Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04/09/2013 - Energy and Environment Advisory Commission
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION Tuesday, April 9, 2013, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers Agenda I. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 7:00 p.m. II. Adopt Agenda 7:02 p.m. III. Approval of Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 12, 2013 7:08 p.m. IV. Visitors to be Heard 7:15 p.m. V. Presentation 7:20 p.m. A. Presentation by Rick Carter of the Urban Land Institute’s - Regional Indicator Initiative Project VI. Committee Reports & Discussion 8:05 p.m. A. Water Conservation B. Solar C. Low Maintenance Landscaping VII. Committee Updates 8:50 p.m. A. PACE/Funding for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency B. Communications Committee C. Waste Haulers Rate Reporting – Licensed Haulers Submittals VIII. Staff Reports 9:00 p.m. A. Coal Tar Sealant – Juli’s message from City Attorney B. Correspondence Updates 1. Southwest Metro Groundwater Group – Memo from Russ Matthys 2. Going Green Carnival – Email Correspondence IX. Old Business 9:10 p.m. X. New Business 9:12 p.m. XI. Roundtable 9:14 p.m. XII. Adjournment 9:20 p.m. The City of Eagan is committed to the policy that all persons have equal access to its programs, services, activities, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or status with regard to public assistance. Auxiliary aids for disabled persons wishing to participate are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance of the event. If a notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City will attempt to provide the aids. NEXT REGULAR ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2013 7:00 P.M. (WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL PRIOR TO MEETING 5:30 P.M.) TO: THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION (EEAC) FROM: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: APRIL 11, 2013 SUBJECT: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 9, 2013 A meeting of the Energy and Environment Advisory Commission (EEAC) will take place on Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. To ensure that a quorum is present, please contact Juli Seydell Johnson at 651-675-5006 or jsjohnson@cityofeagan.com if you are unable to attend this meeting. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL II. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA The agenda, as presented or modified, is in order for adoption by the Commission. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Pages 3-6 The minutes of the February 12, 2013 EEAC meeting, these minutes, pending any modifications, are in order for adoption by the Commission. IV. VISITORS TO BE HEARD The Eagan City Council and its Commissions set aside up to ten minutes at the beginning of public meetings to permit visitors to address items of interest that are not addressed on the regular agenda. Items that will take more than ten minutes or that require specific action can be scheduled for a future meeting agenda. V. PRESENTATION – Report Pages 7- 38 & Statistics Pages 39-61 Presentation by Rick Carter of the Urban Land Institute he will be discussing the Regional Indicators Initiative Project. This is a collaborative project managed by LHB and ULI Minnesota that involves approximately 20 Minnesota cities committed to increasing their overall energy and economic efficiency and levels of sustainability. VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS & DISCUSSION A. Water Conservation (Amir, Ross) Pages 62-79 – Subcommittee Report and Discussion. B. Solar (Amir, Jon, Mike) Pages 80-89 – Subcommittee Report and Discussion C. Low Maintenance Landscaping (Amir, Jon, Mike) Pages 90-108 – Subcommittee Report and Discussion. VII. COMMITTEE UPDATES A. PACE Funding for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (Amir, Ross, Tim) – Subcommittee Updates. B. Communications (Kari, Jon, Tim) – Subcommittee Updates. C. Waste Hauler Rate Reporting Pages 109-117 – Waste hauler submittals from the City Clerk’s office for the Commission as requested. VIII. STAFF REPORTS - Director Johnson to give verbal updates on items Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 1 A. Coal Tar Sealant – Brief discussion on a communication from the City Attorney regarding the coal tar sealant ordinance. B. Correspondence Updates Pages 118-120 1. Southwest Metro Groundwater Group – A brief memo from Russ Matthys, Director of Public Works containing information on the meeting with the Southwest Metro Groundwater Group. 2. Going Green Carnival – Discuss with Commission if they would like to have a booth at this Market Fest event that will be held on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 from 4:00 – 8:00 p.m. IX. OLD BUSINESS There are no old business items to be discussed at this time. X. NEW BUSINESS There are no new business items to be discussed at this time. XI. ROUNDTABLE The Roundtable is scheduled as an opportunity for Commissioners to ask questions, make requests for future agenda items, or provide informative updates to the Commission pertaining to energy and environment initiatives. XII. ADJOURNMENT /s/Juli Seydell Johnson Director of Parks and Recreation Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 2 Subject to Approval EAGAN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, February 12, 2013 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2013 A regular meeting of the Eagan Energy and Environment Advisory Commission was held on Tuesday February 12, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Those present were Amir Nadav, Jeff LeClair, Kari Palmer, Jon Drucker, Tim Harder, Michael Wisniewski and Ross Bintner. Staff present was Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation, Cherryl Mesko, Superintendent of Operations, and Amy Grannes, Office Supervisor. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director Johnson stated there are no changes to the agenda other than the joint meeting with the APrC originally scheduled for tonight has been rescheduled for Thursday March 14. Member Palmer moved to approve the agenda as presented, Member Nadav seconded with all present members voting in favor. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2012 Member Nadav recommended the following changes: On page 3 under subcommittee updates last paragraph add sentence noting that “commission members requested to review the submittals and provide suggestions for updates to the reporting quorum”. On page 5 the second paragraph on the third sentence stated “Member Nadav” will provide the updated purpose statement replaced with “Member Bintner”. On page 5 under presentations fourth paragraph second sentence states an irrigation plan that Rogers Minnesota does, strike “an irrigation plan” and substitute with “a water conservation initiative”. On page 5 fourth paragraph strike the third sentence and replace with “Director Matthys stated the resident survey results expressed support for adding rain sensors”. Member Drucker recommended one change: On page 5 under coal tar sealants subcommittee names remove his name from the subcommittee list. Member Harder moved Member Palmer seconded with all present members voting in favor to approve the December 11, 2012 minutes as amended. