% 24.00% 50.00% 0.52% 0.472461427
Construction/Demolition 2.31% 4.00% 50.00% 0.11% 0.078743571 Medical Waste 0.11% 15.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.295288392
Sludge/Manure 0.57% 5.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.098429464
MSW Total 7.52% 0.28604673
1 The static values here are from the California Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3 Table 17 Alternative Daily Cover Waste Characterization1 Waste Type WIPFRAC TDOC DANF ANDOC
Weighted MT
CO2e/ton
Newspaper 0.00% 47.09% 15.05% 0.12% 0.003580198
Office Paper 0.00% 38.54% 87.03% 0.62% 0.00861393
Corrugated Boxes 0.00% 44.84% 44.25% 0.95% 0.021806282
Coated Paper 0.00% 33.03% 24.31% 0.72% 0.034152408
Food 0.00% 14.83% 86.52% 1.99% 0.081728001
Grass 50.00% 13.30% 47.36% 0.12% 0.004081975
Leaves 25.00% 29.13% 7.30% 0.07% 0.002627254
Branches 25.00% 44.24% 23.14% 0.20% 0.011770174
Lumber 0.00% 43.00% 23.26% 1.45% 0.041876495
Textiles 0.00% 24.00% 50.00% 0.66% 0.024668962
Diapers 0.00% 24.00% 50.00% 0.52% 0.018088588
Construction/Demolition 0.00% 4.00% 50.00% 0.11% 0.001622068 Medical Waste 0.00% 15.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.000298201
Sludge/Manure 0.00% 5.00% 50.00% 0.00% 0.000497751
MSW Total 7.25% 0.245693584
1 The static values here are from the California Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3
EXHIBIT B
746
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 31
Table 18 Summary of Solid Waste Activity Data for Year 2017 Source Tons
Emissions Factor
(MT CO2e/ton)
Total Emissions
(MT CO2e)
Solid Waste 73,437 0.286 21,006
ADC Waste 8,329 0.246 2,046
Total Waste Emissions – – 23,052
MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
3.5 2017 GHG Emissions Inventory Results Summary
Overall the City of Livermore’s GHG emissions were estimated to be 535,566 MT CO2e in 2017. The on-road transportation sector (passenger and commercial vehicles) was the largest emissions sector with 55 percent of total baseline inventory emissions, followed by natural gas use in the energy sector at 18 percent. Off-road transportation emissions were estimated to be 3 percent of emissions, and waste accounted for 4 percent. The smallest emissions sector was water and wastewater, which combine to account for less than 1 percent of total 2017 emissions for the City of Livermore. Emissions are summarized in Table 19 and Figure 4.
EXHIBIT B
747
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 32 Table 19 2017 GHG Inventory
Sector Activity Data Emissions Factors Units MT CO2e
Residential Electricity (kWh) 205,232,521 0.00009635 MT CO2e/kWh 19,775 Nonresidential Electricity (kWh) 288,894,815 0.00009635 MT CO2e/kWh 27,836 Direct Access Electricity5 (kWh) 32,283,926 0.0002027 MT CO2e/kWh 6,545 Residential Gas (therms) 12,408,537 0.00531 MT CO2e/therms 65,896 Adjusted Nonresidential Gas (therms) 10,820,4451 0.00531 MT/CO2e/therms 57,4621 Passenger On-Road Transportation
(VMT)
538,932,050 0.000338 MT CO2e/mile 181,900
Commercial On-Road Transportation
(VMT)
96,824,903 0.001366 MT CO2e/mile 132,254
Off-Road – Diesel (Gallons) 1,104,596 0.0103 MT CO2e/gallon 11,425 Off-Road – Gasoline (Gallons) 371,061 0.00905 MT CO2e/gallon 3,360 Off-Road – NG/LPG (Gallons) 552,683 0.00582 MT CO2e/gallon 3,217 Waste (tons)6 81,766 0.2860 MT CO2e/ton 23,052
Wastewater (kWh) N/A4 N/A4 MT CO2e/kWh 1,366
Water (kWh) 15,344,462 0.00009635 MT CO2e/kWh 1,479
Total Emissions 535,566
MWh: megawatt hours; kWh: kilowatt hours; CO2e: carbon dioxide equivalent; MT: metric tons; VMT: vehicle miles traveled; ADC:
Alternative Daily Cover
1 No natural gas usage was reported by PG&E for large industrial users after 2013 due to California Public Utilities Commission privacy rules. Natural gas emissions reported by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to the California Air Resources Board as a part of the Cap-and-Trade program were added to allow for accurate comparison of emissions from nonresidential gas in previous inventory years. Data reported as a part of the Cap-and-Trade program can be found here: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/mrr-data 2 Off-road emissions calculated as a proportion of total emissions in Alameda County based on changes in population and does not have activity data.
3 Off-road emissions calculated as a proportion of total emissions in Alameda County based on Livermore’s percentage of population and jobs within the County, as well as the effective change in service population, which was defined as on the sum of new population and jobs in Livermore divided by the total sum of new jobs and population in Alameda County for each inventory year. 4 Wastewater is a combination of stationery and process emissions, further detail is Section 3.3. 5 Direct access service is retail electric service where customers purchase electricity from a competitive provider called an Electric Service Provider instead of from a regulated electric utility. An Electric Service Provider is a non-utility entity that offers electric service to customers within the service territory of an electric utility. 6 Includes 8329 tons of Alternative Daily Cover Waste for which a different emissions factor was used (.246 MTCO2e/ton). This emissions factor was calculated using data from the CARB California Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3.
EXHIBIT B
748
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 33
Figure 4 2017 City of Livermore Community Emissions by Sector Between 2005 and 2017, Livermore was able to reduce total GHG emissions by 17 percent from 2005 to 2017, or 106,667 MTCO2e, and experienced a population increase of approximately 16 percent which led to a per-capita emissions reduction of 38 percent. The 17 percent decrease in total GHG emissions from 2005 levels meets the 2020 AB 32 goal of reducing emissions by 15 percent (1990 levels), as well as the 2020 emissions reduction target set forth by Livermore’s 2012 CAP. Table 20 summarizes GHG emissions changes in Livermore from 2005 to 2017, and Table 21 summarizes changes in activity data.
Between 2005 and 2017, Livermore reduced GHG emissions in every sector except for nonresidential gas and off-road transportation, which may have increased due to growth in development of the commercial and industrial sectors within the City. Major GHG emissions reductions were achieved in the waste sector and wastewater sectors, although these sectors make up smaller proportions of Livermore’s overall emissions as shown in Figure 4. It is worth noting that large GHG emissions reductions from electricity usage were driven largely by PG&E’s electricity fuel mix, which saw a significant decrease in carbon intensity50 from 2005 to 2017. Although there was an increase in commercial vehicle miles traveled (VMT), GHG emissions associated with the commercial on-road transportation sector declined because of the increased fuel efficiency of vehicles as detailed in Table 20 and Table 21.
50 Carbon intensity is the amount of carbon by weight emitted per unit of energy consumed. For example, as the percentage of renewable energy sources used to produce electricity increases, the carbon intensity of that electricity decreases. 4%
5%
1%
12%
11%
34%
25%
4%
4%
0% 0%
Residential Electricity (4%)
Nonresidential Electricity (5%)
Direct Access Electricity (1%)
Residential Gas (12%)
Nonresidential Gas (11%)
On-Road Passenger
Transportation (34%)
On-Road Commercial
Transportation (25%)
Off-Road Transportation (3%)
EXHIBIT B
749
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 34 Table 20 Summary of Livermore GHG Emissions Changes from 2005 to 2017 GHG Emissions Sources
2005
(MT CO2e)
2017
(MT CO2e) Percent Change
Residential Electricity 49,822 19,775 -60%
Nonresidential Electricity 65,872 27,836 -58%
Direct Access Electricity 15,192 6,5452 -57%
Residential Gas 71,139 65,896 -7%
Nonresidential Gas 29,771 57,4621 +93%
Solid Waste 35,008 21,006 -40%
Alternative Daily Cover Waste 3,487 2,046 -41%
Water 4,680 1,479 -68%
Wastewater 1,839 1,366 -28%
On-Road Passenger Transportation 218,684 181,900 -17%
On-Road Commercial Transportation 134,636 132,254 -2%
Off-Road Transportation 88,179 58,852 +49%
Total Emissions 642,233 535,566 -17%
Emissions Per Capita 9.62 5.92 -38%
MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 PG&E did not report data for industrial natural gas usage in Livermore for 2015 and 2017 due to the CPUC’s 15-15 privacy rule.
Industrial natural gas usage was estimated for these years using the reported GHG emissions from the Livermore Lawrence National Laboratory for those years as a part of California’s Cap-and-Trade program. (see Section 2.3 for more details on this calculation). 2 PG&E did not report data for direct access electricity usage in Livermore for 2017 due to the CPUC’s 15-15 privacy rule and was estimated using the average of 2015 and 2016 data as they were the closest available years (see Section 2.3 for more details on this calculation).
EXHIBIT B
750
2017 GHG Emissions Inventory
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 35
Table 21 Summary of Livermore Activity Data and Emissions Factor Changes from 2005 to 2017
Raw Activity Data
2005
Activity Data
2017
Activity Data
Percent
Change
Population 78,019 90,454 +16%
Residential Electricity (kWh) 223,251,790 205,232,521 -8% Residential Gas (therms) 13,395,923 12,408,537 -7%
Nonresidential Electricity (kWh) 295,174,279 288,894,815 -2% Adjusted Nonresidential Gas (therms) 5,606,070 10,820,4451 +93% Direct Access Electricity (kWh) 39,378,526 32,283,9262 -18% Wastewater (kWh) 4,546,080 3,671,304 -19%
Water (kWh) 20,975,856 15,344,462 -27%
Solid Waste (tons) 119,384 73,437 -38%
Alternative Daily Cover Waste (tons) 14,193 8,329 -41%
Passenger VMT 548,153,828 538,438,400 -2%
Commercial VMT 91,610,896 95,769,686 +5%
Passenger VMT Emissions Factor (MT CO2e/VMT) 0.000399 0.000338 -15% Commercial VMT Emissions Factor (MT CO2e/VMT) 0.001470 0.001366 -7% Off-Road Diesel (gallons) 600,655 1,104,596 +84%
Off-Road Gasoline (gallons) 338,135 371,061 +10%
Off-Road NG/LPG (gallons) 477,673 552,683 +16%
PG&E Elec Factor (MT CO2e/MWh) 0.000223 0.000096 -57%
MT CO2e: Metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; kWh: Thousand watt hours; MWh: Million watt hours; ADC: Alternative Daily Cover; NG: natural gas; LPG: liquefied petroleum gas
1 Includes activity data from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, calculated using reported emissions to CARB as a part of the Cap-and-Trade Mandatory GHG Reporting program and the natural gas emissions factor of 0.00531. 2 Activity data for 2017 direct access electricity unavailable from PG&E due to CPUC privacy rules and was estimated for consistency with other inventory years based on an average of 2015 and 2016 direct access electricity data.
EXHIBIT B
751
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 36 4 Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
A GHG emissions inventory sets a reference point for a single year. However, annual emissions change over time due to factors such as population and job growth as well as new technologies and policies. A GHG emissions forecast accounts for projected growth and presents an estimate of GHG emissions in future years. Calculating the difference between the GHG emissions forecast and the GHG emissions reduction targets set by a jurisdiction determines the GHG emissions reduction gap that needs to be closed through the jurisdiction’s climate action plan policies. This section calculates an emissions forecast for the City of Livermore through a 2045 in a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, and then quantifies the reduction impact that state regulations will have on the City of Livermore GHG emissions forecast and presents the results in an adjusted scenario forecast. The adjusted scenario incorporates the impact of state regulations which would reduce the City of Livermore’s GHG emissions to provide a more accurate picture of future emissions growth and the responsibility of the City and community for GHG reductions once state regulations to reduce GHG emissions have been implemented.
Several indicator growth rates were developed and applied to the various emissions sectors to forecast emissions as shown in Table 22. The growth rates were applied to the most recent inventory year (2017) data to obtain projected activity data (e.g., energy use, waste production).
Growth rates were developed from the Association of Bay Area Government’s Plan Bay Area Projections 2040, EMFAC Modeling, OFFROAD2021 modeling, Livermore 2025 General Plan demographic projections methodology, and California Department of Finance demographic estimates for the City of Livermore and Alameda County. As the Applicable state and federal regulatory requirements, including Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, Advanced Clean Car Standards, Renewable Portfolio Standard, and Title 24 efficiencies were then incorporated to accurately reflect expected reductions from state programs.
Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 has demographic projections starting with 2010 and was the primary source for forecast projections.51 In comparison with demographic data from the California Department of Finance E4 and E5 datasets52 (which are updated year-to-year based on census data and jurisdictional data on population changes). However, Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 underestimates population and job growth in Livermore for 2015. This was due to the use of “modeled” rather than “observed” data used in the projections.53 Therefore, subsequent forecast years are lower than those provided by Department of Finance. For this reason, these demographic projections were corrected to better reflect real-world population changes that occurred in Livermore up until 2017, using the calculated percent difference between the Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 and the Department of Finance data in 2015 and 2020. The result is a set of adjusted population and job projections through 2045 that reflect the greater increase in growth experienced by the City of Livermore between 2015 and 2020. 51 Association of Bay Area Governments; Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2018. Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. Available:
http://projections.planbayarea.org/. Accessed April 22, 2020. 52 California Department of Finance. 2020. Available: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/. Accessed: April 22, 2020.
53 http://mtcmedia.s3.amazonaws.com/files/Projections_2040-ABAG-MTC-web.pdf
EXHIBIT B
752
Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 37
4.1 Business-as-Usual Forecast Scenario
The City of Livermore business-as-usual scenario forecast provides an estimate of how GHG emissions would change in the forecast years if consumption trends continue as in 2017, absent any new regulations which would reduce local emissions. Several indicator growth rates were developed from 2017 activity levels and applied to the various emissions sectors to project future year emissions. Table 22 contains a list of growth factors used to develop the business-as-usual scenario forecast. The BAU growth factors were then multiplied by the population or service person growth rates to develop the BAU emissions forecast.
Table 22 Business-as-Usual Growth Factors
Sector Activity Data
Emissions per capita (MT CO2e/capita) 6.4
Residential electricity per capita (kWh/capita) 2,268.9 Commercial electricity use per job (kWh/employment) 6,002.0 Residential gas per capita (therm/capita) 137.2
Commercial gas use per job (therm/job) 224.8
Solid Waste per service person (tons/SP) 0.53
ADC Waste per service person (tons/SP) 0.06
Wastewater Process GHG per service population (MT CO2e/SP) 0.01 CO2e per ton solid waste (MT CO2e/ton) 0.29
CO2e per ton ADC waste (MT CO2e/ton) 0.25
Water electricity per service person (kWh/SP) 110.7
Wastewater electricity per service person (kWh/SP) 26.5 Total VMT per service person (VMT/SP) 4,587.4
kWh: kilowatt hour; SP: service person (sum of population and employment) MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT:
vehicle miles traveled
Under the BAU forecast scenario, the City of Livermore’s GHG emissions are projected to continue increasing through 2045. This increase is led primarily by a strong commercial and residential development trend. After the current General Plan horizon year of 2025, major increases in in emissions are largely attributed to the increased population and vehicular traffic from the greater Alameda County Area traveling into the city. By 2045, the City is expected to produce 99,286 MT CO2e more under the business-as-usual projections, an increase of 19 percent over 2017 emissions.
Per capita emissions are projected to go down, however, from 5.92 in 2017 to 4.92 in 2045. The BAU forecast is summarized below in Table 23.
EXHIBIT B
753
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 38 Table 23 Business-as-usual Forecast by Sector
2017
(MT CO2e)
2020
(MT CO2e)
2025
(MT CO2e)
2030
(MT CO2e)
2035
(MT CO2e)
2040
(MT CO2e)
2045
(MT CO2e)
Population 90,454 91,474 96,699 105,967 113,218 120,925 129,158 Jobs 48,133 48,340 48,686 49,372 50,649 51,499 52,364
Residential Electricity 19,775 19,998 21,140 23,167 24,752 26,437 28,237 Nonresidential Electricity 27,836 27,956 28,156 28,553 29,291 29,783 30,283 Direct Access Electricity 6,545 6,618 6,996 7,667 8,192 8,749 9,345 Residential Gas 65,896 66,639 70,445 77,197 82,479 88,094 94,091 Nonresidential Gas 57,462 57,709 58,123 58,941 60,465 61,481 62,513 Waste 23,052 23,256 24,183 25,839 27,257 28,681 30,194
Water 1,479 1,492 1,551 1,657 1,748 1,840 1,937
Wastewater 1,366 1,378 1,433 1,531 1,615 1,699 1,789
On-Road Passenger
Transportation
181,900 184,250 191,175 198,101 201,095 204,090 207,084 On-Road Commercial
Transportation
132,254 132,641 134,445 136,248 138,355 140,462 142,568 Off-Road Transportation 18,002 18,951 20,532 22,114 23,680 25,245 26,811 Total Emissions 535,566 540,888 558,181 581,014 598,930 616,560 634,852 Emissions Per Capita 5.92 5.91 5.77 5.48 5.29 5.10 4.92 MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
4.2 Adjusted Forecast Scenario
Adjustments Due to State Legislation
The adjusted scenario estimates future City of Livermore emissions including adopted GHG reduction strategies currently being implemented at the state and federal level. The 2017 Scoping Plan Update identified several existing state programs and targets, or known commitments required by statute which can be assumed to achieve GHG reductions without City action, such as increased fuel efficiency standards of mobile vehicles. The following known commitments are factored into the adjusted scenario projection and a summary of the programs can be found in Table 24.
EXHIBIT B
754
Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 39
Table 24 Summary of Legislative Reductions
Legislation
2020
(MT CO2e)
2025
(MT CO2e)
2030
(MT CO2e)
2035
(MT CO2e)
2040
(MT CO2e)
2045
(MT CO2e)
Senate Bill 100 6,003 16,514 28,314 41,250 55,159 70,265 Title 24 82 1,157 3,080 4,776 6,448 2,281
Transportation (Pavley, etc.) 21,344 62,120 94,871 114,488 125,512 131,342 Total 27,429 79,790 125,265 160,514 187,119 203,887
MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
State programs will lead to an estimated reduction of approximately 203,887 MT CO2e in GHG emissions by 2045 in Livermore. The increasing decarbonization of the electricity supply due to SB 100 and the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) will lead to GHG emissions reductions in Livermore and avoid over 70,265 MT CO2e by 2045. The transportation sector will experience the largest GHG reductions, with over 131,342 MT CO2e reduced by 2045 through state and federal fuel efficiency and tailpipe emissions standards. A description of the GHG reduction policies for each sector are included below.
