Boulder County Consortium of CitiesBoulder County Consortium of CitiesEnergy Strategy Energy Strategy Task ForceTask ForceSustainable Energy PlanSustainable Energy Plan January 2008

Local Impacts of Climate ChangeEarlier snowmeltLonger droughtsIncreased flood riskMore intense forest firesLarge-scale beetle kill

Loss of alpine meadowsLoss of native speciesVisual impactEconomic impact on tourism, ski

industries

Boulder Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Profile, 1990-2012

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

GH

G E

mis

sio

ns

(t C

O2e

)

Boulder Longmont Louisville Lafayette Lyons Nederland Superior Unincorporated/Other

Boulder County GHG Goal

2012 trajectory is expected to be 85% above the Kyoto Protocol Target (7% below 1990 levels by 2012)

Boulder County’s Emissions by Municipality

33%

21%

11%

6%

1%

0%

3%

25%

Boulder

Longmont

Louisville

Lafayette

Lyons

Nederland

Superior

Unincorporated/Other

Energy Strategy Task Force (ESTF)

Formed by the Consortium of Cities in April 2006To:

Provide a clearinghouse for information and education Create collaborative approaches among the communities of

Boulder County and Broomfield• Including businesses, non-profit organizations, and residents

Provide a framework for local and regional action

Sustainable Energy Plan (SEP) PRESENTATION OVERVIEW

Plan Development and Review Where we’ve been and where we’re headedPlan overview

Project AnalysisObjectivesPrioritizationExamples

Key StrategiesCriteriaDiscussion

6

SEP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Plan DevelopmentFour presentations to ESTFTwo presentations to Consortium of CitiesOne presentation on policy initiatives

Proposed Plan Review ProcessReview and comment by each council and board in the countyFinalize and release (spring 2008)

7

SEP PLAN OVERVIEW

Impacts and solutionsESTFGHG InventoryRecommended Strategies

Key StrategiesClimateSmart at HomeClimateSmart at WorkClimateSmart on the RoadClimateSmart PowerRevenue Generation

8

SEP PLAN OVERVIEW

9

35 recommended strategies 30 quantified – 5 planning, education, and revenue generating

20 “Key Strategies” Recommended for “first tier” adoption Reduce our impact on global climate changeResult in significant cost savings

SEP PLAN OVERVIEW

10

Emissions reductions 1.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (mmtce)

in 2012; 3.6 mmtce in 2020 2012: Achieves 46% of Kyoto Target* 2020: Exceeds Kyoto Target by 11% in 2020

Annual cost savings $445 million dollars (in 2020)Nine year payback for all 20 “first tier” actions5 years for all “first tier” actions except vehicle-to-grid

2020 reductions exceeds Governor Ritter’s goal by 2x

*The Kyoto Protocol, ratified by all developed countries except the U.S. and Japan, calls for a 7% reduction below 1990 levels by the year 2012.

SEP ANALYSIS OBJECTIVES

Overarching Objectives of this work• Develop a basis by which to prioritize competing strategies• Estimate county and municipal government budgets needed

to implement• Estimate contribution of options toward meeting carbon

reduction goal

11

SEP ANALYSIS APPROACH

Prioritize competing mitigation program strategies• Average Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) methodology

– Calculate Annualized Investment CostAIC = (CAPEX * D) / (1 + (1 + D) ^ (-N)

where CAPEX = total installed costsD = discount rateN = number of years

– Calculate Average Abatement CostAAC = (AIC + COC) / CO2

where COC = change in operating costsCO2 = annual avg CO2

abatement

12

SEP ANALYSIS BIOFUELS

Market PenetrationFuel Source 2012 2020Corn Starch Ethanol 10% 8%Cellulosic Ethanol

Biomass Fractionation 3% 12%Biomass-to-Liquids 7% 20%

BiodieselTranseterification 10% 16%

Biomass-to-Liquids 7% 20%

• Market Penetration Assumptions

SEP ANALYSIS BIOFUELS

• CO2 Reduction Assumptions

CO2 ReductionsFuel Source (per gallon relative to petrol)Corn Starch EthanolCellulosic Ethanol