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard. COMMITTEE REPORTS Water Conservation (Amir, Ross) – Member Bintner gave an overview of the water conservation report and proposal. The water conservation subcommittee proposes the Energy and Environment Advisory Commission recommend the following items to the City Council for consideration: Adopt a city-wide goal of reducing average per capita daily water use 10% by 2020 and 20% by 2025 below a baseline of average per capita daily water use from 2005 - 2010. Register the City in the free and voluntary WaterSense partnership program and appoint water utility to administer program implementation. Authorize water utility capital budget funds for water conservation education, training, efficiency and conservation upgrades to city facilities, and for rebates, or financing, for rain sensors, rainwater capture and use, and WaterSense certified appliances and devices installed on private property. Direct the Eagan water utility, with input from the Energy & Environment Advisory Commission, to develop and implement a water conservation plan to achieve or exceed the city’s water reduction goal. Member LeClair questioned our goal for water conservation is it progressive or how does it compare to what other cities are doing. Member Bitner stated that there is reference Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 3 Energy and Environment Commission February 12, 2013 Page 2 material in the packet that lists water saving examples from other cities. Member Nadav made a comment regarding the WaterSense program. He stated that thru their research they found there are quite a few Minnesota cities currently participating in this program such as Farmington, Oakdale, Roseville, and Eden Prairie. Director Johnson stated that Russ Matthys, Director of Public Works, and Jon Eaton, Superintendent of Utilities, were unable to make this meeting but would like to meet with the water conservation subcommittee to discuss this report. Director Johnson stated this meeting would need to occur before the Commission can make the recommendation to the City Council. Director Johnson stated that the next available time to present this to the City Council would be at a workshop scheduled on June11th. After further discussion by Commission members agreed to schedule a meeting with Russ Matthys and Jon Eaton with Public Works to discuss the water conservation report and proposal. PACE Funding for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (Ross, Amir, Tim) – Member Nadav discussed a meeting that was held with the St. Paul Port Authority. He stated that the St. Paul Port Authority has many years of experience with the PACE Program and could serve as a possible partner with the City of Eagan. Member Nadav stated the next step in the process would be to come up with a joint powers agreement that would give perimeters of how the program would work. Member Nadav provided a sample resolution that could be used as a template. Member Nadav also briefly discussed the original PACE subcommittee report and reviewed the goals and steps needed to occur to launch this program. Director Johnson stated that there are still some conversations that need to occur that will further explore potential partnerships with this program. Director Johnson stated the role of the EEAC would be more in as an outreach and communication liaison for local businesses. After further discussion by the Commission members the discussion ended with more details to follow after review by City Staff. Communications (Kari, Jon, Tim) – Member Drucker gave an overview regarding what was discussed at the subcommittee meeting in January. Member Drucker stated they discussed what communication platforms would be available for the Commission to use such as Facebook, City website, newsletters, and the Marquee. Member Drucker stated they will be working the subcommittee and the Commission to come up with current communication topics on a monthly basis. Material will need to be provided to City staff for posting. Member Drucker inquired about current viewership of the EEAC meetings and webpage. Director Johnson stated we did not have a way of measuring cable viewing but we can provide numbers from the website view and Facebook views. Commission recommended moving the City of Eagan Green Steps City information to a more visible area on the website. Staff responded that the website is currently in transition and soon we will be able to look at some web page improvements. Superintendent Mesko gave an update of the sustainability presentations the will be occurring for the Home and Leisure Show on March 15-16. The Commission had previously asked to participate in this event. Superintendent Mesko stated there will be many topics the Commission could be involved in such as LED lighting, recycling, composting, green cleaner demos, and water conservation. Superintendent Mesko asked the Commission what role they would like to play during the Friday portion of the event from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Member Bintner volunteered to attend, Member Palmer express interest in attending and stated she would like to focus on water conservation. An email communication will be sent out to all Commission members to confirm attendees, time availability, and discussion topics. Director Johnson gave verbal update on rate schedules from our licensed waste haulers. Our City Clerk has collected all but one report from our licensed haulers. Once all reports have been collected the information will be published on the City’s website. Member LeClair requested to see all the reports once they are available. Member Palmer questioned if these reports contained the total fees and any extra fees. Director Johnson responded and stated that they may be somewhat limited by the language in the ordinance on what we can require. Director Johnson will follow-up with the City Clerk for verification. After further discussion from the Commission they recommended once Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 4 Energy and Environment Commission February 12, 2013 Page 3 rates are posted on the website we should be clear what is included and what is not included in rate schedules. City Ordinances Related to Renewable Energy (Amir, Jon, Mike) – Director Johnson gave a verbal update on all items listed. Low Maintenance Landscape is still with the City Attorney they should be complete shortly, an email communication will be provided once available. Coal Tar Sealants are with the City Attorney’s office an update will be provided once available. Solar – we received technical assistance from the Minnesota Solar Project to look at ordinances and how they would relate to solar installation. The Community Development Department has received a memo which is currently being reviewed, more information to follow. Director Johnson stated the Active Living/Complete Streets workshop with the Advisory Parks Commission and the Energy and Environment Commission originally scheduled for tonight has been postponed until March 14th at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. STAFF REPORTS Director Johnson gave verbal updates on the following information included in the Commission packets. City Council workshop will be on June 11th for the Energy and Environment to present all recommendations and progress reports related to the 2012/2103 goals. Commission Applications are now available on the City’s website. Commission appointments for members LeClair, Palmer, and Bintner expire in April. All are eligible to reapply for appointment. GreenSteps online survey was completed recently by Director Johnson the goal is to gather feedback concerning future program design. Staff will continue to monitor changes to the program. City staff representatives will be meeting with staff members from Burnsville and Apple Valley along with Dakota County Recycling representatives to discuss how best to address changes to the State Regulations regarding disposal of solid waste. A link to an article by the Star and Tribune that outlines the issue was included in the packet materials. Director Johnson stated there were some other correspondence items that were in the packet just for information for Commission members. Member Nadav stated he was excited to hear about the partnership with the Lakeville Resource Center. Member Nadav inquired if part of the Going Green Carnival at Market Fest on June 19th would involve volunteers staffing the composting area. Director Johnson indicated that this will be discussed with the event coordinator as a possible option. Member Nadav then brief spoke about the Weatherization Plus Program he recommended information be added to the City website informing residents of this program. Director Johnson will check with Community Development staff on this request. Member Bintner gave a brief comment regarding the fleet reports from Eden Prairie. Member Bintner recommended to the Commission to that fleet/fuel efficiency and B3 benchmarking should be added to the new work plan for the Commission for 2013/2014. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to be discussed at this time. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to be discussed at this time. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 5 Energy and Environment Commission February 12, 2013 Page 4 ROUNDTABLE Member Drucker commented on information he heard on Minnesota Public Radio February 6th on cold fusion. A company in northern Minnesota started their own testing and experiments with cold fusion with the goal discovering alternative energy resources. For more information on this company and the projects they are doing for sustainable communities visit hugllc.com. Member Nadav questioned compact fluorescent light recycling available through the City and was this is an ongoing program. Superintendent Mesko responded stated this is an ongoing program available through the Eagan Community Center. Member Nadav recommended more signage and communication flyers informing residents of the program and the specific drop off location. Member Nadav also had a question on a topic mentioned at the previous meeting regarding the Urban Land Indicators and if a report was available. Director Johnson stated this report has not been received yet, once available it will be sent to the Commission. Member Nadav concluded commenting on the Robert Street Transit way alternative study. They are studying alignment for transit from the eastern part of Eagan to downtown St. Paul. This study group is hosting two open houses one on Tuesday February 26th and the other one on Thursday February 28th more information visit robertstreetransit.com. At this time there were no further items discussed during the Roundtable. ADJOURNMENT After further brief discussion, Member Drucker moved, Member Palmer seconded with all members present voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:58 p.m. ____________________________ _______________________________ Date Secretary Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 6 An Inventory of Energy, Potable Water, Travel, Waste, Costs, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Twenty Minnesota Cities from 2008 to 2011 Draft updated 11/19/12 Regional Indicators Initiative Project Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 7 Regional Indicators Initiative Project ii Acknowledgements Completion of this report and the accompanying spreadsheets required the gathering of over 4,200 data points from over 80 different sources to populate the 480 tables and charts contained in over 360 spreadsheets that included over 11,300 calculations. In addition to J. Michael Orange of ORANGE Environmental, LLC, who had primary responsibility for the reports, the following people helped make this possible: Cities: Steve Gatlin and Matt Fulton, Matt Stemwedel, City of Coon Rapids DyAnne Andybur, Joe Miller, Tari Rayala, City of Duluth Juli Seydell Johnson and Cherryl Mesko, City of Eagan Jackie Schwerm, City of Eden Prairie Ross Bintner, City of Edina Bart Fischer, City of Falcon Heights Steve Stadler, City of Hopkins Dean Zuleger, City of Lake Elmo Shann Finwall, City of Maplewood Brendon Slotterback, City of Minneapolis Julie Wischnack and Jeff Thomson, City of Minnetonka Jennifer Hassebroek, City of Oakdale Steve Devich, Pam Dmytrenko, and Robert Hintgen, City of Richfield Phil Wheeler, City of Rochester Anne Hunt and Jim Giebel, City of St. Paul Jessica Schaum, City of Shoreview Mark Casey, Jay Hartman, City of Saint Anthony Kathy Larson, Jim Vaughan City of St. Louis Park Ellen Richter, City of White Bear Lake Jennifer McLoughlin and Dan Hansen, City of Woodbury State and local government: Peter Ciborowski, Sig Scheurle, Chun Yi Wu, and Phil Muessig, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Gene Hicks, Minnesota Department of Transportation Larry Koshire and Chet Welle, Rochester Public Utility Lorilee Blais, Western Lake Superior Sanitation District Tony Hainault, Hennepin County Linda Henning, Mark Filipi, and Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Brian A. Grzanek, Olmsted County Waste to Energy Facility Eric Schlacks and Jerry Pelofske, Duluth Comfort Systems and the Duluth Steam Plant Roy Fuhrmann, Metropolitan Airports Commission Kurt G. Claussen, Rochester International Airport Jim Sharrow, Duluth Port Authority Abby Finis, Minnesota Department of Commerce Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 8 Regional Indicators Initiative Project iii Private Utilities: Jennifer Abbott, R. Scott Getty, Bob Torres, Michelle Swanson, Michael Anderson, Colette Jurek, Xcel Energy Timothy Doherty, Dakota Electric Association Mark Strohfus, Great River Energy William Traylor, Steven Guhanik, Thomas Dolan, Luke Litteken, and Robin Prow, CenterPoint Energy Jason Risdall, Minnesota Power Jeff Larson, Minnesota Energy Resources Timothy Johnston, NRG Energy Tom Keller, Connexus Suzanne Hansen, Macalester College Other: Rick Carter, Elizabeth Turner, Michael Petesch, Becky Alexander, Molly Eagen, LHB Inc. Amy Malick and Alex Ramel, ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability Shane Stennes, Southeast Steam Plant, University of Minnesota Nina Axelson, St. Paul District Energy Dan Voss, Anoka Municipal Utility Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 9 Regional Indicators Initiative Project iv Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................1 1.0. Introduction ......................................................................................................................3 1.1. Description of the Regional Indicators Initiative Project ........................................3 1.2. Pilot Cities and Participating Cities .........................................................................3 1.3. Funding ....................................................................................................................4 1.4. Measuring is Essential and Beneficial .....................................................................4 2.0. The ICLEI Community Protocol .........................................................................................5 2.1. Sources and Activities..............................................................................................6 2.2. Required and Optional Emission Sources and Activities ........................................6 2.2.1. Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities (Required Sources) ................6 2.2.2. Additional Community Emission Sources and Activities (Optional Sources and Activities): ...............................................................................8 2.3. The De Minimis Emission Threshold ......................................................................9 2.4. Shared Sources and the Risk of Double Counting ...................................................9 3.0. Purpose, Definitions, and Data Sources for the Greenhouse Gas Assessment ..................11 3.1. Overall Purpose ......................................................................................................11 3.2. Greenhouse Gas Definitions ..................................................................................11 3.3. Data Sources, Methodologies, and Disclosure ......................................................11 4.0. Spreadsheet Descriptions ...................................................................................................12 4.1. Initiative Summary.................................................................................................12 4.2. Detailed GHG Summary ........................................................................................12 4.3. Costs ....................................................................................................................12 4.4. Sector Shares ..........................................................................................................12 4.5. Energy ....................................................................................................................13 