Transportation Legislation
The CARB EMFAC2017 transportation modeling program incorporates legislative requirements and regulations including Advanced Clean Cars program (Low Emissions Vehicles III, Zero Emissions Vehicles program, etc.), and Phase 2 federal GHG Standards. Signed into law in 2002, AB 1493 (Pavley Standards) required vehicle manufactures to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles and light trucks from 2009 through 2016, with a target of 30 percent reductions by 2016, while simultaneously improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists’ costs.54 Prior to 2012, mobile emissions regulations were implemented on a case-by-case basis for GHG and criteria pollutant emissions separately. In January 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program (the Advanced Clean Cars program) combining the control of smog, soot causing pollutants, and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for passenger cars and light trucks model years 2017 through 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the Low Emissions Vehicles, Zero Emissions Vehicles, and Clean Fuels Outlet programs.
However, in 2019 the federal government issued a final action entitled the One National Program on Federal Preemption of State Fuel Economy Standards Rule, which finalized Part I of the Safer, Affordable, Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule and stated that federal law preempts state and local tailpipe GHG emissions standards as well as zero emissions vehicle mandates. While still in flux, under the SAFE Rule discussed above, fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for new vehicles may not improve beyond model year 2020. According to CARB, the federal rollback proposal of the remaining Advanced Clean Cars Program standards would increase global warming emissions by 14 million metric tons per year by 2025.55
54 California Air Resources Board. 2013. Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. 55 California Air Resources Board. 2018. California moves to ensure vehicles meet existing state greenhouse gas emissions standards.
Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-ensure-vehicles-meet-existing-state-greenhouse-gas-emissions-standards-0.
Accessed: April 17, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
755
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 40 Reductions in GHG emissions from the above referenced standards were calculated using the CARB EMFAC2017 model for Alameda County. The EMFAC2017 model integrates the estimated reductions into the mobile source emissions portion of the model.56 Note: As of the time of this writing, the federal Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part 2 has been posted in the Federal Register but will not take effect until June 29, 2020. This new rule rolls back California fuel efficiency standards for on-road passenger vehicles, so that cars and trucks will now only achieve a 40.4 mpg industry average by 2026 compared to the 46.7 mpg projected requirement under the previous California Advanced Clean Car Program/federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. No methodology currently exists for extracting or altering the on-road passenger vehicles fuel efficiency standard aspect of the Emissions Factors (EMFAC) model57 used to calculate forecasted vehicle GHG emissions. In addition, the California Climate Change Scoping Plan does not yet address or provide guidance related to this pending change in fuel efficiency standards with regard to GHG emissions determination. Furthermore, California is currently challenging this new rule in the court system. Therefore, the Livermore adjusted forecasts have not been modified to reflect the new SAFE Rule Part 2.
Title 24
Although it was not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption, which in turn reduces fossil fuel consumption and associated GHG emissions. The standards are updated triennially to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energyefficient technologies and methods. Starting in 2020, new residential developments will include onsite solar generation and near-zero net energy use. For projects implemented after January 1, 2020, the California Energy Commission estimates the 2019 standards will reduce consumption by seven percent for residential buildings and 30 percent for commercial buildings, relative to the 2016 standards. These percentage savings relate to heating, cooling, lighting, and water heating only and do not include other appliances, outdoor lighting not attached to buildings, plug loads, or other energy uses. The calculations and GHG emissions forecast assume all growth in the residential and commercial/industrial sectors is from new construction.
The 2017 Scoping Plan Update calls for the continuation of ongoing triennial updates to Title 24 which will yield regular increases in the mandatory energy and water savings for new construction.
Future updates to Title 24 standards for residential and non-residential alterations past 2023 are not taken into consideration due to lack of data and certainty about the magnitude of energy savings realized with each subsequent update.
Renewables Portfolio Standard & Senate Bill 100
Established in 2002 under SB 1078, enhanced in 2015 by SB 350, and accelerated in 2018 under SB 100, California's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is one of the most ambitious renewable energy 56 Additional details are provided in the EMFAC2017 Technical Documentation, July 2018. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical-documentation.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2020. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation is excluded from EMFAC2017 because most of the emissions benefits due to the LCFS come from the production cycle (upstream emissions) of the fuel rather than the combustion cycle (tailpipe). As a result, LCFS is assumed to not have a significant impact on CO2 emissions from EMFAC’s tailpipe emissions estimates. 57 The EMFAC model is developed and used by CARB to assess emissions from on-road vehicles including cars, trucks, and buses in California and to support CARB regulatory and planning efforts to meet Federal Highway Administration transportation planning requirements.
EXHIBIT B
756
Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 41
standards in the country. The RPS program requires investor-owned utilities, publicly owned utilities, electric service providers, and community choice aggregators to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 50 percent of total procurement by 2026 and 60 percent of total procurement by 2030. The RPS program further requires these entities to increase procurement from GHG-free sources to 100 percent of total procurement by 2045.
PG&E provides electricity in Livermore and is subject to the RPS requirements. PG&E forecast emissions factors include reductions based on compliance with RPS requirements through 2045. In 2017, PG&E reported an emissions factor of 210 pounds CO2e per MWh.
Direct access electricity accounted for 6.1 percent of total electricity usage in 2017, which is provided by third party electricity providers instead of traditional energy utilities. Emissions factors for the carbon intensity of direct access electricity was assumed to be equal to the state average, calculated to equal .203 MT CO2e/MWh in 2017. RPS requirements were used to adjust this emissions factor for forecasted emissions through 2045.
Assembly Bill 939 & Assembly Bill 341
In 2011, AB 341 set the target of 75 percent recycling, composting, or source reduction of solid waste by 2020 calling for the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (also known as CalRecycle) to take a statewide approach to decreasing California’s reliance on landfills.
This target was an update to the former target of 50 percent waste diversion set by AB 939.
Actions beyond the projected waste diversion target of 5.9 pounds per person per day set under AB 939 for the City of Livermore will be quantified and credited to the City during the Climate Action Plan measure development process. As of 2017, Livermore is meeting both the 5.9 pounds per person per day and 9.5 pounds per job per day diversion targets set by CalRecycle under AB 341.
Senate Bill 1383
SB 1383 established a methane emissions reduction target for short-lived climate pollutants in various sectors of the economy, including waste. Specifically, SB 1383 establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025.58 Additionally, SB 1383 requires a 20 percent reduction in “current” edible food disposal by 2025. Although SB 1383 has been signed into law, compliance at the jurisdiction-level has proven to be difficult. For example, Santa Clara County suggests the 75 percent reduction in organics is not likely achievable under the current structure; standardized bin colors are impractical; and the general requirement is too prescriptive.59 As such, SB 1383 is not included as part of the adjusted forecast. Instead measures addressing compliance with SB 1383 will be addressed through newly identified GHG reduction measures included in the Climate Action Plan.
Adjusted Forecast Results
The adjusted scenario is based on the same information as the business-as-usual scenario but also includes the legislative actions and associated emissions reductions occurring at the state and federal levels. These actions include regulatory requirements to increase vehicle fuel efficiency or standards to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity. The difference between the emissions 58 CalRecycle. April 16, 2019. Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCP): Organic Waste Methane Emissions Reductions (General Information).
Available: https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/climate/slcp. Accessed: April 16, 2020 59 Santa Clara County. June 20, 2018. SB 1383 Rulemaking Overview. Available:
https://www.sccgov.org/sites/rwr/rwrc/Documents/SB%201383%20PowerPoint.pdf. Accessed: April 16, 2020
EXHIBIT B
757
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 42 projected in the adjusted scenario and the GHG reduction targets established for each horizon year is the amount of GHG reductions which are the responsibility of the City. This “gap analysis” provides the City with the total GHG emissions reduction required as well as information on the emissions sectors and sources which have the most GHG reduction opportunities.
The electricity and water/wastewater sectors all experience a strong downward trend, approaching near-zero in 2045 due to extremely stringent RPS from SB 100. Natural gas emissions are expected to continue an upward trajectory until the 2045 due to strong population growth projections in the city. This trend is partially offset due to the increasingly stringent efficiency requirements for new homes in the upcoming Title 24 code cycles. Commercial growth will also lead commercial natural gas emissions on a similar trajectory. Transportation emissions are expected to decrease significantly in the next 10 to 15 years due to existing fuel efficiency requirements and fleet turnover rates. As most current regulations expire in 2025 or 2030, emissions standards will experience diminishing returns while VMT continues to increase, leading to lower rates of emissions reduction in the transportation sector.
A summary of Livermore’s projected emissions by sector and year through 2045 can be found in Figure 5 and Table 25. Further details on the growth rates and emissions for each sector can be found in the corresponding discussion sections.
EXHIBIT B
758
Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 43
Table 25 Adjusted Forecast Summary by Sector by Year
2017
(MT CO2e)
2020
(MT CO2e)
2025
(MT CO2e)
2030
(MT CO2e)
2035
(MT CO2e)
2040
(MT CO2e)
2045
(MT CO2e)
Population 90,454 91,474 96,699 105,967 113,218 120,925 129,158 Jobs 48,133 48,340 48,686 49,372 50,649 51,499 52,364
Residential
Electricity
19,775 17,816 14,455 10,692 6,281 1,269 0
Nonresident
ial
Electricity
27,836 24,949 20,040 15,105 10,049 4,758 0
Direct
Access
Electricity
6,545 5,944 4,996 3,997 2,597 996 0
Residential
Gas
65,896 66,621 70,161 76,440 81,353 86,575 92,152
Nonresident
ial Gas
57,462 57,703 58,088 58,849 60,267 61,211 62,171
Waste 23,052 23,256 24,183 25,839 27,257 28,681 30,194
Water 1,479 1,332 1,108 888 624 328 0
Wastewater 1,366 1,340 1,327 1,347 1,346 1,338 1,326
On-Road
Passenger
Transportati
on
181,900 169,242 148,578 133,987 125,081 121,771 121,487 On-Road
Commercial
Transportati
on
132,254 126,305 114,922 105,492 99,881 97,268 96,823
Off-Road
Transportati
on
18,002 18,951 20,532 22,114 23,680 25,245 26,811
Total
Emissions 535,566 513,465 478,628 455,776 440,625 433,262 430,965 Emissions
Per Capita 5.92 5.61 4.95 4.30 3.89 3.58 3.34
MT CO2e: metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
EXHIBIT B
759
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 44 Figure 5 Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast Results by Sector and Forecast Year As shown in Figure 6, without legislative reductions, Livermore’s emissions would increase proportionally with population and economic growth. In reality, several existing legislative reductions would limit the Livermore’s emissions growth, causing projected emissions to decrease.
This scenario is depicted by the Adjusted Forecast. The legislative reductions for each sector and scaling methods used to project emissions are discussed in detail below. -100,000
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential Electricity Nonresidential Electricity
Direct Access Electricity Residential Gas
Nonresidential Gas Waste
Water Wastewater
On-Road Transportation (Passenger) On-Road Transportation (Commercial) Off-Road Transportation and Equipment
EXHIBIT B
760
Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 45
Figure 6 BAU Scenario and Adjusted Scenario Forecast
Electricity Emissions
Between 2017 and 2045, electricity emissions for residential and nonresidential buildings in the City of Livermore are assumed to decrease from 51,735 MT CO2e to 0 MT CO2e in 2045 despite steady growth in Livermore’s population and employment levels due to the adoption of SB 100 and the renewable portfolio standard
Emissions from future electricity use were forecasted by projecting anticipated growth in residential and commercial sectors and multiplying by expected electricity emissions factors. Anticipated growth in the residential sector was projected as a function of population growth within the city while commercial sector electricity use was projected as a function of employment projections.
Legislative adjustments included in the electricity sector forecast include RPS of 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent GHG-free by 2045. Additionally, Title 24 building code efficiency increases for the 2019 code cycle were applied to all new growth within the city. The methodologies for the electricity sector which were forecasted in the adjusted scenario are summarized in Table 26 and Table 27.
Table 26 Electricity Sector Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology Source Category
Forecasted Activity
Data (Scaling Factor) Emissions Factor Applied Legislative Reductions Residential
Electricity
Population growth in
Livermore
Assumes an electricity mix of 44
percent, 60 percent, and 100 percent
GHG-free by 2025, 2030, and 2045,
respectively, for PG&E emissions
factors per RPS requirements.
Title 24 standards for new
construction in 2019 (53 percent
residential, 30 percent
commercial), RPS requirements
Commercial &
Industrial
Electricity
Employment growth
in Livermore
RPS: Renewable Portfolio Standard; GHG: greenhouse gas; PG&E: Pacific Gas and Electric -
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MTCO2e
Year
Baseline Inventory Business-as-Usual Forecast Adjusted Forecast
EXHIBIT B
761
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 46 Table 27 Electricity Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year Activity Data 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential Electricity
Population 91,474 96,699 105,967 113,218 120,925 129,158 BAU total kWh 207,546,359 219,401,455 240,429,720 256,881,190 274,369,398 293,048,186 BAU per capita kWh 2,268.92 2,268.92 2,268.92 2,268.92 2,268.92 2,268.92 Adjusted kWh (Title 24) 207,136,052 212,707,947 222,591,232 230,323,423 238,542,881 247,321,911 Adjusted per capita kWh
(Title 24) 2,264.46 2,264.46 2,264.46 2,264.46 2,264.46 2,264.46 Adjusted emissions factor
(MT CO2e/MWH) 0.0860312 0.0688249 0.0516187 0.0344125 0.0172062 0 MT CO2e 17,816 14,527 10,692 6,281 1,269 0
Nonresidential Electricity
Employment 48,340 48,686 49,372 50,649 51,499 52,364
BAU total kWh 290,135,098 292,216,547 296,328,536 303,994,718 309,098,544 314,288,060 BAU per job kWh 6,002.01 6,002.01 6,002.01 6,002.01 6,002.01 6,002.01 Adjusted kWh (Title 24) 290,010,745 291,467,760 294,346,152 299,712,479 303,285,158 306,917,819 Adjusted per job kWh 5,999.44 5,999.44 5,999.44 5,999.44 5,999.44 5,999.44 Adjusted emissions factor
(MT CO2e/MWh)
0.08603 0.06882 0.05162 0.03441 0.01721 0
MT CO2e 24,949 20,040 15,105 10,049 4,758 0
Direct Access Electricity
Population 91,474 96,699 105,967 113,218 120,925 129,158 BAU total kWh 32,647,902 34,512,758 37,820,591 40,408,476 43,159,443 46,097,694 BAU per capita kWh 357 357 357 357 357 357
Adjusted kWh (Title 24) 32,611,369 33,916,768 36,232,251 38,043,770 39,969,447 42,026,223 Adjusted per capita kWh 357 357 357 357 357 357
Adjusted emissions factor
(MT CO2e/MWh)
0.1823 0.1483 0.1142 0.07614 0.03807 0
MT CO2e 5,944 4,996 3,997 2,597 996 0
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; kWh: kilowatt hour; MWh: megawatt hour; BAU: business-as-usual Natural Gas Emissions
Emissions from projected natural gas use were forecast using a similar methodology to the electricity sector. Anticipated natural gas use was projected for the residential and commercial sectors separately using population change and employment increase as growth indicators respectively. These results were multiplied by a natural gas emissions factor of 0.00531 MT CO2e per therms of natural gas.60 Unlike electricity, the natural gas emissions factor is based on the quality of the gas and remains relatively constant over time. As there are no legislative requirements related to renewable natural gas at this time, this analysis did not consider any shift to renewable gas which may become more common over time and the use of which may affect future natural gas emissions 60 The Climate Registry. 2019 Default Emissions Factors. Accessed: https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/The-Climate-Registry-2019-Default-Emission-Factor-Document.pdf. Accessed: April 15, 2020
EXHIBIT B
762
Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 47
factors. The methodologies and data used to calculate natural gas emissions over time are summarized in Table 28 and Table 29.
Legislative adjustments applied for the natural gas sector include efficiency increases from Title 24 building code updates for new construction after the 2019 code cycle begins. Specific efficiency increases for new buildings over the previous triennial cycle are discussed in Section 4.3.
Table 28 Natural Gas Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology Source Category
Forecasted Activity Data
(Scaling Factor)
Emissions
Factor Applied Legislative Reductions
Residential Natural Gas Population growth in
Livermore 0.00531 MT
CO2e/therms1
Title 24 standards for efficiency
in new construction in 2019 (7
percent residential, 30 percent
commercial over 2016 Title 24)
Commercial & District Natural Gas Employment growth in
Livermore
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
1 Reported directly by PG&E for 2017 in their data delivery forms and greenhouse gas emissions data to The Climate Registry.
Table 29 Natural Gas Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year Activity Data 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Residential Gas
BAU therms 12,548,434 13,265,203 14,536,590 15,531,261 16,588,613 17,717,949 Title 24 adjusted
therms
12,545,157 13,211,753 14,394,143 15,319,186 16,302,524 17,352,806 Emissions factor
(MT CO2e/therms)
0.00531 0.00531 0.00531 0.00531 0.00531 0.00531
MT CO2e 66,621 70,161 76,440 81,353 86,575 92,152
Nonresidential Gas
BAU therms 10,866,899 10,944,859 11,098,872 11,386,006 11,577,168 11,771,539 Title 24 adjusted
therms
10,865,813 10,938,315 11,081,547 11,348,582 11,526,362 11,707,128 Emissions factor
(MT CO2e/therms)
0.00531 0.00531 0.00531 0.00531 0.00531 0.00531
MT CO2e 57,703 58,088 58,849 60,267 61,211 62,171
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; BAU: business-as-usual Waste Emissions
The forecast used a baseline emissions rate of 0.530 tons of solid waste per service population and
0.0601 tons of ADC waste per service population, calculated using 2017 inventory data for tons of waste divided by the 2017 service population, along with projected growth in Livermore service population from Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 to establish the estimated tonnage of waste being disposed yearly through 2045. A 2017 solid waste emissions factor of 0.286 MT CO2e and a 2017 ADC waste emissions factor of 0.246 MT CO2e, calculated using 2017 waste characterization data from CARB’s California Landfill Emissions Tool, were used to project emissions consistent with service population growth. Emissions from the waste sector will likely be less than the projected totals due to decreasing rates of organic material in the waste stream and recent legislation such as SB 1383 discussed in previous sections. At this time no mandate exists for individual cities and the
EXHIBIT B
763
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 48 waste reductions from these bills are incorporated into the Climate Action Plan through City reduction measures to avoid double counting. A summary of the methodologies and data used to model waste emissions over time are provided in Table 30 and Table 31.