Biomass FractionationBiomass-to-Liquids

BiodieselTranseterification

Biomass-to-Liquids 85%

30%

75%85%

40%

SEP ANALYSIS BIOFUELS

• Cost Assumptions– Average mpg degraded 20% by substitution of ethanol and

5% by substitution of biodiesel– Cost to motorist, per mile driven, is unchanged– 90 biofuels retail dispensaries installed in County at avg

cost of $60,000 each• Results MAC = $3/mtCO2

15

SEP ANALYSIS INDUSTRIAL COMBINED HEAT & POWER

• Market Penetration Assumptions– Reciprocating engine market penetration is 45% in 2020– Microturbine market penetration is 25% in 2020– Fuel cell market penetration is 7.5% in 2020– Rated fuel-to-electricity efficiency of engines is 39%– Rated fuel-to-electricity efficiency of microturbines is 30%– Rated fuel-to-electricity efficiency of fuel cells is 47%

16

SEP ANALYSIS INDUSTRIAL COMBINED HEAT & POWER

• C02 and Cost Assumptions– Reciprocating engine CAPEX = $1,661/kW– Microturbine CAPEX = $2,842/kW– Fuel cell CAPEX = $6,690/kW– BAU case is purchasing grid electricity and pipeline nat gas– Grid electricity has carbon factor of 0.92 mtCO2/MWh in

2008, 0.85 in 2012, 0.73 in 2020 due to RPS– Program case is CHP fueled by natural gas

• Results AAC = ($35)/mtCO2

17

SEP ANALYSIS RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD

• Market Penetration and CO2 Assumptions– Grid electricity is 8% RE in 2012 and 20% in 2020

• Residential PV market penetration is 7% in 2012 and 21% in 2020• Commercial PV market penetration is 4% in 2012 and 12% in 2020• Wind market penetration is 4% in 2012 and 12% in 2020• Biomass market penetration is 2.5% in 2012 and 5% in 2020

– Grid electricity has carbon factor of 0.92 mtCO2/MWh in 2008, 0.85 in 2012, 0.73 in 2020 due to RPS

18

SEP ANALYSISRENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD

• Cost Assumptions– PV CAPEX = $2,400/kW after Xcel rebate & tax credit– Wind CAPEX = $1,900/kW– Biomass CAPEX = $3,500/kW– Xcel rebates to Boulder County projects = $140 Million – Xcel pays $0.10/kWh (energy + RECs) for wind and biomass– Net metering for PV ($0.10/kWh resid $0.08 comm)– Wind gets $0.019/kWh Production Tax Credit– Biomass gets $0.009/kWh Production Tax Credit

• Results AAC = $17/mtCO2

19

SEP ANALYSIS Results

SEP KEY STRATEGIES

CriteriaEmissions reductions potentialCost effectivenessEquitable distribution across the main GHG sectorsSocial equity – distribution of cost and benefitsPersistence

Strategies includeVoluntary and support actions – public education/awarenessStatewide actionLocal regulatory programs

21

SEP KEY STRATEGIES

ClimateSmart at Home (Residential) Offer high efficiency light bulb discounts

Conduct neighborhood energy awareness sweeps

Develop residential green building codes and ordinances for new and existing buildings

Implement the Residential Energy Audit Program (REAP)

ClimateSmart at Work (Commercial and Industrial) Implement Partners for A Clean Environment (PACE) Energy Performance Project

Develop commercial green building codes and ordinances for new and existing buildings

Promote industrial combined heat and power technologies

Participate in the Western States Climate Initiative

ClimateSmart at Work (Local Government)Require the automatic shut-off of idling vehicles

Install LED traffic signals

Ensure new and existing public buildings are leaders in energy efficiency

22

SEP KEY STRATEGIES

ClimateSmart on the Road (Transportation)Promote sustainable biofuels

Promote vehicle-to-grid power generation

Adopt statewide Clean Car Standard

Adopt statewide Clean Car Incentives

ClimateSmart PowerIncrease utility demand and renewable power incentives

Maximize the use of rebate incentives

Offer “climate offsets credits” and use revenue to support community renewable energy

Revenue StreamsCreate energy budgets and rate structures

Develop a sustainable energy financing district

Create a revolving loan fund

23

SEP Review PROCESS

Present for review and support to each council/commission and the Consortium of Cities

Incorporate final comments

Develop implementation schedule and assign lead agency

Release to public by spring 2008 (in time for 2009 budget process)

24

SEPDiscussion

KEY STRATEGIESAre these the right strategies?

Is this the right mix of actions across sectors?Are the emission reductions and costs appropriate?

ImplementationHow can we best work together to ramp-up program implementation in 2009?

Lead Local GovernmentShould each local government take a lead role in implementing selected strategies?

25

THANK YOU

Pam Milmoe, Air/Waste CoordinatorBoulder County Public Health303-441-1189pmilmoe@BoulderCounty.org

Ann Livingston, Sustainability CoordinatorBoulder County303-441-3517alivingston@BoulderCounty.org

www.BeClimateSmart.com