4.6. Electricity ...............................................................................................................13 4.6.1. Definitions: ................................................................................................13 4.6.2. Xcel Energy’s “15/15 Rule” ......................................................................13 4.7. Natural Gas ............................................................................................................14 4.8. Conversion Factors ................................................................................................14 4.8.1. Conversion Factors for Utilities .................................................................14 4.8.2. Conversion Factors for Liquid Fuels .........................................................14 4.8.3. Energy Equivalents of Vehicle Miles Traveled .........................................14 4.8.4. Conversion Factors for the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste ..........15 4.9. Cost Factors ...........................................................................................................15 4.10. Seasonal Cooling and Heating Degree Days .........................................................15 4.11. On-Road Transportation ........................................................................................16 4.12. Vehicle Miles Traveled Charts ..............................................................................16 4.13. Airports ..................................................................................................................16 4.13.1. Community Share of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Emissions ...............................................................................................................16 4.13.2. Duluth and Rochester International Airports .............................................17 4.13.3. Reliever Airports ........................................................................................17 4.14. Waste and Wastewater Treatment .........................................................................18 4.14.1. Emissions and Byproducts from Solid Waste Incineration .......................18 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 10 Regional Indicators Initiative Project v 4.14.2. Emissions and Byproducts from Refuse Derived Fuel Combustion .........19 4.14.3. Emissions from Landfilling, Recycling, ad Composting ...........................19 4.14.4. Wastewater Treatment ...............................................................................20 4.15. Waste Composition ................................................................................................20 4.16. Demographics ........................................................................................................20 4.17. Precipitation and Potable Water .............................................................................20 4.18. Greenhouse Gas Forecasts .....................................................................................20 4.19. Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ............................................................................................21 Table: Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Costs, and Forecasts........................................................22 Attached: Initiative Summary Spreadsheets for Participating Cities Duluth Oakdale Eagan Rochester Eden Prairie Shoreview Edina St. Anthony Falcon Heights St. Louis Park Hopkins St. Paul Minneapolis White Bear Lake Minnetonka Woodbury Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 11 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 1 Executive Summary Description of the Regional Indicators Initiative Project: The Regional Indicators Initiative Project (Initiative), is a collaborative project managed by LHB and ULI Minnesota that involves approximately 20 Minnesota cities committed to increasing their overall energy and economic efficiency and levels of sustainability. The Initiative addresses 2 crucial components of planning for sustainability—carbon baseline assessments and annual indicators. Project outcomes for each city include estimates of the total energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the costs that result from the activities of the people who live, work, learn, travel, visit, and recreate within each city’s geographical boundaries. In addition to the carbon baseline assessment (Assessment) prepared for each participating city, the Initiative correlates metrics with strategies to achieve savings in energy, water, vehicle miles traveled, and waste; and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Initiative also includes a city communication “template” that is currently being developed. Pilot Cities and Participating Cities: The Initiative is an outgrowth of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s GreenSteps Cities Program. To achieve GreenSteps certification, a city must meet minimum requirements designed to improve the city’s sustainability. Cities need to understand if they have “moved the needle” towards sustainability. To date, the following cities are participating in the Initiative: Central/stand-alone cities: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester Inner-ring suburbs: Hopkins, St. Louis Park, St. Anthony, Edina, Falcon Heights Outer-ring suburbs: White Bear Lake, Oakdale, Shoreview, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Woodbury Funding: Funding for the Initiative comes from several sources: grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; pro bono services from LHB, ULI Minnesota, and ORANGE Environmental; and a $2,500 fee paid by each participating city. Measurement is Essential and Beneficial: As described by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book, Reinventing Government (1992), “If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure. If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it. If you can’t see failure, you can’t correct it.” Baseline assessments and indicators are useful. Planners need them, elected officials want them, and the future may see their development as a basic requirement of State and federal funding. Each is a citywide assessment that includes all pertinent and available data for the study years 2008 to 2011. Each Assessment must be transparent and able to be replicated, updated, and compared with other similar baseline assessments. The ICLEI Community Protocol: The GHG Assessment portion of the Initiative has been prepared consistent with the most applicable and current guides available; namely, the U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012 (ICLEI Community Protocol), and the Local Government Operations Protocol, for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Version 1.1, May 2010 (Governmental Operations Protocol). Both of these documents were prepared by ICLEI – Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 12 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 2 Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), a United Nation’s agency with a long and highly respected reputation for the development of such assessment protocols. The ICLEI Community Protocol addresses the important questions of what to measure and how to measure it. It defines what to measure by dividing emission sources and activities into two categories, Required and Optional. To address small sources and allow their exclusion, it sets a minimum size threshold, called de minimis sources and activities. The Protocol also describes methods to avoid double counting emissions for facilities that are shared among multiple communities. Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities (Required Activities): Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the Assessments include data regarding the following sources and activities (Required Activities): Use of purchased electricity Use of fuel in stationary applications Use of on-road motor vehicles Use of energy in the production and distribution of potable water and wastewater treatment Solid waste disposal These Activities are required because 1) cities are the level of government that has the greatest authority and responsibility over the emissions-generating activity; 2) the data needed to estimate emissions are reasonably available; 3) the emissions associated with the Activity tend to be significant in magnitude; and 4) the Activity is important and common across U.S. communities. Greenhouse Gas Terms: The greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are aggregated and reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which is a commonly used unit that combines greenhouse gases of differing impact on the Earth’s climate into one weighted unit. Greenhouse gas emissions are referred to herein as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) or used interchangeably as simply greenhouse gases (GHG). Spreadsheets: The Assessment for each individual city includes 19 or more spreadsheets that disclose the data and data sources, conversion factors, and trend analyses particular to each city. The Table of Contents provides the list of spreadsheets and the body of this report describes each one. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 13 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 3 1.0. Introduction 1.1. Description of the Regional Indicators Initiative Project: The Regional Indicators Initiative Project (Initiative), is a collaborative project managed by LHB and ULI MINNESOTA1 that involves approximately 20 Minnesota cities committed to increasing their overall energy and economic efficiency and levels of sustainability. The Initiative addresses two crucial components of planning for sustainability—carbon baseline assessments and annual indicators. Project outcomes for each city that participates in the Initiative include estimates of the total energy consumption and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that result from the activities of the people who live, work, learn, travel, visit, and recreate within each city’s geographical boundaries. Specifically, the Initiative includes the following indicators for the four study years of 2008 to 2011, many also expressed in terms of per-capita, per-household, and per-job comparisons: Total energy consumed for electricity, natural gas, coal, and major fuel oil users. Total vehicle miles traveled and related energy. Tons of solid waste managed via recycling, combustion, and landfilling; measured at the county scale. Gallons of potable water consumed and share of wastewater treatment. Greenhouse gas equivalent emissions for all of the above measures as well as each city’s share of airport-related GHG emissions. Cost estimates for the above indicators (except airport share). In addition to the carbon baseline assessment (Assessment) prepared for each participating city, the Initiative correlates metrics with strategies to achieve savings in energy, water, vehicle miles traveled, and waste and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Initiative also includes a city communication “template” that is currently being developed. 1.2. Pilot Cities and Participating Cities: The Initiative is an outgrowth of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s GreenSteps Cities Program. To achieve GreenSteps certification, a city must meet minimum requirements designed to improve the city’s sustainability. Cities need to understand if they have “moved the needle” towards sustainability. Three cities—St. Louis Park, Falcon Heights, 1 LHB is a multi-disciplinary engineering and architectural firm with 200 employees, with offices throughout the Midwest. Founded in 1966, we serve a broad range of market sectors including Public Works and Structures, Pipeline, Industrial, Housing, Healthcare, Government, Education, and Commercial. LHB is dedicated to being environmentally responsible, reducing long term operating costs, and improving the quality of life for our clients. ULI Minnesota is a District Council of the Urban Land Institute, a 501(c) (3) nonprofit research and education organization supported by its members and sponsors. Founded in 1936, ULI has more than 30,000 members worldwide representing the full spectrum of land use and real estate development disciplines, including developers, builders, investors, architects, public officials, planners, real estate brokers, attorneys, engineers, financiers, academics and students. As the preeminent, multidisciplinary real estate forum, ULI facilitates the open exchange of ideas, information and experience among local, national and international industry leaders and policy makers dedicated to creating better places. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 14 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 4 and Edina, volunteered to serve as pilots to test the methodology. The pilot study proved that the needed data was available annually and could be gathered and analyzed in a reasonable period at a relatively low cost. In other words, it showed that there was the potential for a lot of “bang for the buck.” To date, the following cities are participating in the Initiative: Central/stand-alone cities: Minneapolis, St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester Inner-ring suburbs: Hopkins, St. Louis Park, St. Anthony, Edina, Falcon Heights Outer-ring suburbs: White Bear Lake, Oakdale, Shoreview, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka, Woodbury 1.3. Funding: Funding for the Initiative comes from several sources: grant funds from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, pro bono services from LHB and ULI MINNESOTA, and a $2,500 fee paid by each participating city. 1.4. Measurement is Essential and Beneficial: As described by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book, Reinventing Government (1992), “If you don’t measure results, you can’t tell success from failure. If you can’t see success, you can’t reward it. If you can’t see failure, you can’t correct it.” Baseline assessments and indicators are useful. Planners need them, elected officials want them, and the future may see their development as a basic requirement of State and federal funding. Measuring the energy aspects of human activities and the associated greenhouse gas emissions offers a unique way to compare the effectiveness of various energy and sustainability best management practices. Greenhouse gas emissions and energy (expressed as kBtu) serve as common denominators for the comparison of kilowatts, natural gas therms, and gallons of liquid fuels consumed; as well as vehicle miles traveled, tons of waste processed, and gallons of potable water produced. Taking inventory of the energy, travel, waste, and water, and the associated GHG emissions at the community level will benefit the participating cities because the resulting analyses will: Deepen the understanding of opportunities to save energy and money. Provide a benchmark for comparison with future inventories and peer cities as well as estimating the effectiveness of energy efficiency and other sustainability measures. Inform subsequent analyses, plans, and policy decisions by the cities and others. Improve the cities’ competitiveness for federal and State funding opportunities that are targeted to cities that have taken steps to measure and improve their energy efficiency and reduce their carbon footprints. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 15 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 5 Assist in promoting public understanding of the cities’ effects on climate change and to motivate community action.2 Serve as a model for other cities and demonstrate accountability and leadership. In addition to the above benefits for the participating cities, the Initiative will produce annual comparable indicators for approximately 20 Minnesota cities, including most of the State’s largest cities. This will also be invaluable for measuring the success of the State’s GreenSteps Cities Program and progress towards meeting the State’s energy efficiency and GHG reduction goals that are the heart of the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act of 2007.3 2.0. The ICLEI Community Protocol: The GHG Assessment portion of the Initiative has been prepared consistent with the most applicable and current guides available; namely, the U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012 (ICLEI Community Protocol), and the Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Version 1.1, May 2010 (Governmental Operations Protocol). Both of these documents were prepared by ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), a United Nation’s agency with a long and highly respected reputation for the development of such assessment protocols.4 In addition to describing why measurement is important, the ICLEI Community Protocol addresses the important questions of what to measure and how to measure it. The sections below describe the Protocol’s various classification methods. The first method, Sources and Activities, separates sources of GHG emissions located within the legal geographic boundary of the community (e.g. a power plant) from activities within the community 2 The concern over global climate change is not new. A Swedish scientist, Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This was not actually verified until 1987. Source: “History of the greenhouse effect and global warming,” S.M. Enzler MSc. http://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm#ixzz23HShYkcW 3 In 2007, Minnesota approved one of the nation’s most environmentally progressive energy laws. The Next Generation Energy Act required electric utilities to produce at least 25% of their total energy from new, renewable sources—wind, solar, hydro, biomass—by the year 2025. The law required Xcel Energy, the state’s largest utility, to reach 30% by 2020. Currently, about 5% of the state’s power comes from renewable sources. The act established nationally aggressive statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals (using 2005 as a baseline) of 15% by 2015, 30% by 2025, and 80% by 2050. 4 ICLEI, along with its several international partner agencies, is considered the international leader in carbon baseline assessment protocols for local governments. According to its website, ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability is an international association of almost 1,000 local governments worldwide and more than 250 in the US that have made commitments to sustainable development and climate protection. ICLEI, founded in 1990 as the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives and now known officially as ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, strives to advance solutions to global climate change through cumulative local action. ICLEI provides technical and policy assistance, software training, climate expertise, information services and peer networking to help members build capacity, share knowledge and implement sustainable development and climate protection at the local level. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 16 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 6 boundary that generate GHG emissions regardless of the location of their source (e.g. electricity consumption). The Protocol defines what to measure by dividing emission sources and activities into two categories, Required and Optional. To address small sources and allow their exclusion, the Protocol sets a minimum size threshold, called de minimis sources and activities. The ICLEI Community Protocol also describes methods to avoid double-counting emissions for facilities that are shared among multiple communities. 2.1. Sources and Activities: The following are the definitions of Sources and Activities from the ICLEI Community Protocol (p. 11): A Source is “Any physical process inside the jurisdictional boundary that releases GHG emissions into the atmosphere (e.g., combustion of gasoline in transportation; combustion of natural gas in electricity generation; methane emissions from a landfill).” An Activity is “The use of energy, materials, and/or services by members of the community that result in the creation of GHG emissions either directly (e.g., use of household furnaces and vehicles with internal combustion engines) or indirectly (e.g., use of electricity created through combustion of fossil fuels at a power plant, consumption of goods and services whose production, transport and/or disposal resulted in creation of GHG emissions).” 2.2. Required and Optional Emission Sources and Activities: The ICLEI Community Protocol divides the realm of possible emission sources into two major groups: Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities (Required Activities), and Additional Community Emission Sources and Activities (Optional Sources and Activities). Section 4 below describes the various spreadsheets in the Assessments prepared for each city and identifies whether an emission category is a Required or an Optional Activity or Source. 2.2.1. Five Basic Emissions Generating Activities (Required Activities): To be consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the following activities must be included in a communitywide assessment (Required Activities). These Activities are required because 1) cities are the level of government that has the greatest authority and responsibility over the emissions- generating activity;5 2) the data needed to estimate emissions are 5 Numerous best practices are available to help cities both mitigate and adapt to climate change and conserve energy, for example: Adopt model sustainability plans, climate action plans, peak oil action plans. Adopt model ordinances. Implement new urbanism, smart growth and smart shrinkage practices; implement transit-oriented development, complete streets programs, and travel demand management plans; and encourage traditional neighborhood design, mixed-use districts, and LEED for Neighborhood Development. Require high-performance building design, benchmarking, and building recommissioning, especially for public buildings. Encourage green power including renewable fuels, co-generation, district energy, and distributed generation. Green fleets. Require high-performance urban infrastructure. Foster sustainable urban forests and biodiversity corridors. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 17 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 7 reasonably available; 3) the emissions associated with the Activity tend to be significant in magnitude; and 4) the Activity is important and common across U.S. communities. The following descriptions are adapted from the ICLEI Community Protocol: Use of purchased electricity: The Protocol requires the inclusion of power plant emissions associated with generating electricity used within the jurisdictional boundary of the community, regardless of the location of the electricity generation facility. Local governments can often influence electricity use in local buildings through local building codes, financial incentives, minimum regulatory requirements, technical assistance, and other programs. The Assessments include all emissions from the consumption of electricity. Use of fuel in stationary applications: Each Assessment must include the combustion emissions associated with fuels used in stationary applications (e.g., natural gas used in furnaces) within the jurisdictional boundary of the community. Local governments can often influence use of fuels in stationary combustion applications through the same tools listed above for purchased electricity. All Assessments include emissions associated with natural gas combustion and major fuel oil and coal users. Use of on-road motor vehicles: Transportation fuels used by on- road motor vehicles comprise a major source of emissions. Local governments can influence transportation emissions by developing bicycle, pedestrian and public transit infrastructure, and by focusing new development along transit corridors, among other strategies. The Assessments include emissions associated with vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Use of energy in the production and distribution of potable water and wastewater treatment: ICLEI Community Protocol: The Protocol requires the collection of emissions associated with