Table 30 Solid Waste Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology Source Category
Forecasted Activity Data
(Scaling Factor) Emissions Factor1
Applied Legislative
Reductions
Solid Waste Service population growth 0.5778 tons solid waste per service person,
0.286 MT CO2e/ton of solid waste
N/A
ADC Waste Service population growth 0.0655 tons ADC waste per service person,
0.246 ADC MT CO2e/ton ADC waste
N/A
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; N/A: not applicable 1 Waste per service person growth factors calculated using 2017 inventory data for tons of waste, divided by total service population in 2017. Emissions factors calculated using 2017 waste characterization data from CARB’s California Landfill Emissions Tool.
Table 31 Waste Emissions Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year Activity Data 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Population 139,813 145,385 155,338 163,866 172,424 181,522 Ton Solid Waste per Service
Population
0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
Ton ADC Waste per Service
Population
0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Total Tons Solid Waste 74,087 77,039 82,313 86,833 91,367 96,188 Solid Waste Factor (MT
CO2e/ton)
0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286 0.286
Total Tons ADC Waste 8,402 8,737 9,335 9,848 10,362 10,909 ADC Waste Factor (MT
CO2e/ton)
0.246 0.246 0.246 0.246 0.246 0.246
MT CO2e 23,256 24,183 25,839 27,257 28,681 30,194
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
Transportation Emissions
Transportation emissions forecasts were developed consistent with the inventory methodology, through the determination of on-road annual VMT multiplied by a year-specific weighted emissions factor for emissions per mile travelled. VMT forecasts for the City of Livermore were obtained from the Bay Area MTC VMT data portal.61 MTC’s Traffic Demand Model was utilized to model VMT through 2045. Emissions factors were established for each year through the use of the EMFAC2017 GHG module, which established VMT and total emissions for each vehicle type in the County. These respective emissions factors were applied in each year to establish transportation emissions forecasts as shown in Table 32 and Table 33.
61 Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) VMT Model. 2020. Available: http://capvmt.us-west2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data. Accessed: April 19, 2020.
EXHIBIT B
764
Future GHG Emissions Forecasts
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 49
Table 32 Transportation Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology Source
Category
Forecasted
Scaling Factor Emissions Factor Applied Legislative Reductions On-road
Transportation
MTC VMT
Modeling1
EMFAC2017 model analyzing light
duty (LDA, LDT1, LDT2, MDV,
MCY) and heavy duty (LHD, T6,
T7, PTO, MH, SBUS, UBUS, OBUS,
Motor Coach, All Other Buses)
vehicles.
EMFAC emissions factors account for legislative
reductions from Advanced Clean Cars, Pavley
Clean Car Standards, Tractor-Trailer
Greenhouse Gas Regulation, and adopted fuel
efficiency standards for medium- and heavyduty vehicles.
Off-Road
Transportation
OFFROAD200
7 Model2
OFFROAD2007 Model N/A
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT: vehicle miles traveled 1 MTC VMT data portal incorporates data from the MTC’s large-scale simulation model of daily travel behavior, used for its regional planning efforts and in Plan Bay Area. More information can be found on the MTC VMT Data Portal website at http://capvmt.us-west2.elasticbeanstalk.com/about. Accessed: May 5, 2020. 2 California Air Resources Board. OFFROAD2007. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/mobile-source-emissionsinventory/msei-road-archives. Accessed: April 1, 2020.
Table 33 Transportation Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year Activity Data 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population 91,474 96,699 105,967 113,218 120,925 129,158 Passenger VMT 545,893,360 566,412,825 586,932,289 595,803,761 604,675,234 613,546,706 Commercial VMT 97,108,456 98,428,891 99,749,326 101,291,552 102,833,778 104,376,005 Passenger EMFAC
Emissions Factor
(g CO2e/mile)
310 262 228 210 201 198
Commercial EMFAC
Emissions Factor
(g CO2e/mile)
1,301 1,168 1,058 986 946 928
Passenger MT CO2e 169,242 148,578 133,987 125,081 121,771 121,487 Commercial MT CO2e 126,305 114,922 105,492 99,881 97,268 96,823 Off-Road MT CO2e 62,867 69,559 76,252 84,025 91,799 99,572 Total MT CO2e 560,632 529,879 510,512 499,456 495,646 502,737 MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; VMT: vehicle miles traveled Water and Wastewater Emissions
Due to the increased use of the water system attributed to increases in job and population growth in Livermore, service population was used as a scaling metric to determine water and wastewater service emissions through 2045, as shown in Table 34. Projections for water used a baseline activity factor of 110.7 kWh per service population per year, calculated using 2017 inventory data for electricity used for water processing and distribution divided by the 2017 service population based on Plan Bay Area Projections 2040. This emissions factor was multiplied by service population growth through 2045 to find total kWh usage. The RPS for electricity generation was then applied to water emissions, as described in the Legislative Adjustment Section, to determine final MT CO2e emissions as shown in Table 35 and Table 36.
As wastewater emissions are calculated from both direct and process emissions sources.
Wastewater projections used an emissions factor of 0.00693 MT CO2e per service population per
EXHIBIT B
765
City of Livermore
Appendix A - GHG Inventory and Forecast Methodology and Calculations 50 year, calculated using wastewater process emissions data from the 2017 inventory divided by the total service population in 2017 based on Plan Bay Area Projections 2040, and a growth indicator of service population to determine future wastewater emissions.
Table 34 Water and Wastewater Adjusted Scenario Forecast Methodology Forecasted Activity Data (Scaling Factor) Emissions Factor1 Applied Legislative Reductions Service population
(population and employment growth)
PG&E electricity
emissions factors, 110.7
kWh per service
population per year
Assumes an electricity mix of 44 percent, 60
percent, and 100 percent GHG-free by 2025,
2030, and 2045 respectively for PG&E
emissions factors per RPS requirements.
Service population
(population and employment growth)
0.00693 MT CO2e per
service person per year
for wastewater
N/A
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; kWh: kilowatt hour; PG&E: Pacific Gas and Electric; N/A: not applicable 1 Growth factors based on 2017 inventory data, divided by the total service population in 2017 based on Plan Bay Area Projections 2040 data.
Table 35 Water Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year Activity Data 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Population 139,813 145,385 155,338 163,866 172,424 181,522 kwh/Service Person 110.7 110.7 110.7 110.7 110.7 110.7
Total kWh 15,480,255 16,097,168 17,199,181 18,143,417 19,090,975 20,098,213 RPS Electricity
Factor
(MT CO2e/MWh)
0.08603 0.06882 0.05162 0.03441 0.01721 0
MT CO2e 1,332 1,108 888 624 328 0
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; kWh: kilowatt hour; RPS: renewable portfolio standard Table 36 Wastewater Adjusted Scenario Forecast Results by Forecast Year Activity Data 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Service Population 139,813 145,385 155,338 163,866 172,424 181,522 MT CO2e/Service
Population
0.00693 0.00693 0.00693 0.00693 0.00693 0.00693
MT CO2e 1,340 1,327 1,347 1,346 1,338 1,326
MT CO2e: metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent; kWh: kilowatt hour;
EXHIBIT B
766
Appendix B Appendix B - V–
ulnerability Analysis Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
prepared for
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
September 2020
EXHIBIT B
767
Table of Contents
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology................................................................................................................................................. 3 Vulnerability Components ............................................................................................................................ 4 Vulnerability Component 1 - Exposure..................................................................................................... 4 Vulnerability Component 2 - Sensitivity................................................................................................. 12 Vulnerability Component 3 - Potential impacts.....................................................................................16 Vulnerability Component 4 - Adaptive Capacity....................................................................................24 Vulnerability Component 5 - Risk and Onset .........................................................................................25 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................26 References ..................................................................................................................................................28
EXHIBIT B
768
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 2
9/10/2020
Project No: 19-08435
Tricia Pontau, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of Livermore
1052 S. Livermore Ave.
Livermore, California 94550
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update, Vulnerability Analysis Executive Summary
This report provides a climate change vulnerability analysis for the City of Livermore which evaluates the potential impacts of climate change on community assets and populations. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Fifth Assessment Report, defines vulnerability as “the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected.” It adds that vulnerability “encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt” (IPCC, 2013). Understanding the vulnerabilities that the City may face due to climate change provides a foundation to prepare the Climate Action Plan Update (CAP) that includes climate adaptation programs and policies to increase Livermore’s resilience to climate change.
This analysis includes the following components:
• Objectives of the analysis
• Methodology used
• Vulnerability Components
1. Exposure to changes in temperature, precipitation, and wildfire
2. Sensitivity of community structures, community functions, and populations to exposures
3. Potential Impacts of each exposure on community structures, community function, and populations
4. Adaptive Capacity – Livermore’s ability to cope with climate change impacts
5. Risk and Onset – the likeliness and expected timing of events The major findings of this analysis are:
▪ maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to increase; ▪ precipitation variability is expected to increase over the century; ▪ increased temperature and associated impacts have a high certainty of occurring in the nearterm; ▪ intense rainstorms and changes in seasonal patterns are expected to occur in the near-term ▪ Livermore has a low to medium adaptive capacity rating due to the variety of sustainability and adaptation measures developed yet low implementation rate of these measures.
Objectives
EXHIBIT B
769
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 3
The effects of climate change such as increased wildfire intensity, rising temperatures and reduced water resources are becoming increasingly present therefore Livermore’s Climate Action Plan must be updated to reflect these impacts and adapt the City’s mitigation practices. This Climate Action Plan will include measures to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to reduce future climate change impacts while also addressing the existing events Livermore experiences related to climate change. To develop effective adaptation measures we must first understand the local impacts related to climate change. This vulnerability assessment is intended to help develop an understanding of the primary impacts of climate change on the community of Livermore and was completed to begin to evaluate the degree to which physical, socioeconomic, and natural factors are susceptible to, or unable to accommodate, the effects of climate change. Consistent with the California Adaptation Planning Guide (CEMA & CNRA 2020) the assessment is comprised of the following five vulnerability components:
1. Exposure – the nature and degree to which the community experiences a stress or hazard;
2. Sensitivity – the aspects of the community (i.e., people, structures, and functions) most affected by the identified exposures;
3. Potential Impacts – the nature and degree to which the community is affected by a given stressor, change, or disturbance;
4. Adaptive Capacity – the ability to cope with extreme events, to make changes, or to transform to a greater extent, including the ability to moderate potential damages and to take advantage of opportunities; and
5. Risk and Onset – the likeliness and expected timing of impacts.
Together these components help contribute to an understanding of the overall vulnerability of a community and the specific aspects within that community that are most vulnerable to climate change.
Climate change will have the greatest impact on those people, structures, and functions that have the greatest exposure and sensitivity to climate change impacts, as well as the lowest adaptive capacity.
Methodology
For this vulnerability assessment, the years 1990, 2030, 2050, and 21001 were examined. The year 1990 provides recorded historic data, while the years 2030, 2050 and 2100 present projections of expected change in the future. The 2030 future year was selected to examine near-term climate impacts, and the years 2050 and 2100 serve as benchmark years to measure rates of change over time.
This report was completed using infrastructure data provided by the City, including the location of trails, public facilities, and streets, and Cal-Adapt climate projection data. Cal-Adapt is an interactive, online platform developed by the University of California Berkeley to synthesize climate change projections and climate impact research for California’s scientists and planners. Cal-Adapt is consistent with State guidance to use the “best available science” for assessing climate change vulnerability at the local level.
This analysis uses Cal-Adapt to study potential future changes in average and extreme temperatures, precipitation, drought, wildfire, and storms under two greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions scenarios:
Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 and RCP 8.5. RCP 4.5 describes a scenario in which emissions peak around 2040, decline over the next 30 years and then stabilize by 2100 while RCP 8.5 is the scenario in which emissions continue to rise through the middle of the century before leveling off around 2100. The climate projections used in this report are from four models selected by California’s 1 When 2100 projections were not available, 2099 projections were used (e.g. Cal-Adapt projections)
EXHIBIT B
770
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 4
Climate Action Team Research Working Group and the California Department of Water Resources as priority models for research in California. These models include:
▪ A warm/dry simulation (HadGEM2-ES)
▪ A cooler/wetter simulation (CNRM-CM5)
▪ An average simulation (CanESM2)
▪ The model that presents a simulation most unlike these three, for full representation of possible forecasts (MIROC5)2
The average of the model projections is used in this report. Technical Appendix 1. Cal-Adapt provides a detailed explanation of the tool and how it was used for this analysis. As previously introduced, the California Adaptation Planning Guide defines five components to be analyzed in a vulnerability assessment. Each vulnerability component is analyzed with respect to Livermore in the proceeding sections of this memo.
Vulnerability Components
Vulnerability Component 1 - Exposure
Exposure is the nature and degree to which the community experiences a stress or hazard. Climate change is a global phenomenon that has the potential to impact local health, natural resources, agriculture, infrastructure, emergency response, tourism, and many other facets of society. The direct changes projected for Livermore include increases in temperature, and potential changes in precipitation patterns.
Secondary impacts occur as a result of primary impacts, as shown in Table 1. Projected changes to climate are dependent on location. According to climate change projections provided by Cal-Adapt, climate change could lead to increasing temperatures and temperature extremes, and changes in precipitation in Livermore.3 These conditions could lead to an increased exposure to drought, wildfires, and flooding in the region.
Table 1 Primary and Secondary Climate Change Impacts in Livermore Primary Impact Associated Secondary Impacts
Changed temperature and/or precipitation patterns Changed seasonal patterns Increased temperature Heat waves
Increased temperature and/or changed precipitation Intense rainstorms Wildfire and/or increased precipitation Landslides
Increased temperature and/or reduced precipitation Drought, wildfire 2 There were 10 California GCM models that were ranked from 1-10 by California’s Climate Action Team Research Working Group and the California Department of Water Resources for different temperature and precipitation factors. The models ranged from the “warm/dry” model which had all metrics closest to 1 to the “cool/wet” model which had all metrics closest to 10. The MIROC5 displays a pattern of ranking that is most unlike the other 3 models and therefore, is included to represent the full spread of all 10 model simulations. 3 Cal-Adapt provides projections for temperature, precipitation, and wildfire, and these projections will be discussed in the Exposure section of the document. Drought, which does not have associated Cal-Adapt projections is addressed under temperature and precipitation exposure, as well as in the Potential Impacts and Risk and Onset sections.
EXHIBIT B
771
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 5
Source: Modified from CEMA & CNRA 2012
Temperature
Since 1901, average temperatures across the country have increased with eight of the top ten warmest years on record having occurred over the past 30 years (EPA n.d.) Average trends are increasing at both the local scale and the global scale.
Figure 1 below shows observed and projected annual average maximum temperature in Livermore (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.) Below is a summary of key observations from Figure 1. ▪ Projected temperature trends in Livermore display consistent increases over time. Compared to 1990, annual average maximum temperatures in Livermore are expected to rise between 4.5°F and 8.7°F by the end of the century, depending on the GHG emissions scenario (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
▪ Annual average minimum temperatures are expected to rise between 3.2°F and 8°F by the end of the century. Increasing annual average minimum temperatures trends also indicate less cooling off at night.
EXHIBIT B
772
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Figure 1 Historical and Projected Annual Average Maximum Temperature in Livermore4 4 Chart shows annual average maximum temperature for Livermore (Grid Cell 37.65625 -121.78125) under RCP 8.5 (emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100)
EXHIBIT B
773
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Table 2 depicts observed and projected temperature changes in Livermore for both RCP 4.5, the “stabilizing" scenario5
, and RCP 8.5, the “high emissions” scenario6. Below is a summary of key observations from Table 2.
▪ Annual number of heat waves, defined as four or more days over 102.7°F, is projected to increase from 0 to 3 heat waves by the end of the century, based on RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.) ▪ Annual number of extreme heat days, defined astemperatures greater than 102.7°F, is projected to increase from 4 in 1990 to about 25 by the end of the century, based on RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
▪ Warm nights, described as nights when daily minimum temperature is above the extreme heat threshold of 62.1°F, are expected to increase substantially from 11 in 1990 to about 101 by 2100 based on RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
▪ Longer heat waves could occur due to the combination of temperature changes. Between 1950 and 1990, the longest stretch of consecutive extreme heat days per year in Livermore was 2.2 days, by the end of the century the average heat wave is projected to last just over 7 days under RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
Table 2 Temperature Changes
Effect
1990
(Observed)
2030
(RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5)
2050
(RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5)
2099
(RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5)
Annual average maximum
temperature
73 ̊F 76.1 ̊F | 75.9 ̊F 77.1 ̊F | 77.1 ̊F 77.5 ̊F | 81.7 ̊F Annual average minimum
temperature
47.1 ̊F 48.1 ̊F | 48.6 ̊F 49.4 ̊F | 50.3 ̊F 50.3 ̊F | 55.1 ̊F Average extreme heat days per year1 4 11 | 11 17 | 13 13 | 25 Average warm nights per year2 11 18 | 15 18 | 33 42 | 101 Average heat waves per year3 0 0.8 | 1.0 2.8 | 0.8 0.8 | 3.0 Max duration of heat wave (days)4 2 4.0 | 5.3 7.5 | 3.8 4.3 | 7.3 1 Number of days in a year when daily maximum temperature is greater than heat threshold of 102.7 ̊ F 2 Number of nights in a year when daily minimum temperature is above extreme heat threshold of 62.1 ̊ F 3 Number of 4-day heat waves (daily maximum temperatures above extreme heat threshold of 102.7 ̊F) by year 4 Longest stretch of consecutive extreme heat (> 102.7 ̊ F) days by year Source: UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.
5 RCP 4.5: Scenario in which emissions peak around 2040 and then decline 6 RCP 8.5: Scenario in which emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century before leveling off
EXHIBIT B
774
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Precipitation
Total annual precipitation in the United States and globally has increased since 1901 (EPA n.d.) However, shifts in weather patterns have led to substantial decreases in precipitation in certain locations, such as the Southwest of the United States (EPA n.d.)
The Cal-Adapt projections show little change in total annual precipitation in Livermore with no clear or consistent trend during the next century, as illustrated in Figure 2. However, even small changes in precipitation can lead to significant impacts such as altered water availability throughout the year, decreased agricultural output in the region, and altered seasonal patterns which could cause increased droughts and/or flooding. Below is a summary of key observations from Table 3. ▪ Annual average precipitation, is projected to increase by the end of the century, based on both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
▪ Extreme precipitation events, defined as the number of days in a water year (October-September of the following year) with 2-day rainfall totals above extreme threshold of 1 inch, is projected to increase from 3 in 1990 to about 5 mid-century, before dropping to 0 by the end of the century, based on RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
▪ Max duration of consecutive extreme precipitation events, defined as the longest stretch of consecutive days in a water year (October-September) with 2-day rainfall totals above extreme threshold of 1 inch, is projected to increase slightly midcentury from 1 to 1.5 and decrease to 0 at the end of the century, based on RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
EXHIBIT B
775
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 9
Figure 2 Historical and Projected Annual Average Precipitation in Livermore7 Table 3 Precipitation Changes
Effect 1990
(Observed)
2030
(RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5)
2050
(RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5)
2099
(RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5)
Annual average precipitation (inches) 9.7 15.9 | 17.3 23.2 | 21.0 17.6 | 19.8 Extreme precipitation events by water
year1 3 5 | 5 7 | 5 0 | 0
Max duration of consecutive extreme
precipitation events by year2 1 2 | 1.3 2.8 | 1.5 0 | 0 1 Number of days in a water year (Oct-Sep) with 2-day rainfall totals above extreme threshold of 1 inch 2 Longest stretch of consecutive days in a water year (Oct-Sep) with 2-day rainfall totals above extreme threshold of 1 inch Source: UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.
Precipitation Extremes
A warming climate is likely to influence the frequency and intensity of precipitation events. Heavy precipitation events have been on the rise in the United States since the 1980s. Across the country, nine of the top ten years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990 with the occurrence of abnormally high annual precipitation totals also increasing (EPA n.d.).
Both increased temperatures and altered precipitation patterns can lead to altered seasons and intense rainstorms in Livermore. As depicted in Figure 3, there is a high degree of variability in these extreme precipitation event projections, with some models projecting little to no change while others project 7 Chart shows annual average maximum temperature for Livermore (Grid Cell 37.65625 -121.78125) under RCP 8.5 (emissions continue to rise strongly through 2050 and plateau around 2100)
EXHIBIT B
776
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 10
potentially increased intensity (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.) These projections further vary depending on the return period8
selected. Based on the 20 year return period select in Figure 3, the estimated intensity of extreme precipitation events (return level) may increase slightly by the end of the century. The Average (CanESM2) model, for example, is projecting an increase to 4.71 inches of precipitation compared to 3.28 historically (1961 – 1990), based on RCP 8.5 (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.) Despite this projected increase, it is important to consider the confidence intervals provided, which describe 95% confidence that the true mean of precipitation extremes will fall within the given range (grey bars). Given that the confidence intervals for all projections overlap with the confidence interval for the historical data, it is not clear whether the intensity of storms will increase or decrease in Livermore. However, increasing intensity of rainstorms could result in more flooding, which could impact human health and safety in Livermore and should be considered as part of planning efforts.
Figure 3 Changes in Intensity of Extreme Precipitation Events in Livermore9 Wildfire
Wildfire is determined by climate variability, local topography, land cover and human activity. Climate change has the potential to affect multiple elements of the wildfire system including fire behavior, ignitions, fire management, and vegetation fuels. Hot dry spells create the highest fire risk and increased temperatures may intensify wildfire danger by warming and drying out vegetation.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has determined that there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Livermore. Though there are no Very High Fire Hazard Severity 8 Average time between extreme events (e.g. “1 in 100 year event”) 9 Chart shows estimated intensity (Return Level) of Extreme Precipitation events which are exceeded on average once every 20 years (Return Period) for Livermore (Grid Cell 37.65625, -121.78125) under RCP 8.5 emissions scenario. Extreme precipitation events are described as days during a water year (Oct-Sept) with 2-day rainfall totals above an extreme threshold of 0.67 inches.
EXHIBIT B
777
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 11
Zones in Livermore, there are Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to the north, east, and south of Livermore. Figure 4 shows that there is moderate wildfire threat in the entire city, and some very high fire threats in the north and south of the city. Government Code §51181 requires CAL FIRE to periodically reassess and update the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones as needed. Due to amount and extent of the wildfires recently, the fire hazard severity zones are currently being reassessed throughout the State.
Not only do wildfires pose a threat to life and property in the communities in which they burn, their smoke can threaten the health of communities up to thousands of miles beyond the areas in which they burn (TIME 2018). Wildfire smoke is comprised of air pollutants including particulate matter, known to be a public health risk (CDC 2013). The effects of exposure to these pollutants range from eye and respiratory tract irritation to reduced lung function, pulmonary inflammation, bronchitis, exacerbation of asthma, other lung diseases, and cardiovascular disease, and premature death (CDC 2013). The increasing number and extent of wildfires in the Western United States may pose a substantial risk to public health in Livermore.
Figure 4 Livermore Fire Threat
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community | Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA | Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection | Alameda County Registrar of Voters, 2011
EXHIBIT B
778
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Environmental Scientists Planners Engineers
Cal-Adapt fire hazard maps project a decrease in acres burned by the end of the century (Figure 5).
Average annual hectares burned is projected to decrease from 19.3 in 2020 to approximately 9.5 by the end of the century. Research has shown that there is great spatial variability in wildfire risk based on climate variability and trends, and in some regions vegetation may be reduced by drought conditions and thus reduce fuel available to burn (Westerling 2018). It is unclear whether this is the scenario applicable to Livermore, so despite the projected decline in wildfire risk for the Livermore area, it is recognized that wildfire is a serious hazard to public health and safety that may increase with climate change in other parts of the state (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.)
Figure 5 Annual Average of Area Burned in Livermore10
Vulnerability Component 2 - Sensitivity
10 Chart shows annual average area burned for Livermore (Grid Cell 37.65625, -121.78125) under RCP 8.5 emissions scenario.
EXHIBIT B
779
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 13
Sensitivity describes the aspects of the community
(i.e., people, structures, and functions) most affected by the identified exposures. As described in the
exposure section above, Livermore may experience a
variety of impacts from climate change, including
rising temperatures and variable precipitation, which
could impact community structures, functions, and
populations. This section of the Vulnerability Analysis lists potentially affected community resources using
the Sensitivity Checklist provided in the California
Adaptation Planning Guide (CEMA & CNRA 2020). The
Potential Impacts section of the analysis estimates
how the impacts will occur and their projected
severity. The points of sensitivity, or potentially
affected community resources(community structure,
community functions, and populations) in Livermore,
are described below.
Community Structures
The following community structures can be potentially affected by exposure to climate change impacts such as extreme heat and flooding:
▪ Residential
▪ Commercial
▪ Industrial
▪ Government
▪ Institutions (schools, churches, hospitals, etc.)
▪ Parks and open space
▪ Recreational facilities
▪ Transportation facilities and infrastructure
▪ Communication infrastructure
▪ Water treatment plant and delivery infrastructure
▪ Wastewater treatment plant and collection infrastructure Essential facilities such as medical facilities, police and fire stations, emergency operations centers, evacuation shelters, and schools are essential to the health and welfare of the population of Livermore and are especially important following climate-influenced hazard events. The following community structures within Livermore would be particularly sensitive to climate change impacts such as flooding and wildfire:
▪ Municipal buildings, including the three Livermore Public Library branches ▪ Hospitals, doctor’s offices, and other medical entities, including Kaiser Permanente and the Stanford Health Care ValleyCare
▪ Educational facilities including the 19 schools in Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and Las Positas Community College
Livermore Community Overview
The City of Livermore is the easternmost city in the
San Francisco Bay Area, making it the gateway to
the Central Valley. The City encompasses an area
of approximately 26.44 square miles and has a
population of approximately 91,411 (City of
Livermore n.d.). Livermore is home to prominent
science and technology centers, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia
National Laboratory, making it a science and
technology hub. These labs along with the
Livermore Valley Joint Unified School District and
Valley Care Health System Lifestyle Rx Fitness
Center are the economic foundation of the City,
providing a large portion of employment
opportunities in Livermore (City of Livermore
2019).
EXHIBIT B
780
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 14
▪ Childcare facilities
▪ Senior living facilities
▪ Livermore Police Department and Livermore – Pleasanton Fire Stations #5 through #10 Sensitive facilities, such as water and wastewater treatment plants, where damage would have large environmental, economic, or public safety consequences, are also considered particularly vulnerable to climate change. These sensitive facilities include:
▪ City water system including groundwater wells and distribution pipelines ▪ Wastewater systems such as the Livermore Water Reclamation Plant, and approximately 286 miles of sanitary sewer lines.
▪ Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories Community Functions
Community functions that may be disrupted by climate change in Livermore include:
▪ Government continuity
▪ Water, sewer, and solid waste
▪ Energy delivery
▪ Emergency services
▪ Public health and safety
▪ Emotional and mental health
▪ Business continuity
▪ Housing access
▪ Employment and job access
▪ Food security
▪ Mobility, transportation, and access
▪ Quality of life
▪ Social services
▪ Ecological function
▪ Tourism
▪ Recreation
▪ Agriculture, including farms and vineyards
▪ Industrial operations
Transportation systems such as roads, bridges, overpasses, rail, bikeways and trail networks, and the Livermore Transit Center may be particularly threatened by the impacts of climate change such as floods, landslides, severe winds, and wildfires. The City maintains a variety of roadways ranging from a freeway and highway to local streets and special rural routes which travel through City-identified vineyard lands.
Roadways play a critical role in how people and goods are transported throughout the city. The major roads running through the city are Interstate 580 (I-580) and State Route 84 (SR-84). Local public transit, provided by Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA), is an important component of the City’s transportation network, providing the community with alternatives to automobile travel. Rail freight through Livermore is served by the Union Pacific Railroad, which is an east-west route originating in
EXHIBIT B
781
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 15
Oakland and tying into two major north-south routes in the San Joaquin Valley. Additionally, the City provides a comprehensive, safe network of bikeways and trails for transportation and recreational purposes for a variety of non-vehicular users. In 2003, the city had a total of 66.5 miles of multi-use trails (Class I) and bike lanes (Class II). Impacts to the regional transportation system could critically impact mobility, transportation, and access in Livermore.
Lifeline utility systems such as potable water, wastewater, fuel, natural gas, electric power, and communication systems in Livermore may also be particularly sensitive to increased climate related events such as flooding, drought, wildfires, and landslides. These lifeline utility systems are essential to the health and safety of the Livermore community.
Populations
Populations that may be sensitive to climate change exposures described above include:
▪ Seniors
▪ Children
▪ Individuals with disabilities
▪ Individuals with compromised immune systems
▪ Individuals who are chronically ill
▪ Individuals without access lifelines (e.g., car or transit, phones) ▪ Disadvantaged communities
▪ Low-income, unemployed, or underemployed communities
▪ Individuals with limited English skills
▪ Renters
▪ Students
▪ Seasonal residents
▪ Individuals uncertain about available resources because of citizenship status Vulnerable populations are more susceptible than others to climate related exposures such as people who may require special response assistance or special medical care after a climate-influenced disaster.
The disproportionate effects of climate change on vulnerable populations are caused by physical, social, political, and/economic factors which are further exasperated by climate impacts. In the event of a climate-influenced disaster such as wildfire, flood, or landslide, vulnerable populations may have less access to emergency response information and lack the resources needed to cope with and recover from climate impacts. The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy identifies those most at risk and vulnerable to climate-related illness as the elderly; individuals with chronic conditions such as heart and lung disease, diabetes, and mental illnesses; infants; the socially or economically disadvantaged; and those who work outdoors (CNRA 2009). According to the Census, Livermore residents under 65 that reported no insurance was 4.1% and the proportion of people living in poverty is about 4.6%.
Moreover, the Census estimates that in 2019, 12.9% of the population was 65 years or older and 23.5% of the population was under the age of 18. These individuals may face unique impacts related to climate change. According to the findings from a United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) study, children are “physiologically and metabolically less able than adults at adapting to heat.” The study recognizes that geography plays a role on the impacts of climate change that may affect specific populations and acknowledges the fact that those with fewer resources have a more difficult time adapting (UNICEF 2011).
EXHIBIT B
782
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 16
Financial wellbeing also impacts climate change sensitivity, as well as preparation, because those with greater access to resources have a greater ability to prepare and adapt. In addition, more than 20% of Livermore residents speak a language other than English at home, which may result in language barriers in dissemination of information related to climate change preparation and emergency response (Census n.d.)
Vulnerability Component 3 - Potential impacts
Potential impacts are the nature and degree to which the community is affected by a given stressor, change, or disturbance. As climate change continues to progress, increased stress to vulnerable populations and sectors of society are expected. In the City of Livermore, the most likely primary impacts of climate change include increasing temperatures and altered precipitation patterns. Climate change impacts may damage infrastructure, reduce economic viability, influence water supply, and decrease public health and safety (Figure 6). The potential impacts of increasing temperature extremes, altered precipitation, and increasing wildfire in Livermore and the greater San Francisco Bay Area are discussed below.
Figure 6 Impact of Climate Change on Human Health
Temperature
As describe in the Exposure section above, Livermore may experience a variety of impacts from climate change, which include an increase of average annual maximum temperature between 5.3°F and 9.3°F by the end of the century (UC Berkeley & CEC n.d.) This increase in temperature may result in changes in seasonal patterns, possible heat waves, drought, and potentially increased storm frequency and intensity.
The potential impacts to community structures, functions, and populations are described below.
EXHIBIT B
783
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 17
Community Structures – Potential Temperature Impacts
Community infrastructure and the City’s transportation system may be impacted by increased temperatures. Long periods of intense heat may result in increased use of electricity for home cooling purposes that could tax the system and result in electricity restrictions or black-outs. In addition, cyclists and active commuters could be impacted by increased temperatures and could suffer from heat related illnesses making them less inclined to ride their bikes for transportation if the temperatures continue to rise. This would increase demand on other aspects of the transportation system including public transit and roadways, which may exacerbate worsening air quality conditions.
Community Functions – Potential Temperature Impacts
As mentioned above in the Sensitivity section, increases in temperature could also have a substantial impact on the City’s economy. Vineyards and farms are an essential part of the City’s community and economy and could be affected by climate change through crop failure, transportation system issues, and decreased labor from heat exposure.
High temperatures may also contribute to a reduced water supply. For instance, higher temperatures will melt the Sierra snowpack earlier and drive the snowline higher. Higher temperatures in addition to a reduction in precipitation falling as snow, would result in less snowpack to supply water to California users (CNRA 2009). Increased temperatures could therefore result in decreased potable water supply for the City which relies on local groundwater, surface water, and imported water (Cal Water 2016). Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7) has managed and imported local surface water and groundwater resources for beneficial uses in the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin for more than 55 years. According to the Annual Report for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Program and as shown in Figure 7, Zone 7 replenished the groundwater basin in 1962 after decades of basin overdraft. Since then, Zone 7 has been sustainably managing the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin (Zone 7 2019). With temperatures expected to increase and snowpack expected to decrease, there may be an increase in the reliance on the Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin, putting pressure on local water supply.
EXHIBIT B
784
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 18
Figure 7 Bernal Key Well Hydrograph
Vulnerable Populations – Potential Temperature Impacts
Public health may be negatively impacted by a changing climate as a result of changing environmental conditions (e.g., extreme weather events; changes in temperature and rainfall that decrease water supply; worsening air quality; and increases in allergens and air pollutants). This could lead to hazardous conditions, such as heat stroke and respiratory ailments for individuals with disabilities or compromised immune systems, children playing outdoors, tourists, farm workers and others working outdoors.
Potential impacts to public health include cardiovascular disease; exacerbation of asthma, allergies, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; increased risk of skin cancer and cataracts; premature death; cardiovascular stress and failure; and heat-related illnesses such as heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and kidney stones (CEMA & CNRA 2012). Figure 8 shows a profile of health outcomes and inequities specific to Alameda County, the number of people in the County, or state of California, and the relative percentage for the County or State (Maizlish et al. 2017). Disparities among race/ethnicity groups and poverty groups are apparent, as is the heightened vulnerability of obese and disabled individuals to heat effects. Those in Livermore without health insurance (4.1%) and living in poverty (4.6%) are particularly vulnerable. Figure 9 displays the profile of social vulnerabilities and climate risks in Alameda County (Maizlish et al. 2017).
There is currently one census tract within Livermore (Census Tract 4514.04,
EXHIBIT B
785
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 19
Figure 10) that is designated as an Opportunity Zone11 (CA.gov) or economically distressed community where new investments in Caltrans transportation projects, Air Resources Board low carbon projects, and High-Speed rail investments are a priority (State of California n.d.) Additionally, three block groups have been identified as disadvantaged communities by the State, as shown in Figure 11 (DWR n.d.) With anticipated increases in minimum and maximum temperatures, economically disadvantaged residents may find it more difficult or impossible to afford the additional costs of cooling their homes. Consequently, many low-income households, especially those of seniors and individuals with disabilities will be particularly vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat events.
Figure 8 Profile of Health Outcomes and Inequities in Alameda County 11 ).0./-
/defined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as “economicallyҊ $./- .. *((0)$/42# - ) 2
investments, under certain conditions, may be eligible for preferential tax treatment.”
EXHIBIT B
786
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 20
Figure 9 Profile of Social Vulnerabilities and Climate Risks in Alameda County
EXHIBIT B
787
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 21
Figure 10 Opportunity Zone
Figure 11 Disadvantaged Communities
Increasing temperatures may also impact vulnerable youth populations. Due to their less-developed physiology and immune system, children are especially vulnerable to air and water quality, temperature, humidity and vector-borne infections. These health concerns are not just physical; children can be
EXHIBIT B
788
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 22
impacted psychologically as well, which could result in a loss of self-confidence, nervousness, and insomnia (UNICEF 2011). This additional stress on children’s systems could affect them into adulthood and result in lifelong ailments.
Additionally, rising temperature may also indirectly impact human health through impacts to biological species and natural habitat, such as increases in the incidence of vector borne disease (WHO 2018). Insects have no internal control over their body temperature, and as ambient temperatures rise, the distribution of insects may expand through increased reproductive rate, biting behavior, and survival. Moreover, the incubation period for pathogens within vectors is also temperature-dependent, and the period often becomes shorter as conditions warm (WHO 2018). This will result in pathogens developing and spreading more quickly; susceptibility to disease may increase.
As rising temperature impacts public health, community resources such as hospitals and various doctors’ offices and medical entities may be impacted by an increased need for various health care services including heat and respiratory care.
Precipitation
The precipitation projections show variability over time. Periods of decreased precipitation may result in more frequent and persistent droughts, especially in combination with increased temperatures which would result in decreased water supply, water quality and public health; reduced viability of natural landscapes; and increased risk of wildfires in the region. As mentioned in the Exposure section above, the frequency and severity of storm events could increase with climate change. This could result in impacts to community structure, functions and human health and safety, particularly related to flooding.
Community Structures – Potential Precipitation Impacts
Increased flooding may result in water and wastewater treatment plants being unable to handle increases in intense rainfall events and associated runoff. This could impede the proper functioning of on-site septic systems or overwhelm sewers and centralized sewage treatment plants. As a result, untreated water, with a full load of toxics and organic waste could enter streams and the ocean. Flooding may also impact the City’s transportation network inhibiting movement of people and goods. Emergency response systems would similarly be affected by flooding through restricted access to and from emergency response systems, increasing wait times for these crucial services. Communication to these entities may also be impacted if electricity transmission is interrupted or if water and other natural resources are unavailable.
The Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan assessed the flood loss potential to critical facilities exposed to flood risk. Critical facilities include medical and health services, emergency services, educational facilities, government facilities, utilities, transportation facilities, and hazardous materials. Both Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory are considered high profile critical facilities because they house hazardous materials. The plan estimated the following flood-related risks:
▪ A 10-percent annual chance flood event (i.e. flood of a magnitude historically expected every 10 years on average) would affect 12 facilities and on average the facilities would receive a 4.12 percent damage to the structure and 27.03 percent damage to the contents. ▪ A 1-percent annual chance flood event (i.e. flood of this magnitude historically expected every 100 years on average) would affect 21 facilities and on average the facilities would receive a 7.33 percent damage to the structure and 27.78 percent damage to the contents.
EXHIBIT B
789
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 23
▪ A 0.2-percent annual chance flood event (i.e. flood of this magnitude historically expected every 500 years on average) would affect 66 facilities and on average the facilities would receive a 15.18 percent damage to the structure and 39.94 percent damage to the contents.
Figure 12 Livermore Flood Hazard Zones
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community | Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA | Esri Community Maps Contributors, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Alameda County Registrar of Voters, 2011 Community Functions – Potential Precipitation Impacts
During intense storms and precipitation events, the local economy may be impacted through more frequent disruption to community services, such as power outages. Additionally, a flooded structure or agricultural field could result in increased expenses and disruption to work.
Populations – Potential Precipitation Impacts
Public health and safety may be directly impacted by injury and or death of community members resulting from large floods. Public health may also be indirectly impacted by reduced access to emergency response and health centers resulting from infrastructure impacts discussed above.
Wildfire
Community Structures – Potential Wildfire Impacts
The Cal-Adapt projections for wildfire risk in Livermore is projected to decrease over this century. Because of this, the direct impact of wildfire to community structures in the City are expected to remain low.
EXHIBIT B
790
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 24
Community Functions – Potential Wildfire Impacts
Similar to community structures, direct impacts of wildfire to the economy in Livermore are unlikely.
However, secondary impacts of decreased air quality could indirectly affect the economy by impacting vulnerable workers, reducing tourism, and directly impacting health of community members as noted below.
Populations – Potential Wildfire Impacts
Despite the low risk of direct wildfire impacts to Livermore, the potential of increasing wildfires in the greater San Francisco Bay Area and Central Valley could impact populations through increasing secondary impacts such as poor air quality, changes in water quality, and erosion. Vulnerable populations such as individuals with compromised immune systems, seniors, children, and outdoor workers are likely to be impacted most by these secondary impacts.
Vulnerability Component 4 - Adaptive Capacity
Adaptive capacity is the ability to cope with extreme events, to make changes, or to transform to a greater extent, including the ability to moderate potential damages and to take advantage of opportunities.
Adaptive capacity is the current ability to address the potential impacts of climate change and includes adjustments in behavior, resources, and technologies (CEMA & CNRA 2012). The City of Livermore has actively taken steps to increase the City’s adaptive capacity, which include promoting hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness, and proactive planning through stream and stormwater management programs.
Table 4 lists the City’s guiding documents and programs that have an underlying emphasis on adaptive capacity.
Table 4 Livermore Planning Documents and Programs
Document Year Established
Climate Action Plan 2012
General Plan Climate Change Element 2009
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Active Transportation Plan 2018 East Alameda County Conservation Strategy 2010
Stream and Stormwater Management Programs Ongoing
Tri-Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2018
2005 GHG inventory Report 2007
EBEW GHG Inventory Reports 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017
Green Infrastructure Plan 2018
Livermore Emergency Operations Plan 2018
The City has approximately 200 sustainability and adaptation related measures from the existing planning documents listed above. Most of these measures can be grouped into four major categories: energy, water, transportation, waste, and land use. The two major exposures expected in Livermore are higher temperatures and potentially increasing frequency and intensity of storms, and a variety of measures address these exposures indirectly. Many energy measures have been developed which could increase the City’s adaptive capacity related to increased temperatures, however, most of these have been determined to be low quality (due to the lack of a clear objective, strategy to obtain objective, funding,
EXHIBIT B
791
Vulnerability Components City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 25
metrics to measure progress, and/or lead responsible party). Furthermore, few of these measures have been implemented. The same is true for sustainability measures related to water and land use.
The City has developed both reactive and proactive measures to addressing climate change adaptation.
The Stream and Stormwater Management Programs is a collaborative effort between the City, Parks District, and Water Agency to provide habitat enhancements around stream and flood channels. This form of stream maintenance and repair increases the City’s adaptive capacity related to higher precipitation rates and the potential for flooding.
Though the City has a vast number of sustainability measures developed, few have been successfully implemented, giving the City a low to medium adaptive capacity rating. While the City does have some level of emergency preparedness, such as through the Livermore Emergency Operations Plan, there are few implemented measures in place to address long-term effects of climate change such increased heat and decreased air quality.
Vulnerability Component 5 - Risk and Onset
Risk is defined as the likelihood or probability that a certain magnitude, extent, or scale of potential impact will occur (CEMA & CNRA 2012). For each impact, a level of uncertainty, based on the probability of the primary or secondary exposures is assigned (
Table 5). According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, temperature changes have a greater than 90% probability of occurring, providing a high certainty rating for this impact. Precipitation changes have a greater than 66% probability of occurring, providing a medium certainty rating.
Table 5 Probability of Global Primary Impacts
Driver % Probability (IPCC) Certainty Rating
Temperature Change >90% High
Precipitation Change >66% Medium
Source: Adapted from CEMA & CNRA 2012, IPCC 2007
For each associated secondary impact (e.g., heat waves, intense rainstorms, drought, etc.), a certainty rating and timeline for expected impacts to Livermore were assessed based on the conservative estimates from
Table 5 and secondary impacts explored in the Exposure section of this assessment (Table 6). Expected near-term secondary climate impacts to Livermore include changed seasonal patterns, heat waves, and intense rainstorms. These impacts may occur in the near-term (2020 – 2040) because they occur, in part, as a result of increased temperature, which has a high certainty rating globally and high exposure risk in Livermore. Drought and wildfire are expected to occur in the mid-term largely due to the variability of precipitation projections in Livermore.
Table 6 Probability of Secondary Impacts Based on Global Models
EXHIBIT B
792
Conclusion City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 26
Primary Impact Associated Secondary Impacts Certainty Rating Timeline for
Expected Impacts to
Livermore1
Changed temperature and/or
precipitation patterns
Changed seasonal patterns Medium Near-term
Increased temperature Heat wave High Near-term
Increased temperature
and/or changed precipitation
Intense rainstorms Medium Near-term
Increased temperature
and/or reduced precipitation
Drought and wildfire Medium Mid-term
1 Near-term: 2020 – 2040; Mid-term: 2040-2070; and Long-term: 2070-2100 Source: CEMA & CNRA 2012
Conclusion
Climate change will affect populations throughout the state, nation, and world differently based on their actual and perceived vulnerabilities. This assessment serves as an assessment to better understanding Livermore’s vulnerability to climate change impacts and inform the development of additional adaptive measures. The major findings of this analysis are:
▪ maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to increase ▪ precipitation variability is expected to increase over the century ▪ increased temperature and associated impacts have a high certainty of occurring in the near-term ▪ intense rainstorms and changes in seasonal patterns are expected to occur in the near-term ▪ Livermore has a low to medium adaptive capacity rating due to the variety of sustainability and adaptation measures developed yet low implementation rate of these measures The City has a variety of planning documents and programs that provide a low to medium rating in adaptive capacity. There are opportunities to further improve adaptive capacity to climate change exposure described in this analysis. In addition to focusing on the implementation of high priority measures that address effects of increasing temperatures and storms, it will be important to focus these efforts in vulnerable communities such as in the opportunity zone and disadvantaged communities highlighted in Figure 10 and Figure 11. Some examples of measures that could be implemented to improve adaptive capacity include:
▪ Encouraging green building practices in new and redevelopment with a focus on disadvantaged communities
▪ Provide infrastructure improvements such as cool pavements, green roofs, and planting trees and vegetation in disadvantaged communities
▪ Communicate heat warning information and appropriate responses to the public, especially to the most vulnerable members of the community, and provide community cooling centers in areas with low-income, elderly, and young populations
▪ Incentivize and/or require the installation of heat pump HVAC units which provide energy efficient heating and cooling
EXHIBIT B
793
Conclusion City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 27
▪ Increase distributed energy resources and therefore electricity security through the implementation of microgrids and battery storage
▪ Strengthen water supply systems to meet forecasted demands of residents, businesses, and visitors as variability in water resources increases
The Climate Action Plan will provide the framework for Livermore to prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate change that may affect the city and focus efforts on vulnerable populations, structures, and functions to minimize the residual effects of climate change and prepare Livermore for long term climate resiliency. The CAP will work in unison with the City’s planning documents (Table 4) to provide strategies for the City to prepare, adapt, and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
EXHIBIT B
794
References City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 28
References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps.
Accessed May 2020 at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6439/fhszs_map1.jpg California Emergency Management Agency and California Natural Resources Agency (CEMA & CNRA). 2012. California Adaptation Planning Guide. Accessible at:
http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/01APG_Planning_for_Adaptive_Communities.pdf California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Accessible at:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CNRA-1000-2009-027/CNRA-1000-2009-027-F.PDF California Water Service Company (Cal Water). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessible at:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2015/liv/2015_Urban_Water_Management_Plan_Final_ (LIV).pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2013. Wildfire Smoke. Accessed September 2020 at:
https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/wildfires/smoke.html
City of Livermore. n.d. About Livermore. Accessed May 2020 at:
http://www.cityoflivermore.net/about/default.htm
______. 2019. Major Employers. Accessed May 2020 at:
http://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/17072 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2013. Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Accessible at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
______. (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. Accessible at:
https://www.ipcc.ch/
Maizlish N, English D, Chan J, Dervin K, English P. 2017. Climate Change and Health Profile Report:
Alameda County. Sacramento, CA: Office of Health Equity, California Department of Public Health. Accessed May 2020 at:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OHE/CDPH%20Document%20Library/CHPRs/CHPR001Alam eda_County2-23-17.pdf
State of California. n.d. California Opportunity Zones. Accessed May 2020 at: https://opzones.ca.gov/ozmap/ State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR). n.d. DAC Mapping Tool. Accessed May 2020 at: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/
TIME. 2018. “Smoke from California Wildfires Is Reaching the East Coast, Here’s What That Means for the Air Near You. Accessed September 2020 at: https://time.com/5364151/california-wildfiresmoke-east-coast/ United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). n.d. Climate Change Indicators. Accessed May 2020 at: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/weather-climate United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 2011. Children and Climate Change: Children’s Vulnerability to Climate Change and Disaster Impacts in East Asia and the Pacific. Accessible at:
http://www.unicef.org/media/files/Climate_Change_Regional_Report_14_Nov_final.pdf
EXHIBIT B
795
References City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Appendix B -Vulnerability Analysis
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update Page 29
University of California, Berkeley and California Energy Commission (UC Berkeley & CEC). n.d. Cal-Adapt.
Accessed May 2020 at: https://cal-adapt.org/
United States Bureau of the Census (Census). n.d. QuickFacts. Accessed April 2020 at:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/livermorecitycalifornia,US/PST045219 Westerling, Anthony Leroy. 2018. Wildfire Simulations for California’s Fourth Climate Assessment:
Projecting Changes in Extreme Wildfire Events with a Warming Climate. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. University of California, Merced and the California Energy Commission. Accessible at: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 11/Projections_CCCA4-CEC-2018-014_ADA.pdf
World Health Organization (WHO). 2018. Climate Change and Health. Accessed May 2020 at:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health Zone 7 Water Agency (Zone 7). 2019. Annual Report for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Program, 2018 Water Year, Livermore Valley Groundwater Basin. Accessible at:
file:///C:/Users/cbobroff/Downloads/GMP2018AnnRpt-FinalRev.pdf
EXHIBIT B
796
Appendix C - Appendix C - Cost Cost Technical Appendix Technical Appendix Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
prepared for
City of Livermore
1052 South Livermore Avenue
Livermore, California 94550
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
Updated September 2022
EXHIBIT B
797
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Cost Considerations...................................................................................................................................... 9 Funding and Financing Considerations .......................................................................................................10 Strategy Cost Benefit Analysis ....................................................................................................................15 Adaptation Strategies ................................................................................................................................. 15 Energy Resilience ....................................................................................................................................15 Drought...................................................................................................................................................16 Flooding...................................................................................................................................................17 Extreme Heat ..........................................................................................................................................19 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................................19 Mitigation Strategies ...................................................................................................................................20 Buildings and Energy ...............................................................................................................................20 Transportation and Land Use ..................................................................................................................22 Waste and Materials ...............................................................................................................................26 Carbon Sequestration .............................................................................................................................29 Municipal Strategies ...................................................................................................................................30 Implementation Strategies .........................................................................................................................33 Climate Action Finance Map .......................................................................................................................36
EXHIBIT B
798
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 1
Introduction
As part of its updated Climate Action Plan, the City of Livermore – in coordination with Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon), the Livermore Climate Action Plan Advisory Committee, and the community of Livermore – has developed a comprehensive strategy to improve resiliency to climate change and for reducing community-wide GHG emissions to net carbon neutrality by 2045. However, achieving carbon neutrality requires significant, strategic investments into many elements of the community including new policies, infrastructure, technology, and behavior change on the part of the community. In order to develop transparency around the prioritization of these investments, Rincon has assembled a technical appendix detailing the estimated cost associated with the implementation of each of the 20 identified strategies based on cost data derived from past projects, case studies, and available research and academia.
Climate Action Plans exhibit high variability in implementation costs depending on the strategies identified, their level of specificity, and the accompanying funding and financing strategies, which may vary depending on the scope of the project. For example, costs may vary from capital-intensive investments like the installation of a microgrid to enhance energy resiliency in the event of climate disasters to setting up bike infrastructure to encourage alternative means of transportation.
Furthermore, depending on the type of desired bike infrastructure, costs may vary from $10,000 to $1M per mile.
1 2 Each reporting entity exhibits their own priorities and funding mechanisms based on the needs of its local community, in addition to having unique backdrops of political climate, land use practices, social equity concerns, and more. Simply put, one size does not fit all. The intent of this appendix is to distill these highly variable cost/benefit considerations into a document that provides a clear understanding of the potential costs and the primary variables that effect cost and provide a replicable pathway towards net carbon neutrality based on the strategies provided.
The strategies listed below have been broken down into 4 cost segments which include:
1. Low-Cost: The low-hanging fruit for the community or City, generally delineated as strategies associated with relatively low upfront costs or city staff time, (e.g., policy ordinances or outreach). For community members, this represents costs between $1 and $100 per year.
2. Moderate-Cost: Intermediate level of costs associated with consultant and moderate infrastructure changes, (e.g., feasibility studies, program development, and retrofitting existing infrastructure). For community members, this represents costs between $100 per year and $500 per year.
3. High-Cost: Longer term projects requiring substantial investments into major infrastructure or technology over time, (e.g., energy storage, bike lanes, or other infrastructure changes). For community members, this represents costs between $500 per year and $1,000 per year. 1 2018 Livermore Active Transportation Plan https://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/18254 22018 Livermore Active Transportation Plan Appendices Table includes estimated cost per project. https://www.cityoflivermore.net/civicax/filebank/documents/18253
EXHIBIT B
799
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 2
Table 1 Strategy Cost Summary
Strategy # Strategy Cost
Categorization City Cost Variables Community Cost Variables 2030 MT CO2e
Reduction or
Adaptive Capacity
2045 MT CO2e
Reduction or
Adaptive Capacity
Adaptation Strategies
E-1
Enhance
community energy
resilience.
High Cost
• Staff time
• Microgrid costs
Weatherization upgrades
N/A High Adaptive
Capacity
High Adaptive
Capacity
D-1
Improve water
conservation and
reuse.
Low Cost
• Staff time
• Ordinance/resolution/plan
development
• Staff time to develop
partnerships
• Cost of water
conservation
efforts
• On-bill water
savings
High Adaptive
Capacity
High Adaptive
Capacity
EXHIBIT B
800
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 3
F-1
Improve
stormwater
management.
Moderate Cost
• Size of project (acreage)
• Staff time
• Ordinance development
(hardscape)
• Runoff rate
• Parcel size
• Runoff factor for
user type
(commercial,
industrial,
institutional)
• Fee increases for
new impervious
surfaces
Moderate Adaptive
Capacity
Moderate Adaptive
Capacity
H-1
Increase resilience
to extreme heat
events.
Moderate Cost
• Staff time
• Heat Mitigation Plan cost
• Tree planting costs
• Shade structure
implementation
• Backup power at cooling
stations
• N/A High Adaptive
Capacity
High Adaptive
Capacity
WF-1
Mitigate wildfire
risk and improve
preparedness.
Low Cost
• Staff time
• Cost of personal protective
equipment
• Creation of fire safe
development standards
• Creation of community fire
fuel load reduction program
• Creation and operation of
clean air centers
• Building retrofits to improve
indoor air quality
• Increased
development costs Low Low
EXHIBIT B
801
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 4
Mitigation Strategies
B-1
Require new
buildings to be allelectric and
incentivize
electrification
retrofits of existing
buildings.
Low Cost
• Staff and consultant time
required to develop and
pass an ordinance
• Staff and consultant time
required for outreach and
education
• Staff and consultant time
required for conducting a
cost analysis and feasibility
study
• Cost savings of all
electric home
compared to fuel
mix
• Long-term savings
on energy bills
27,383 121,559
B-2
Decarbonize
electricity from the
grid and increase
local renewable
energy generation.
Moderate Cost • Staff time
• Outreach and education
• Electricity costs per
rate plan 25,505 0
T-1
Facilitate a
transition to electric
vehicles.
Moderate Cost
• Grant or financing
availability for EV Readiness
Plan
• Staff and/or consultant time
for ordinance development,
outreach, and partnership
development
• Infrastructure costs for new
chargers at municipal
locations
• Use of public/private
partnerships
• Electricity and charging
rates
• Cost of charging
infrastructure
• Marginal cost of EV
selected (Cost of
combustion vehicle
compared to EV
alternative)
• Lifecycle cost of EV
ownership
• Lifecycle costs of
combustion vehicle
ownership
49,494 93,458
EXHIBIT B
802
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 5
T-2
Facilitate a
transition to transit
and shared
mobility.
Moderate Cost
• Staff time
• Bike share costs (pilot
program)
• Ordinance development
costs
• TDM support
actions
• Transit Passes
3,033 4,656
T-3
Improve active
transportation
infrastructure.
High Cost
• Planning and consultant
costs
• Construction cost
• Ongoing maintenance costs
• Costs associated
with funding
mechanism, e.g.,
sales tax or parcel
tax
2,127 2,111
T-4 Support sustainable
land use practices. Low Cost
• Staff time
• Consultant time None Identified Supportive Supportive W-1
Reduce the amount
of waste that is
landfilled.
Low Cost
• Staff time to develop an
ordinance
• Staff time for outreach and
education
• Development of High
Diversion Plan
• Staff time for partnership
development for food
recovery
• Increased cost of
food items served
in reusable/
compostable food
ware
• Cost to businesses
to implement
waste diversion
techniques
• Cost to residents to
implement home
composting
• Cost to businesses
to implement
composting
19,379 22,646
W-2
Expand use of lowcarbon and recycled
building materials
Low Cost
• Staff time for outreach and
education
• Development of carbon
performance standards and
material-efficient building
practices for new
construction
• Increased cost of
building material Supportive Supportive
EXHIBIT B
803
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 6
S-1
Maximize local
carbon
sequestration.
High Cost
• Staff time
• New trees
• Operating and maintenance
cost of trees
• Carbon farming study and
pilot project
• Landscaping standards
update
• Urban Forest Management
Plan preparation &
implementation
• Cost of trees
• Cost of
water/maintenanc
e of trees
58 58
Municipal Strategies
M-1 Enhance resilience
at public facilities. High Cost
• Cost of microgrid/battery
storage
• Cost of energy efficiency and
AQ upgrades selected
• Energy Cost Savings
N/A Supportive Supportive
M-2
Electrify municipal
facilities and
operations.
Moderate Cost
• Staff time
• Type of units electrified
• Number of facilities N/A Supportive Supportive
M-3
Electrify the City’s
vehicle fleet and
encourage City
employees to utilize
alternative
transportation and
teleworking
opportunities.
Moderate Cost
• Staff time
• Number and type of vehicles
electrified
• EV charging infrastructure
• Alternative transportation
incentives
N/A Supportive Supportive
EXHIBIT B
804
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 7
M-4
Conserve water in
municipal
landscaping and
improve on-site
stormwater
management.
Low Cost
• Cost of new fixtures
• Cost of new landscaping
• Water savings offsets
N/A Supportive Supportive
M-5
Purchase more
sustainable
products to reduce
waste from City
operations.
Moderate Cost
• Staff time
• Update Environmentally
Preferable Purchasing Policy
• Marginal cost of new
products
N/A Supportive Supportive
M-6
Utilize public lands
to increase local
carbon
sequestration and
reduce urban heat
island effect.
Moderate
Cost
• Staff time
• Open space/landscaping
maintenance costs
N/A Supportive Supportive
Implementation Strategies
EXHIBIT B
805
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 8
I-1
Make climate
impacts and
resilience a
standard
consideration
during planning and
development
processes.
Low Cost
• Staff time
• Consultant time for carbon
nexus study
• Consultant time for financial
risk analysis
N/A Supportive Supportive
I-2
Dedicate City
resources to CAP
implementation and
consistently
monitor progress.
Moderate Cost • Staff time N/A Supportive Supportive
I-3
Create a public
outreach campaign
to educate the
community about
CAP initiatives.
Moderate Cost • Staff time N/A Supportive Supportive
I-4
Foster green
innovation in
Livermore.
Low Cost • Staff time N/A Supportive Supportive
EXHIBIT B
806
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 9
Cost Considerations
For each strategy, the cost description focuses on both internal costs (municipal-focus) and external costs (community-focus) and provides insight into the variability of these costs including the primary variables that may affect cost effectiveness including several primary considerations:
Upfront versus Lifecycle Costs
When discussing how much a strategy or action costs it is important to differentiate between the upfront costs, the cost of an LED light bulb, versus the lifecycle costs of purchasing, operating, maintaining, and ultimately disposing of that lightbulb. While LED lightbulbs may be more expensive up front when compared to an incandescent bulb, the lifecycle costs of owning an LED lightbulb are significantly lower, providing a significant return on investment.
Incremental or Marginal Costs
When discussing costs, it is important to specify the difference between how much a strategy costs overall and what the incremental or marginal cost is. The incremental or marginal cost is the difference in cost between the new action and the old or standard action. For example, purchasing a new electric vehicle could cost $30,000 which should be considered a high cost. However, the marginal cost of purchasing an electric vehicle versus purchasing a new internal combustion vehicle may be zero or near zero because of reduced long-term operating and maintenance costs including no fluids to replace, fewer moving parts like transmissions, and less brake wear. It is important to consider what the incremental/marginal costs are for each strategy by keeping in mind what the alternative costs are. In many cases, the difference is negligible.
Financing
One of the major financial tools available to make large investments into infrastructure, vehicles, or buildings is financing. Financing allows us to leverage the time value of money and put future expected money flows to use today. For example, a solar array may cost $20,000 and result in an energy bill that is $200 less per month. The cost of the solar array could be considered high. However, the loan for the solar array requires a monthly payment of $150 dollars, resulting in a net monthly savings of $50 dollars.
Under this scenario the solar array does not carry a high cost, rather it provides an overall savings. The ability to finance can make seemingly high-cost investments low to no cost over time.
Understanding the ranges of cost savings and revenue streams, and how those costs and revenues accrue over time into a payback or ROI calculation, are prudent factors to structuring partnerships, engaging stakeholders, and making optimal financial decisions. For example, energy efficiency retrofits can generate cost savings of more than 30% for 15 to 20 years. If external partners are involved, such as with an energy savings performance contract (ESPC), cities may not need to provide any upfront capital, but the project’s cost savings would accrue with a private third party and be lost by the city. An anaerobic digester may need $5M to $10M in upfront capital but could also generate $1 to $2M annually in natural gas delivery revenue. Over 20 years, which can be an attractive financial investment for a city. Cities must consider the estimated return on investment (ROI), how project costs and
EXHIBIT B
807
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 10
revenues balance out over the useful life of the project, and whether they are willing to forego longterm cost savings or revenue generation capacity by partnering with a private third party.
The Cost of Doing Nothing
Finally, it’s also important to keep in mind that doing nothing to prepare for and mitigate climate change will also carry a cost. The alternative to implementing these strategies is not zero. One immediate example is the cost to install conduit and panel capacity for electric vehicle chargers for all new construction. While this action increases upfront construction costs by a few hundred dollars, doing that same work after the building is completed can be an order of magnitude higher (~$3,000). Given the move towards electric vehicles, the cost of not installing EV infrastructure today could cost the community significantly more in the future. In a similar vein, adaptation strategies will cost the city and the community today. Planting trees, installing microgrids, and setting up cooling centers all have upfront costs. However, it’s imperative that we weight these costs against the costs of a future without these adaptive strategies given what we know about the climate. Research published in the journal Nature predict the cost of not decreasing emissions to carbon neutrality by mid-century could range between $149.78 trillion to $791.98 trillion by the end of the century.3 That same study found that if we mitigate climate change and achieve carbon neutrality by mid-century the world could see a $127-to- $616 trillion-dollar economic benefit after considering the cost of mitigation. The humanitarian impact is also significant. The Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies estimate that the number of people in need of humanitarian aid each year could double to $200 million annually by 2050 due to climate change costing $20 billion per year.4 Furthermore, the World Resources Institute has found that investing in adaptation and resilience provides a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 2:1 to 10:1, meaning that for every dollar invested in resilience and adaptation we stand to see $2 to $10 dollars’ worth of benefits.
Funding and Financing Considerations
There are three major categories of financial pathways available for climate action: funding, financing, and revenue generation. For the purposes of this project, funding refers to repayment-free capital that is available from third-parties, financing refers to borrowed capital including loans, bonds, and other cost- sharing mechanisms that ultimately require the borrower to pay back the capital in full (typically with interest), and revenue generation from new charges, fees, or taxes, to citizens, beneficiaries, or customers, which can be placed on specific project users or applied to every resident or business in a given area. In some cases, revenue generation includes capturing cost savings that accrue from the project. Funding, financing, and revenue generation are often used together to implement major capital 3 Wei, Yi-Ming et al. Nature Communications. 2020. Self-preservation strategy for approaching global warming targets in the post-Paris Agreement era. Accessed at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15453-z. Accessed June 9, 2021. 4 International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. 2019. The Cost of Doing Nothing: The Humanitarian Price of Climate Change and How it Can be Avoided. Accessed at https://reliefweb.int/report/world/cost-doing-nothing-humanitarian-price-climate-change-and-how-itcan-be-avoided. Accessed June 9, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
808
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 11
projects. While funding can support a capital project as a stand-alone mechanism, financing usually requires identifying a funding or revenue stream that will be used to repay borrowed capital.
Six Major Types of Funding & Financial Mechanisms
This list is ordered by the increasing amount of debt load that would be incurred by the city (or other project lead): starting with free capital from grants and partnerships, continuing to capital borrowed from loans and bonds, and concluding with city funding from budget, taxes, and fees.
1. Grants can provide a substantial source of ‘repayment-free’ capital if cities have the staff capacity to invest in grant management. Grants make the most sense for cities with the necessary staff capacity (1-2 full-time equivalents, either internal or external experts) to track grant opportunities, craft meaningful proposals that link to the goals and mission of the donors, submit applications, and track results required for ongoing reporting. • Pros:
o Grants do not have to be repaid
o Grants can support purchases that enable cities to be the sole owner and operator of a project, and maintain city control over project details o Can attract media and generate credibility and prestige when awarded by national institutions, which helps promote cities’ climate leadership and innovative projects
• Cons:
o Often competitive
o Effort spent applying not always rewarded
o Grants from federal, state, and other government sources tend to have strict limitations on what funds can be spent on, as well as burdensome reporting requirements
o Not sustainable, have to reapply often with uncertain outcomes o Can sometimes come with ‘match’ requirements, where the grantee has to come up with ~10-50% of the project budget and the grant will cover the rest
2. Partnerships often tap resources, and secure capital, from non-governmental and corporate actors, which can spread the financial risk of a project across multiple public, private, and/or nonprofit entities. Partnerships are well-suited for cities who cannot or do not want to own their project outright, and who are willing to share possible cost savings and revenue generation with a third-party. Examples of partnerships include Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESCOs), Sponsorships, Public-Private Partnerships, and Power Purchase Agreements. • Pros:
o Private partners can expedite project design, initial implementation, and ongoing management
o Can leverage private sector expertise to spark innovation, and better design, build, and manage projects
EXHIBIT B
809
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 12
o Can enable public sector to capture tax incentives and other private-market benefits
o Private actors may fully fund the initiative
• Cons:
o City may not have ultimate ownership of project, and may lose operational control
o City may not have access to cost savings or revenue generated from project o Negotiations can be complex, lengthy, and difficult, and tensions can arise between parties given their divergent operational speeds, with public parties prioritizing safety and durability, and private partners preferring quick decision making and maximizing efficiency and profits. o Partnerships are less transparent than budget, bonds, and other mechanisms
3. Loans give cities access to upfront capital, whose principal and interest must be repaid over the duration of the loan. While cities should first consider grants and private partners that can provide repayment-free capital, when those pathways are unavailable loans are a dependable alternative. In many cases, municipal borrowers and impact-driven projects can find financing with low-interest rates. Loans can also include Lease-Purchase Agreements which defer upfront costs but require more total capital over the life of the payment. • Pros:
o Provides upfront capital on short notice with predictable terms and contracts o Spreads the cost of a project across the useful life of the asset, and thus allocates costs to current and future users
• Cons:
o Loans add debt to the balance sheet
o Lenders may have stipulations on what the borrowed capital can be spent on (assets vs. wages, etc.)
o Private investor and bank loans are usually offered with higher interest rates than municipal bonds
o Loans are less transparent than budget, bonds, and grants, unless cities pursue extraordinary levels of disclosure
4. Bonds provide dependable, predictable financing for cities looking to capitalize large infrastructure projects ranging from the millions to billions of dollars. A city can issue a bond directly or apply for funds from a state bonding program. These bonds can be backed either by general city funds, or specific revenue sources. There are multiple types of bond structures including general obligation, revenue, and conduit bonds, as well as certifications like “green” bonds for climate and sustainability that communicate what types of projects bond proceeds are being used for.
EXHIBIT B
810
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 13
• Pros:
o Bonds enable cities to borrow large amounts of up-front capital with fixed lowinterest rates and long repayment periods o Bonds spread out costs over useful life of project, which can be decades, and allocates costs to current and future users of the project o Tax-exempt municipal bonds can attract capital from high-net-worth investors, especially local wealthy individuals and families who benefit from tax deductions on bond’s interest if they live in your city’s county or state. • Cons:
o Issuing general obligation bonds can be a politically charged process if your city requires voter approval
o Bonds cannot be repaid through cost savings from a project, they must be repaid through additional topline revenues coming from a project or from reallocated funds within the municipal budget.
- If a third party is generating revenues from the installation or operation of a project, those revenues can be used to support the bond. When combined with an Energy Savings Performance Contract, this is called a Morris Model Bond.
o City bond ratings affect the interest rates of municipal bonds, with poorly rated cities having to pay higher interest rates on their bonds. This can pose as a challenge to lower income cities, and in cities that face frequent flooding, fires and other climate threats that threaten financial solvency — as all of these factors can depress city bond ratings.
5. Budget refers to using money in a city’s general fund to capitalize projects. Every year cities collect tax revenue and other fees to populate their general funds, portions of which are appropriated to new capital projects and infrastructure investments. As the inability of city budgets to cover the expansive list of new costly climate projects in CAPs is a primary motivation for this project, financial mechanisms beyond budget must begin covering a larger share of the load, and other financial mechanisms should be fully explored before cities turn to budget funding. Yet, opportunities remain for climate action to take higher priority in cities’ budgeting processes and for city budgets to fund appropriate climate-related expenditures. If using city budget is an option, well-suited projects tend to have total costs that are small enough to fit into 1 to 3 years of the city’s budget, and/or have costs incurred in a dispersed manner, ideally evenly distributed over several years or decades, like the costs of staffing for a new program.
• Pros:
o City budget funds are available immediately, and thus can respond to pressing time-sensitive funding needs
o City budget funds come with few restrictions, and can be tailored to match project needs exactly
EXHIBIT B
811
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 14
o Funding from the city budget does not increase debt burden, and frees up future budget that would otherwise be spent servicing debt payments with interest
o Budget funding utilizes existing contractual relationships, and does not require creating new partnerships or entering into new legal arrangements • Cons:
o The amount of funding available each year is limited, so large projects can exhaust an agency's entire capital budget for the year. o Similarly, it can take decades to accumulate enough to pay upfront costs of major infrastructure projects. If cities do save portions of the budget for several years in order to have enough capital to cover the upfront costs of a project, cities can end up paying more for the project due to inflation.
6. New taxes and fees, as well as cost savings and other revenues, can create new flows of capital to fund climate action. Most often, however, ongoing revenue generation is not earmarked for a particular project and accumulated in a savings account. Rather, new revenue flows are funneled into cities’ general funds, or leveraged through financing, as is the case with revenue bonds. Revenue generation via new taxes and fees makes sense for cities that have not significantly raised taxes or fees on residents in the past year or two, for projects that do not need immediate upfront capital, or for cities pursuing a revenue bond that needs a source of project-based revenues.
• Pros:
o New or raised taxes and fees provide cities with stable sources of ongoing revenue that can provide consistency and budget flexibility for decades o With adequate political support and restrictive legislation, revenues from taxes and fees can be set aside to create funds for very specific purposes, with revenues generated from specific stakeholder groups
• Cons:
o New or raised taxes and fees require significant political capital and community support to implement
o There may be state-level regulation affecting which tax and fee structures a city can use
o Certain tax structures can be regressive, placing a higher burden on low-income communities
o Revenues generated from specific taxes and fees can fluctuate based on economic conditions and personal behavior, which can create last minute budget shortfalls
EXHIBIT B
812
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 15
Strategy Cost Benefit Analysis
The following section discusses the primary variables impacting costs for each of the strategies as well as information on the potential costs to the City and community based on the cost considerations listed above. Strategies are organized into 4 categories: Adaptation, Mitigation, Municipal, and Implementation.
Adaptation Strategies
The strategies listed in this section aim to increase Livermore’s resilience to climate change impacts, prioritizing vulnerable communities and vital public facilities. These strategies cover Energy Resilience, Drought, Flooding, Extreme Heat, and Wildfire.
Energy Resilience
Strategy E-1: Enhance community energy resilience
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Microgrid costs
• Weatherization upgrades
City Cost Discussion
The climate resiliency of buildings is a primarily a factor of its capacity to withstand intense weather disasters. Municipal costs associated with E-1 include enhancing and promulgating microgrid resiliency, including staff time allocated towards developing partnerships, seeking grants, and conducting weatherization upgrades, the latter of which can reduce the energy consumption of buildings by up to 35%, resulting in long-term savings from reduced operating and maintenance costs.5 The City costs associated with this strategy range from low costs (for staff time), to moderate costs (for facilitating weatherization upgrades) to high costs (micro grid expansion). The best strategy of the cost of microgrids is the cost per unit capacity ($/MW). In California, the average cost per MW of storage added is $3.5M.6However, these costs can be financed or even completed through public private partnerships.
Furthermore, a single microgrid would help meet the goals of several strategies.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• N/A
5 Statewide Energy Efficiency Collaborative. Weatherization Guide for Local Governments. Accessed at https://californiaseec.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Weatherization-Guide-for-Local-Governments.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021. 6 Asmus, Peter, Adarm Forni, and Laura Vogel. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2017. Microgrid Analysis and Case Study Report. California Energy Commission. Accessed at https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-500-2018-022/CEC-500-2018-022.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
813
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 16
Community Cost Discussion
Costs incurred by the community for E-1 are focused largely on weatherization and other building upgrades. Costs will remain highly variable for existing buildings depending on their existing infrastructure and capacity to retrofit or enhance their surrounding environment, such as including fire safe or stormwater best management practices in their outdoor landscaping, reducing energy demand on the grid, converting to electric heating and cooling, construction of rooftop solar, and more.
However, single family homes can make significant weatherization progress for <$1000.7 Several weatherization assistance programs are currently available and more may be developed by the City.8 Furthermore, weatherization has been found to pay back over $2 for every $1 invested over time.9 Drought
Strategy D-1: Improve water conservation and reuse
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Ordinance/resolution development
• Staff time to develop and maintain partnerships for demonstration program and efficiency devices subsidy
City Cost Discussion
Promoting water efficiency is one of the most cost-effective means to not only conserve water but reduce GHG emissions. As opposed to retrofitting infrastructure or creating new programs to reduce emissions, promoting behavioral change requires little investment for immediate benefits of avoided emissions and costs associated with water treatment and delivery. Municipal costs to promote efficient water use, develop policies, and implement the water efficient landscape ordinance will require additional staff time.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Cost of water conservation efforts
• On-bill water savings
Community Cost Discussion
Using less water means lower water bills for the community. Community costs may include investment into smarter watering practices, like the City’s water efficient lawn conversion rebate, weather-based irrigation controller rebate, or high-efficiency clothes washer rebate. Costs incurred by the community are relatively low compared to other strategies and added incentives provided by the City lead to 7 https://www.homeyou.com/ca/weatherization-livermore-costs 8 https://www.benefits.gov/benefit/1844
9 https://www.energy.gov/eere/wap/about-weatherization-assistance-program
EXHIBIT B
814
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 17
quicker returns on investment, saving money on their bills in the long-term. Depending on the property, more efficient outdoor watering practices may reduce bills by 50%. When considering lifecycle costs, many water conservation actions provide a return on investment especially when considering rebates and incentives. Costs for onsite water reuse systems vary greatly from hundreds to hundreds of thousands of dollars depending on the size and complexity. However, these costs are offset over time based on water and wastewater savings.10
Flooding
Strategy F-1: Improve stormwater management
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Size of project (acreage)
• Type of retrofit
• Staff time
• Staff time
• Cost and maintenance of permeable surfaces
City Cost Discussion
Increasing permeable surfaces effectively reduces urban runoff and returns water to the ecosystem, offsetting marginal costs associated with wastewater treatment. The cost of different permeable retrofit projects is dependent on the scale of the project and the costs associated with design, permitting and construction. The most effective method of assessing cost for permeable projects is notated on a dollar per acre of pervious surface basis. Project costs with a scope of less than ½ acre of pervious cover tend to be two orders of magnitude more expensive than storage retrofit practices. Costs may range depending on the type of pervious surface desired. Porous surfaces like gravel are relatively much cheaper alternatives to more expensive urban solutions like permeable concrete. On the low end, constructed wetlands and basic retention systems may cost as low as $2,200 while urban on-site retrofits may cost as high as $150,000.11 Lifecycle considerations include cost savings associated with the method of pervious surface selected, such as a simple greenspace, or the avoidance of paving areas that would otherwise be paved and instead covered with porous material, such as gravel.
Municipal costs associated with this strategy involve staff time allocated towards the ongoing programmatic implementation of the City’s Stormwater Management Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, and Capital Improvement Program. Direct costs include expenses for maintaining infrastructure, constructing new devices, or monitoring water quality. Costs vary widely depending on the type of infrastructure installed. However, it’s important to understand the savings that can be gained by using low impact development and green infrastructure.
10 https://living-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/2019-Water-System-Financial-Case-Studies-1.pdf
EXHIBIT B
815
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 18
By improving flood resiliency from future storms, the City can expect to save money in the long-term by avoiding reconstruction resulting from the damage of these storms under a business-as-usual approach.
Urban trees also reduce stormwater runoff and water pollutants, improving ecosystem health, and provide barriers to urban flooding as a pervious surface.12 A meta-analysis of green infrastructure systems found that green infrastructure can be less expensive than standard infrastructure alone even before taking into account lifecycle benefits.13 A study of tree planting in five US cities found that “The five cities reported here spent $13– 65 annually per tree, but benefits returned for every dollar invested in management ranged from $1.37 to $3.09.”
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Runoff rate
• Parcel size
• Runoff factor for user type (commercial, industrial, institutional) • Cost of incorporating pervious materials
• Savings associated with decreased flood damage
Community Cost Discussion
With the requirement of passive rain capture features for new infrastructure and development projects, the community may expect costs to rise for new construction projects. However, these costs covered by developers may lead to savings by the community at-large because of reduced damage to nearby communities vulnerable to flood risks. While most of the costs associated with stormwater management are accrued by the City, homeowners would receive monetary benefits through higher property values as a result of an improved quality of life.14 Currently, under the City’s Stormwater System Enterprise Fund, every resident owning property within the incorporated City limits but discharging stormwater to a collection and conveyance system owned and operated by the City shall pay a service charge calculated in accordance with Municipal Code Section 13.46.050. The annual service charge is dependent on the parcel size, runoff factor associated with user type, and the runoff rate per acre.15 Similar to the costs incurred by the City, community costs vary depending on pervious material chosen and the marginal cost of the impervious material that would be selected under a business-as-usual approach. These costs would only be applicable to new construction or replacement projects. Some simple solutions like bioswales or simply less hardscapes like concrete or paving can be low to no cost. 12United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Stormwater to Street Trees: Engineering Urban Forests for Stormwater Management.
Accessed at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/stormwater2streettrees.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021. 13 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/lid-gi-programs_report_8-6-13_combined.pdf 14 Sacramento State University, Environmental Finance Center. 2019. Estimating Benefits and Costs of Stormwater Management. Accessed at https://www.efc.csus.edu/reports/efc-cost-project-part-1.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2021. 15 City of Livermore Stormwater System Enterprise Fund. Municipal Code 13.46.010. Accessed at https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Livermore/Municipal/Livermore13/Livermore1346.html#13.46.050. Accessed June 1, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
816
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 19
Extreme Heat
Strategy H-1: Increase resilience to extreme heat events City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Tree planting costs
• Shade structure implementation
• Backup power at cooling stations
City Cost Discussion
This strategy includes several actions that would incur upfront and ongoing City costs. Municipal costs included in this strategy involve staff time allocated towards the development of a heat vulnerability index and mitigation plan which could be completed by existing staff or creating a full-time Climate Action Program Manager for a cost of approximately $150,000. Conducting tree canopy surveys to identify shade deficient areas in the City would be completed by a consultant for a cost between $75,000 and $150,000, which is also included under actions for sequestration. The cost of implementing additional shade structures at bus stops are likely between $10,000 and $15,000 per stop.16 Backup power at cooling stations could be completed through the development of a microgrid system that would provide backup power to several buildings. Microgrids costs are significant. However, these costs can be financed or even completed through public private partnerships. Tree planting and maintenance costs can average around $1,300 per tree for installation, watering, maintenance, and reporting.17 Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• N/A
Community Cost Discussion
Due to the actions of this strategy in the development of a heat pump retrofit program, community members may opt-in to the financial incentive offered by the City to retrofit their own homes and improve indoor air quality. This cost would be incurred on a voluntary basis for the benefit of the community. Otherwise, there are no more costs to the community associated with this strategy.
Wildfire
Strategy WF-1: Mitigate wildfire risk and improve preparedness 16 Wesoff, Eric. 2011. Solar Bus Shelters From GoGreenSolar. Accessed at https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/solar-bus-sheltersfrom-gogreensolar#:~:text=A%20traditional%20bus%20stop%20costs%20anywhere%20from%20%2410%2C000%20to%20%2412%2C000.
Accessed June 9, 2021.
17 Ainsworth, Greg. 2021. RE: Medea Tree Estimate. Email. Message to Ryan Gardner and Camila Bobroff.
EXHIBIT B
817
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 20
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Cost of personal protective equipment
• Creation of fire safe development standards
• Creation of community fire fuel load reduction program • Creation of clean air centers
Building retrofits to improve indoor air quality
City Cost Discussion
Municipal costs associated with this strategy can be largely covered with the onboarding of a Climate Action Program Manager to manage the supportive actions therein. Additional costs may include the purchase of additional reserves of personal protective equipment, staff time dedicated to outreach and education associated with the use of AC alert systems, the creation of fire safe development and landscaping standards, such as a Fire Safe Garden Program, updating hazard planning for wildfires, establishing a community fire fuel load reduction program, and the creation of clean air centers.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Additional cost for new construction in fire zones
• Savings associated with reduced fire damage
Community Cost Discussion
Due to the actions of this strategy falling on the responsibility of the City, there are no direct costs incurred by the community for this strategy. However, additional considerations may be made for including fire safe construction practices into new construction projects. Variables within these costs are dependent on the marginal cost of implementing fire safe practices versus a business-as-usual approach.
Long-term savings from reduced fire damage are difficult to quantify but could equal the cost of each structure hardened against fire.
Mitigation Strategies
As the City works to protect the community from climate impacts, it will continue its efforts to reduce community-wide emissions across all sectors. These strategies cover Buildings and Energy, Transportation and Land Use, Waste and Materials, and Carbon Sequestration.
Buildings and Energy
Strategy B-1: Require new buildings to be all-electric and incentivize electrification retrofits of existing buildings
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff and consultant time required to develop and pass an ordinance
EXHIBIT B
818
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 21
• Staff and consultant time required for outreach and education • Staff and consultant time required for conducting a cost analysis and feasibility study City Cost Discussion
This strategy would predominately be implemented through an ordinance. A benefit to ordinances is that they tend to be relatively cost-effective to implement, while providing effective long-term change for the benefit of the community in accordance with the City’s CAP. Passing the electrification ordinance would include staff time to be covered by existing staff as well as consultant time. Variability within these costs are dependent staff or consultant time dedicated to ordinance development and outreach but are estimated below $30,000 total. Therefore, the upfront costs to the City are considered low and the lifecycle costs to the city are also low due to the need for a one-time investment.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Cost savings of all electric home compared to fuel mix • Long-term savings on energy bills
Community Cost Discussion
Cost effectiveness studies completed for Livermore’s climate zone show that new building electrification costs less to build than mixed fuel buildings.18 Single family homes are $6,171 dollars less expensive to build all-electric compared to a mixed fuel home. When built with heat pumps instead of resistance heating, homes are both cheaper to construct and cheaper to live in offering up to $177 per year of on bill savings while saving approximately $4,613 in construction costs. Therefore, this strategy is considered low cost, but will be a significant cost savings for community members purchasing new homes.
Strategy B-2: Decarbonize electricity from the grid and increase local renewable energy generation City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Outreach and education
City Cost Discussion
The primary action in this strategy is opting up the City of Livermore into a 100% carbon free or renewable electricity tier through East Bay Community Choice Energy. This is a one-time action by City Council and therefore, the major costs are staff time to prepare staff reports and conduct community outreach. Other substantial strategies include amending the building code to include major remodels in energy efficiency upgrades and solar requirements. Staff time will also be required to conduct outreach and generate staff reports prior to City Council adoption. 18 City of Livermore. 2019. Existing Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Accessed at https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/livermorecity/forecast/12-PGE/studies/1,2,3. Accessed June 9, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
819
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 22
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Electricity Costs per Rate Plan
Community Cost Discussion
Externally, B-2 may cost the community a marginal increase in money spent per kWh. However, this increased electricity cost depends on the rate plans used by the household/business. Based on the rate schedule of Strategy B-1 (Require new buildings to be all-electric and incentivize electrification retrofits) and an average monthly usage of 416 kWh, monthly bills would not increase under the East Bay Community Energy (ECBE) Brilliant 100 rate plan and would increase by approximately $4 per month under the ECBE Renewable 100 rate plan for both standard and CARE rates.19 Transportation and Land Use
Strategy T-1: Expand electric vehicle infrastructure to support zero emission vehicles City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Grant or financing availability for EV Readiness Plan • Staff and/or consultant time for ordinance development, outreach, and partnership development
• Infrastructure costs for new chargers at municipal locations • Use of public/private partnerships
• Electricity and charging rates
City Cost Discussion
Costs associated with improving electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure include the development of an EV Readiness Plan to promote sustainable, equitable charging infrastructure deployment. EV readiness ordinance costs are wrapped into the electric building ordinance calculated in Strategy B1. Costs to develop an EV Readiness plan are estimated to cost $70,000.20 Needs of staff managing this project, such as outreach and education, partnership development, and more, may result in additional staff time. The City has several options for installing public chargers. The first option is for the City to own and operate a charger. Under this scenario the City should expect EV chargers to cost between $1200 and $3,000 per charger for level 2 charges.21 The City would then charge for the rate of electricity and 19 PG&E – EBCE Joint Rate Comparisons. Accessed at https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/customer-service/otherservices/alternative-energy-providers/community-choice-aggregation/ebce_rateclasscomparison.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021. 20 City of Berkeley. 2018. RFP for Electric Vehicle Roadmap: Strategies for Transitioning from Fossil Fuel Vehicles. Accessed at https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Finance/Level_3_-_General/RFP%2018-11229- C%20EV%20Roadmap%20Strategic%20Plan%207-10-18.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2021. 21 Nicholas, Michael. 2019. International Council of Clean Transportation. Estimating Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Costs Across Major US Metropolitan Areas. Accessed June 1, 2021. Accessed at https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EV_Charging_Cost_20190813.pdf
EXHIBIT B
820
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 23
maintenance for charging. These costs may be financed through the CalCAP program.22 Another option is a public/private partnership where the City contracts with a third party to own and operate the infrastructure.23 This could help the City decrease its upfront costs. Finally, the City may be able to support/encourage local businesses and building owners to install additional chargers by educating them on the benefits such as increased customer satisfaction or by connecting them to funding/financing or third-party vendors.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Cost of charging infrastructure
• Marginal cost of EV selected (Cost of combustion vehicle compared to EV alternative) • Lifecycle costs of EV ownership
• Lifecycle costs of combustion vehicle ownership
Community Cost Discussion
Externally, the community may see increased costs of new construction because of new requirements to include EV capable charging spaces in new lots. Community members should expect to pay between $400-$800 per space for added conduit and panel capacity.24 This is compared to $2,500-$6,000 to install EV capable spaces as a retrofit depending on the type of parking space (surface, structure, etc..).25 The cost to install a EV charger that is ready to use is approximately $1000 per charger for nonnetworked Level II chargers.
The cost to purchase an EV is another major consideration on the success of this strategy. The cost of an electric vehicle varies significantly depending on the EV chosen. Since the purchase of an EV will likely offset the purchase of an internal combustion vehicle, the marginal cost should be considered here. EVs also offer considerable opportunities for lifecycle cost savings compared to their internal combustion (ICE) or hybrid vehicle counterparts since they do not need oil changes, transmission fluid changes, spark plugs etc. For example, the electric MINI cooper emits approximately half of the greenhouse gas emissions than that of its ICE and hybrid models while costing considerably less per month in fuel, maintenance, and total vehicle costs per month.26 In general, new electric vehicles may or may not cost more upfront, but generally cost less over their lifetime compared to combustion vehicles. 22 https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cpcfa/calcap/evcs/summary.asp 23 https://www.pge.com/en_US/large-business/solar-and-vehicles/clean-vehicles/ev-charge-network/program-participants/approvedprogram-vendors.page 24 California Air Resources Board. 2019. EV Charging Infrastructure: Nonresidential Building Standards. Accessed at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
08/CARB_Technical_Analysis_EV_Charging_Nonresidential_CALGreen_2019_2020_Intervening_Code.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2021. 25 Property Manager Insider. 2019. How Much do EV Charing Stations Cost? Accessed at https://www.propertymanagerinsider.com/howmuch-do-ev-charging-stations-cost/. Accessed June 10, 2021. 26 MIT Trancik Lab. Carbon Counter. Accessed at https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore?cars=35870;35756;36427. Accessed June 1, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
821
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 24
Strategy T-2: Improve shared mobility programs and transit service City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Bike share costs
• Ordinance development costs
City Cost Discussion
Many of the costs associated with implementation for this strategy involve partnership development to expand and improve City transit systems and outreach and education to promote innovative new programs. While building new transit infrastructure and running more buses and more routes can be expensive, this is largely outside the City’s responsibility. The City will need staff time to work with LAVTA, ACE, and others to promote the expansion of transit within the City.
Developing a bike share program is estimated to cost as much as $4,000 per bicycle, which covers the cost of docking stations and kiosks.27 However, many mobility as service options are available that could provide these options at no cost to the city such as scooters and electric mopeds. Staff time needs may be better managed with the onboarding of a full-time Climate Action Program Manager to manage the implementation of these projects, programs and ordinances, shared ride services ordinance, and more.
Variable costs include staff time dedicated to TDM implementation, work with partners, and consultant and/or staff time required for surveys and ordinance development.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Transit Passes
• TDM Compliance
Community Cost Discussion
Variable costs to the community lie largely in new requirements resulting from future ordinances that consider a shift away from single-occupancy vehicles, such as parking reductions or minimums, bike parking requirements, parking pricing, and more. No specific community costs were identified as part of this strategy and is therefore considered no to low cost.
Strategy T-3: Improve and expand active transportation infrastructure City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Planning and consultant costs
• Construction costs
27 Beitsch, Rebecca. 2016. PEW Trusts. Despite Popularity, Bike Share Programs Often Need Subsidies. Accessed at https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2016/03/24/despite-popularity-bike-share-programs-often-needsubsidies. Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
822
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 25
• Ongoing maintenance costs
City Cost Discussion
Costs associated with T-3 include staff time dedicated towards the implementation of the City’s Active Transportation Plan, which may include the development of bike lanes, bike boulevards, separate and mixed-use paths, and separated bikeways, the latter of which could cost between a range of $1.5M-$3M per mile. On the other hand, designated bike lanes and bike boulevards may cost as low as $10,000 per mile.
28 The Active Transportation Plan identifies capital and maintenance cost per unit and per project.
Additionally, the Active Transportation Plan identifies implementation strategies to construct bicycle and pedestrian improvements as part of private development and public capital improvements such as the resurfacing or streets.
In addition, costs may include staff time dedicated towards partnership development, outreach and education, workshops, and community events. Variable costs depend largely on the type of infrastructure the City believes is best suited to address the needs of its local community, while best enabling diversion from passenger vehicles within the greater context of lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Community Cost
Community Cost Variables
• Costs associated with funding mechanism, e.g., sales tax or parcel tax Community Cost Discussion
Additional community costs may include potential funding mechanisms for this infrastructure, such as a parcel tax, sales tax, and more. However, substantial cost savings opportunities exist within diverting drivers from the road to improve health and quality of life. Furthermore, the institution of car-free days downtown can enable more active transportation, and more pedestrian friendly events, like farmers markets.
Strategy T-4: Support sustainable land use practices
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff and consultant time required to develop and pass an ordinance • Required outreach and education
• Staff time to update City planning and zoning documents • Staff time to review and approve infill development applications City Cost Discussion
The cost of this measure would require additional staff time by expanding opportunities for infill development within City planning and zoning documents. In addition, various CEQA exemptions and 28 Melanie Curry. Streets Blog 2019. Breaking Down CalTrans’ Cost Estimate of the Complete Streets Bill. Accessed at https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/08/30/breaking-down-caltrans-cost-estimate-of-the-complete-streetsbill/#:~:text=On%2Dstreet%20bike%20lanes%2C%20buffered,use%20paths%3A%20%241M%2Fmile. Accessed June 1, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
823
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 26
streamlining provisions have been provided for infill projects located near transit, including SB 375 and SB 743. These exemptions would reduce staff time required to conduct the necessary operations for this measure. Additional actions would be accomplished through rezoning and the general plan update which is currently underway.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Infill development costs compared to green field development Community Cost Discussion
With the costs of this strategy being fully absorbed by the City, no direct costs incurred by the community were identified. However, indirect costs should be considered as infill development to support sustainable land use practices, compared to green field development, could increase development costs and overall building costs.
Waste and Materials
Strategy W-1: Reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Staff time to develop ordinance
• Staff time for outreach and education
• Development of High Diversion Plan
City Cost Discussion
Implementation and compliance with SB 1383 are required by state law. Municipal costs to implement this strategy are dependent on rate increases, current and future infrastructure requirements, and potential need for the onboarding of new staff to manage and implement programs, including coordination with partners like StopWaste and waste haulers. Variables within the cost of implementation include staff time required to update waste hauler contracts, estimate capacity planning for organic food waste and edible food recovery, conduct outreach and education, and more.
In addition, the integration of waste management practices to enable better composting programs for the City may result in savings, while improving the health and resiliency of local soils.
To effectively reduce the amount of waste that is landfilled, it is critical to understand what feasible opportunities exist for waste diversion with more granular waste data. The development of a High Diversion Plan can help inform this strategy, which, including the cost of staff time set aside to draft the RFP and implement the Plan, is estimated to cost approximately $100,000.29,30 Additional costs include 29 City of Los Banos. 2020. RFP for Residential and Commercial Garbage, Recyclable Material and Organic Waste Collection Services. Accessed at https://sjc.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=3&clip_id=1524&meta_id=87614. Accessed June 10, 2021. 30 City of San Juan Capistrano. 2017. RFP for Sustainable Waste Diversion Projects. Accessed at http://www.losbanos.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/03/Los-Banos-Solid-Waste-RFP-Package-Final.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
824
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 27
staff time dedicated to outreach and education, as well as $10,00031 for the development of a compostable food ware ordinance, which would create an upstream, systemic change in how waste is processed in the City. Variables within these costs include staff or consultant time dedicated to developing a High Diversion Plan, staff time dedicated to plan implementation and education, and additional time allocated towards the passing of the food ware ordinance.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Cost to implement composting at home
• Cost to businesses to implement composting
• Increased cost of food items served in reusable/compostable food ware • Cost to businesses to implement waste diversion techniques Community Cost Discussion
To satisfy the requirement of SB 1383, CalRecycle estimates the cost to the community to be $17 per household per year after full implementation, and $662 annually for small businesses.32 However, the costs for individuals will vary significantly, as the cost is dependent on the amount of waste that is currently disposed and the ability of the business to reduce the amount of organic disposal.
As for the community, costs incurred are relatively low while providing great benefit to the City’s emissions reduction. Ordinances are known to be an effective means to influence consumer behavior.
For example, after the passing of the 2013 Alameda County Reusable Bag Ordinance, which charged $0.10/bag, bag purchases by affected retail stores declined 85%.33 For businesses, costs include the marginal cost of providing compostable food ware compared to the cost of food ware already in practice. In Alameda County, the Rethink Disposable program, in partnership with StopWaste, demonstrated that several businesses that voluntarily minimized single-use food ware saw net cost savings of $1,000-$22,000 per year.34 Developers may see additional operating costs associated with the separation of waste for proper reuse and recycling for better rates of waste diversion and consumers may see variable cost increases to food items as a result of these food items being provided in new compostable food ware.
31 Estimated cost for staff/consultants to complete ordinance 32 CalRecycle. 2016. Proposed Regulation for Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Methane Emissions. Accessed at https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Major_Regulations/Major_Regulations_Table/documents/Final_Sria_11- 16%20.pdf#search=%22SB%201383%20Economic%20Analysis%22. Accessed June 1, 2021. 33 City of Berkeley Zero Waste Department. 2020. Passing a Single-Use Food ware and Litter Reduction Ordinance in Berkeley, CA. Accessed at https://zwconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/nrc-nzwc_detournay_c.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021. 34 City of Berkeley. 2018. Single Use Disposable Food ware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Accessed at https://ecologycenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/11/Disposable-Free-Dining-Ordinance.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
825
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 28
Strategy W-2: Expand use of low-carbon and recycled building materials City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time for outreach and education
• Staff time for development of carbon performance standards and material-efficient building practices
City Cost Discussion
Costs to expand the use of low-carbon and recycled building materials may include staff time to raise awareness for low-carbon and recycled building materials, and staff time required to develop standards for new construction that limit embodied carbon emissions. Working with local, regional, and state partners to raise awareness around the availability and cost-effectiveness of low-carbon and recycled building materials will ensure that best practices and the most up-to-date information is incorporated in communitywide efforts to reduce embodied carbon emissions in construction.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Potential for increased cost of building material
Community Cost Discussion
With the expansion of low-carbon and recycled building material, there is potential for increased building costs due to higher material costs. More and more studies are finding, however, that embodied carbon reductions in new construction result in little to no cost premiums. Optimizing concrete mix, using high recycled content rebar, and selecting low- or no-embodied-carbon insulation products are shown to reduce embodied carbon significantly at little to no cost premiums. 35 In instances where embodied carbon performance standards and material-efficient building practices implemented by the City do increase costs, exemptions for cost barriers will be included as needed to prevent these changes from directly increasing housing or rent costs.
35 https://rmi.org/insight/reducing-embodied-carbon-in-buildings.
EXHIBIT B
826
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 29
Carbon Sequestration
Strategy S-1: Maximize local carbon sequestration
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• New trees
• Operating and maintenance cost of trees
• Carbon farming study and pilot project
• Green scaping ordinance
City Cost Discussion
Costs to maximize local carbon sequestration may include staff and/or consultant time dedicated towards the development and implementation of an Urban Forest Revitalization Program, the preservation of open spaces, the development of a carbon farming study and pilot project, and the adoption of a green scaping ordinance. Unbeknownst to many, trees are one of the few assets of a city than increase in value over time. Investment in a healthy urban forest can provide greater returns on investment for the City and its citizens. Over the lifetime of the project, costs to fully implement an urban canopy program for a large city like San Francisco costs as much as $2.4M towards the purchase of vegetation and $3.2M towards operating and maintenance.36 However, smaller programs are likely to be significantly less. In addition to the benefits of carbon sequestration, an urban canopy would provide co-benefits in cooling urban areas and providing healthier, more equitable, and higher quality air.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• Cost of trees
• Cost of water/maintenance of trees
Community Cost Description
Community costs associated with local carbon sequestration focus on new construction, which may expect increased development costs associated with including more urban trees, shading, and permeable surfaces in proposed projects for the benefit of the overall community. Community members may also choose to plant their own trees. The cost of a new tree varies by species and size but could be anywhere from $25 to $200. Watering and other maintenance is likely to be minimal (a few dollars a summer) while trimming costs may increase in the future once the tree is larger. Co-benefits of carbon sequestration projects to the community include more open spaces, savings on electricity bills if trees help shade your home, more greenery in the surrounding environment, and enhanced climate resiliency against natural disasters, like flooding, urban wildfires, and drought, improving the overall health and well-being of the community.
36 AECOM. 2012. Financing San Francisco’s Urban Forest. Accessed at https://healthyplacesindex.org/wpcontent/uploads/2018/02/san_francisco_cost_benefits_comprehensive_municipal_street_tree_program.pdf. Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
827
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 30
Municipal Strategies
Because municipal strategies are intended to reduce emissions that are a subset of larger community emissions, the municipal strategies provided have been grouped into their own category below in this appendix, rather than integrating municipal strategies with community strategies grouped into low, moderate, or high-cost categories. Each strategy is still assigned a cost category, but this accommodation for municipal strategies is intended to centralize all information required to reduce emissions internally and make it easily accessible to the City.
Strategy M-1: Enhance resilience at public facilities
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Cost of microgrid/battery storage
• Cost of energy efficiency and AQ upgrades selected
• Energy Cost Savings
City Cost Discussion
Municipal costs incurred to enhance energy resiliency at public facilities would include the infrastructure costs associated with new energy generation technologies like solar PV or fuel cells as well as the cost of batteries to store energy. As described in Strategy H-1 and E-4, microgrid costs are significant. The best strategy of the cost of microgrids is the cost per unit capacity ($/MW). In California, the average cost per MW of storage added is $3.5M.37However, these costs can be financed or even completed through public private partnerships. Furthermore, a single microgrid would help meet the goals of several strategies including H-1 and E-4.
Strategy M-2: Electrify municipal facilities and operations City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Types of units electrified
• Number of facilities
City Cost Discussion
Municipal costs incurred to electrify facilities and operations, while increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy, include staff time dedicated towards the installment of a new policy banning natural gas infrastructure, regular energy audits of existing facilities, costs of LED bulbs for streetlight retrofit projects and more. Costs are highly variable depending on the types of units electrified, the number of facilities, and marginal costs between existing infrastructure and appliances selected. However, there exist several opportunities to engage in energy service contracts, which significantly decrease upfront 37 Asmus, Peter, Adarm Forni, and Laura Vogel. Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2017. Microgrid Analysis and Case Study Report. California Energy Commission. Accessed at https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-500-2018-022/CEC-500-2018-022.pdf. Accessed June 1, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
828
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 31
costs. Overall, the return on investment from this strategy will result in significant long-term savings over the lifecycle of the project as result of lower operating and maintenance costs, while exemplifying leadership in the community. One example are heat pumps, the dominant technology for electric heating and cooling, which are significantly more efficient than their natural gas counterparts, leading to bill savings that typically outweigh any higher upfront costs.38 The expansion of renewable energy will require additional staff time dedicated towards engagement with PGE and staff and/or consultant time dedicated towards battery storage project development.
Strategy M-3: Electrify the City’s vehicle fleet, and encourage City employees to utilize alternative transportation and teleworking opportunities
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Number and type of vehicles electrified
• EV charging infrastructure
• Alternative transportation incentives
City Cost Discussion
Costs to electrify the City’s vehicle fleet include the addition of new EV chargers on municipal grounds and staff time dedicated towards the development of a policy that requires electrification of the City fleet. In addition, costs may include the establishment of bike lockers for public use across the City, such as at City Hall and off-street parking lots for resident use. Cost variability is dependent on the number and type of electrified vehicles selected for deployment, new EV charging infrastructure, and additional savings incurred through the utilization of alternative transportation. The long-term trend of EVs points towards lower upfront costs and higher returns on investment through significantly decreased operating and maintenance costs.39 As in M-1, there exist several opportunities for low energy service contracts, which would further decrease upfront costs of the project.
Strategy M-4: Conserve water in municipal landscaping and improve on-site stormwater management City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Low flow water fixtures
• Low water use landscaping
38 Energy, Environment, Economics (E3). 2019. Residential Building Electrification in California. Accessed at https://www.ethree.com/e3- quantifies-the-consumer-and-emissions-impacts-of-electrifying-california-homes/. Accessed June 1, 2021. 39 Heisel, Rebecca. 2020. Consumer Reports Study Finds Electric Vehicle Maintenance Costs are 50% Less than Gas-Powered Cars. Accessed at https://www.betterenergy.org/blog/consumer-reports-study-finds-electric-vehicle-maintenance-costs-are-50-less-than-gas-powered-cars/.
Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
829
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 32
City Cost Discussion
Municipal costs associated with this strategy are embedded in new staff time allocated towards costs associated with reviewing existing water use and identifying low water use alternatives for fixtures and municipal landscaping. Other costs include fixture costs and landscaping costs associated with the chosen upgrades. However, water savings and increased resiliency benefits should also be included in the decision-making process.
Strategy M-5: Purchase more sustainable products to reduce waste from City operations City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Update Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy
• Marginal cost of new products
City Cost Discussion
Municipal costs associated with the reduction of landfilled waste include staff time, such as the work of the City’s Green Team, to employ an Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy to integrate upstream strategies to reduce waste by the City. By selecting work with vendors who use more environmentally friendly materials, the City maintains a considerable opportunity to lower its operating costs and environmental footprint, decreasing demand for downstream strategies such as waste organization, diversion, and recycling.40 Variable costs depend on program implementation, education and outreach, and the marginal cost of using more environmentally sustainable materials versus a business-as-usual approach. This strategy expects long-term savings associated with reduced operating costs and more durable and reusable materials.
Strategy M-6: Utilize public lands and open spaces to increase local carbon sequestration and reduce urban heat island effect.
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Open space/landscaping maintenance costs
City Cost Discussion
Costs to better utilize public lands and open spaces include staff time dedicated towards the development of a map or database identifying public spaces that can be converted to green spaces, including parking spaces and freeways, and walls and rooftops for gardens. The US EPA notes the use of trees, vegetation, and open spaces can considerably lower urban heat island effects, deflecting radiation 40 Little, Shelley. 2021. 10 Reasons You Should Use Sustainable Building Materials. Accessed at https://www.mymove.com/homerenovation/guides/reasons-you-should-use-sustainable-building-materials/. Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
830
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 33
from the sun, and releasing moisture into the atmosphere.41 Where applicable, the City may also consider evaluating landscaping plans to improve the utilization of native species. The USDA encourages use of native species to strengthen wildlife populations, boost conservation benefits, and improve the value of ecosystem services.42 Variable costs include the number and type of flora selected, planting time, and ongoing operating and maintenance costs of the green spaces.
Implementation Strategies
Important to meeting the objectives of Livermore’s CAP is how the strategies and actions will be implemented in the community and how success or hurdles are monitored and discussed over time.
Dedicating City resources to climate efforts, tracking implementation progress, considering climate change in all City plans and processes, and communicating important initiatives to residents and business will be key to the successful implementation of the CAP. This section includes strategies for ensuring successful implementation of all the strategies and actions listed in the CAP.
Strategy I-1: Make climate impacts and resilience a standard consideration during planning and development processes
City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
City Cost Discussion
Municipal costs associated with this strategy are embedded in new staff time allocated towards climate planning considerations for future construction projects as well as the integration of climate considerations into City plans. The opportunity for integration of adaptation planning with other City plans includes the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, General Plan, Active Transportation Plan, Green Infrastructure Plan, Emergency Response Plan, and zoning land use codes are additional variables to project costs. Additional costs may include outreach and education to the community on local and regional climate impacts.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• N/A
41 United States Environmental Protection Agency. Reduce Urban Heat Island Effect. Accessed at https://www.epa.gov/greeninfrastructure/reduce-urban-heat-islandeffect#:~:text=Trees%2C%20green%20roofs%2C%20and%20vegetation,releasing%20moisture%20into%20the%20atmosphere.. Accessed June 10, 2021.
42 Taylo, Ciji. United States Department of Agriculture. Accessed at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/home/?cid=STELPRDB1166100. Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
831
City of Livermore Climate Action Plan Update
Appendix C - Cost Technical Appendix
Livermore Climate Action Plan Update 34
Community Cost Discussion
There are little to no community costs associated with this strategy. Costs may include additional operating expenditures associated with including climate consideration into future construction projects, but the community will largely receive a net benefit in value as a result of being part of a more resilient, socially equitable community.
Strategy I-2: Dedicate City resources to CAP implementation and consistently monitor progress City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
City Cost Discussion
The internal cost of implementing this strategy would be optimally accounted for by creating a Climate Action Program Manager position for an estimated annual cost of approximately $150,000. This could be achieved by creating a new position or redesignating an existing staff position. Costs include staff time dedicated to regular progress reports on CAP strategy updates and work with stakeholders to implement the Climate Action Plan actions. Variability within this internal cost depends on staff time allocated to the project, and the cost of onboarding new staff.
Community Costs
Community Cost Variables
• N/A
Community Cost Discussion
Given that the focus of this strategy is to provide transparency on CAP progress to the community, there are relatively few community costs. In fact, the City would benefit from employing a more open and transparent approach to the reporting of their CAP data, enabling better engagement with the community.
Strategy I-3: Create a public outreach campaign to educate the community about CAP initiatives City Costs
City Cost Variables
• Staff time
• Outreach Platform
City Cost Discussion
Internal costs implementing I-3 are strongly dependent on the outreach platform selected, which range from $100-$10,000 annually depending on the City’s needs for basic outreach software or complete software with insights provided.43 The City should seek to dedicate staff time towards developing a suite 43 Capterra. 2020. Marketing Automation Software Pricing Guide and Comparison. Accessed at https://www.capterra.com/marketingautomation-software/pricing-guide/. Accessed June 10, 2021.
EXHIBIT B
832
Livermore Climate Action Measures Capital Types Top Funding and Finance Pathways Programs and Partners Case Examples
CAEATFA - REEL
BUILDINGS
Measure B-2
Affordable Electrification
and Efficiency Retrofits
GRANT Federal and State Grants CA WAP
PARTNER Utility-Led Incentives PG&E Rebate Program CA CPUC On-Bill Financing (Tariff) PG&E, East Bay Community
Energy Kansas City, MO - P&L
Green Bank or Revolving Loan Fund Coalition For Green Capital CT Green Bank Federal or State Loan Program
PACE or C-PACE Financing PACENation Greenville, MI -
Cambridge Court Apts
LIHEAP or Spectrum Community
Services
GoGreen Financing
Federal Loan Guarantee DOE Loan Program Project Portfolio HomeStyle Energy Mortgage Fannie Mae Portland, OR
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
LOAN
Explore Electrifying existing buildings
to reduce natural gas consumption
10% by 2030 and 61% by 2045
GRANT State Grant via CA Strategic Growth Council 2019 Awardees Affordable Housing + Sustainable Communities (AHSC)
GRANT State Grant via CA Energy Commission N/A: New Program Building Initiative for LowEmissions Development (BUILD)