energy used in the production and delivery of potable water used within the jurisdictional boundary of the community, regardless of the location of the water delivery infrastructure. Local governments can influence community water use through local building codes, promoting and/or providing incentives to foster conservation and efficiency, and through other programs and services. Potable water: The electricity and natural gas consumption amounts consumed within each city to produce and distribute potable water are included in the electricity and natural gas totals but are not disaggregated for this analysis. A sampling analysis concluded that the Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 18 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 8 emissions associated with these activities equal less than one percent of a community’s total. The Assessments include the amounts of potable water consumed within each city. Wastewater treatment: Consistent with the Protocol, the Assessments include an estimate of each city’s share of the GHG emissions from regional wastewater treatment facilities. Solid waste disposal: Although this Activity usually comprises a very small portion of a community’s total emissions (generally less than 3%), the Protocol requires its inclusion because local governments can influence the amount of solid waste generated and sent to various disposal methods through their administration of garbage, recycling, and composting services. The Assessments account for end-of-life emissions (e.g., projected future methane emissions from landfills) associated with the disposal of waste generated by members of the community during the analysis year, regardless of disposal location or method (e.g., landfill, incineration, or biogenic treatment). 2.2.2. Additional Community Emission Sources and Activities (Optional Sources and Activities): The ICLEI Community Protocol recommends the inclusion of numerous optional emission sources and activities (Optional Sources and Activities) such as those associated with local rail travel, marine activities, and airplane travel. Expanding GHG inventory reporting to include Optional emission Sources and Activities is purely voluntary and is not required for a GHG emissions inventory report to be considered compliant with the Community Protocol. However, by including a broader set of emission-generating Activities and Sources in their reporting, a local government can provide a more complete picture of how the community contributes to GHG emissions. The Assessments include one such Optional Activity—airplane travel— because for the 18 participating cities in the Twin Cities area, each city’s share of the emissions from the Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport exceeds the 5% de minimis threshold described below. To be consistent for all participating cities, the Assessments for the cities of Rochester and Duluth also include their shares of airport emissions (Rochester International and Duluth International airports), and the Assessments for the host cities of the Reliever Airports include these Sources (St. Paul for the St. Paul Downtown Airport, Lake Elmo for the Lake Elmo Airport, and Eden Prairie for the Flying Cloud Airport). A few GHG assessments have included estimates of the upstream emissions and embedded energy in materials used with a community (life- cycle emissions). This potential source of emissions analysis has yet to be Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 19 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 9 widely accepted for inclusion in GHG assessments and it is not a Required Activity according to the ICLEI Community Protocol. Current methodologies result in questions regarding the potential double counting of emissions. The Assessment does not include this category of emission sources. 2.3. De Minimis Emission Threshold: The ICLEI Community Protocol defines de minimis emissions as “a quantity of GHG emissions from any combination of sources and/or gases, which, when summed, equal less than five percent (5%) of community GHG emissions that are required to be included in the community GHG emissions report. These emission sources must be identified and described in the community GHG emissions report, but need not be quantified.” This Assessment excludes several de minimis emission sources that are sometimes included in other assessments, such as emissions associated with marine and railroad operations, refrigerant and fire suppressants leakage, agricultural and livestock operations, and minor combustors of liquid fuels (e.g. fuel oil, propane, and diesel-powered heaters).6 Other assessments have shown that these excluded emission sources are not likely to exceed the de minimis threshold. Other assessments also estimate emissions associated with large sources of CO2 such as the local production of concrete and fugitive emissions (primarily methane) associated with agricultural activities. There are no other known large sources of GHG emissions within the Project cities that are not already included. 2.4. Shared Sources and the Risk of Double Counting: Normally, all of the major emission Sources located within a community should be included in a GHG assessment. However, certain Sources serve more than one community; for example, wastewater treatment plants, power plants, garbage processing plants, landfills, seaports, and airports. For these kinds of Sources, the Protocol provides methodologies to allocate the emissions among each community that uses the facility and to avoid double counting emissions. This issue can be confusing. At its heart is geography. For emissions from shared facilities that are included in an assessment, the location of the facility is not a factor. The assessment will include the emissions on a per-MWh-consumed basis from the electricity utility regardless of the location of the power plant. The same is true for emissions on a per-therm-consumed basis for natural gas, a per-ton- incinerated basis for garbage incineration, a per-gallon-treated basis for wastewater treatment, and the prorated share of airport-based emissions (which are based on each city’s share of on-road trips to the regional airport). However, geography does come into play for the host city of a shared facility and, therefore, the issue of double counting does become a factor. Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the Assessments avoid double-counting emissions for the following “shared” Sources: Power plants: Because the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption within St. Paul already account for the natural gas 6 The Assessment does include major fuel oil users and portside emissions from the Port of Duluth. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 20 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 10 consumption required to generate St. Paul’s share of electricity production at Xcel Energy’s High Bridge Generating Station, which is located within the city, total natural gas consumption at the plant is subtracted from St. Paul’s totals. The same is true for Xcel’s Riverside Generating Station in Minneapolis, Rochester Public Utility’s two natural gas-fired power plants that are located within the City of Rochester (Cascade Creek and Silver Lake), and Minnesota Power’s Hibbard steam and power plant located in Duluth. Processing municipal solid waste: The ICLEI Protocol describes methods to account for the GHG emission associated with processing municipal solid waste (MSW) in waste-to-energy garbage incinerators including the Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) located in downtown Minneapolis and the Olmsted County Waste-to-Energy Facility (OWEF) in Rochester. Section 4.12. provides detail regarding this matter. Wastewater treatment Plants: The Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro Plant), located in St. Paul, treats sanitary sewer discharges from communities throughout the region. Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol’s methodology regarding “shared” facilities, the natural gas and electricity consumed by the Metro Plant are subtracted from the totals for the City of St. Paul. In the cases of Rochester and Duluth, the vast majority of the wastewater processed at the treatment plant located within each city originates within their respective city’s boundaries so they cannot be considered shared facilities. However, to be consistent with the Protocol as regards all wastewater treatment plants, the natural gas and grid-generated electricity amounts consumed by the plants are subtracted from the totals for Rochester and Duluth. Since the wastewater treatment plant in Duluth generates electricity, the amounts are disclosed to be consistent with the Protocol (not subtracted from the City’s total electricity consumption). Landfills: Since the ICLEI Community Protocol classifies landfills as Required Sources, the Assessments account for the GHG emissions associated with the landfilling of municipal solid waste (MSW) on a per- ton basis for each city. Olmsted County owns and operates the Kalamar sanitary landfill located within the City of Rochester. The landfill does not utilize any form of methane capture. The U.S. EPA provides non-biogenic GHG emission data for 2009 for the landfill. Consistent with the Community Protocol, the Assessment for Rochester discloses these GHG emissions as a GHG source but does not count them with the City’s total of waste emissions. District energy facilities: There are 9 district energy systems that serve four of the participating cities in the Initiative. None of these systems serves multiple cities so they are not “shared” facilities. This Assessment accounts for all of the fossil fuels consumed by these facilities (natural gas, electricity, fuel oil, diesel and gasoline, and coal). Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the city totals do not count GHG emissions Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 21 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 11 associated with biomass fuels, i.e. the waste wood burned by St. Paul District Energy and the University of Minnesota’s Southeast Steam Plant. Airport share: The Minneapolis St. Paul International (MSP) Airport serves an area far larger than the Twin Cities. Through the GHG inventory completed for the airport and trip share analyses prepared by the Metropolitan Council, the GHG emissions associated with aircraft operations and ground operations at the MSP Airport can be attributed to the cities in the region, as described in more detail below. The Rochester and Duluth International airports are not considered “shared” facilities. All of the emissions associated with these two airports are attributable to their host cities. The same is true in the case of regional reliever airports: St. Paul for the St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field), Lake Elmo for the Lake Elmo Airport, and for Eden Prairie for the Flying Cloud Airport. 3.0. Purpose, Definitions, and Data Sources for the Greenhouse Gas Assessment 3.1. Overall Purpose: The goal of the carbon baseline Assessment prepared for each city is to estimate the GHG emissions associated with the activities of the people who live, work, learn, travel, visit, and recreate within each city’s geographical boundaries. Each is a citywide assessment that includes all pertinent and available data for the study years 2008 to 2011. Each Assessment must be transparent and able to be replicated, updated, and compared with other similar baseline assessments. None includes a separate accounting for emissions associated with specific city governmental operations; however, these emissions are included in the citywide data. 3.2. Greenhouse Gas Definitions: The greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are aggregated and reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), which is a commonly used unit that combines greenhouse gases of differing impact on the Earth’s climate into one weighted unit. Greenhouse gas emissions are referred to herein as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) or interchangeably as simply greenhouse gases (GHG). They are expressed in metric tons (tonnes), which equal 1,000 kilograms, or 2,204.6 pounds. The use of the term CO2 only refers to the individual greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. 3.3. Data Sources, Methodologies, and Disclosure: All of the sources of data for the Assessment are transparent, fully identified, verifiable, and reliable. They consist of city and county records and staff reports; utility records and reports to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission; internationally recognized methodologies and published scientific papers regarding the calculation of GHG emissions; data from federal and State agencies (US Department of Transportation, US Environmental Protection Agency, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities); and other peer-reviewed, published sources. The following sections and each the spreadsheets contain information regarding the methodology used to Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 22 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 12 estimate GHG emissions. The final spreadsheet, “Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy,” provides a summary listing of this information. To meet the requirements that the Assessments have full-disclosure and be replicable, all of the data used to estimate the GHG emissions and their energy equivalents are included in the spreadsheets. 4.0. Spreadsheet Descriptions: The following provides a brief description of the spreadsheets that comprise the Assessments for each individual city: 4.1. Initiative Summary: This spreadsheet is a brief stand-alone summary that includes all of the key citywide metrics along with demographic and weather information, costs, forecasts, and comparisons of residential versus commercial/industrial consumption on per-capita and per-job bases. 4.2. Detailed GHG Summary: This spreadsheet is a more detailed complement to the Initiative Summary. It brings together all of the major components of the GHG Assessment. All of the data come from the other spreadsheets, so sources for the data can be found in the source spreadsheets. It shows the percent changes from year to year to facilitate trend analysis. It also lists key indicators; namely, city population change and per-capita emissions, the change in electric utility CO2 emission rate for electricity production (which is often a major factor in the change in electricity-related CO2e emissions), and heating and cooling degree days (which are major factors that affect building energy consumption for cooling and heating). It also includes building energy data normalized for weather. 4.3. Costs: Protocols for carbon baseline assessments do not include the estimate of costs associated with the sources and activities included in the assessment; however, this cost data has been calculated for this Initiative Project. Cost estimates focus on the retail costs of energy to the consumer. In the case of electricity, natural gas, and other stationary fuels, the estimates include the average retail costs for all of the consumption costs and related fees. For vehicle miles traveled, the Assessments include the average statewide costs for the fuel only, not the full costs of driving.7 For waste management, the costs are statewide averages of the total retail service costs and fees for the various waste management methods.8 The specific cost factors can be found in the Cost Factors spreadsheet for each city. 4.4. Sector Shares: The pie charts and bar charts provide snapshots of the relative share of GHG emissions, energy consumption, and costs in 2010 associated with 7 The average statewide fuel costs for 2008 to 2011 range from 13 to 20 cents per mile. This is in contrast to the estimates of the US Internal Revenue Service, which also take into account costs of maintenance, depreciation, insurance, and repair and total about 55 cents per gallon. 8 Excluded are costs associated with household hazardous waste and problem materials ($225 per ton), source- separated organics ($220 per ton), and re-use and reduction efforts (which are assumed to be cost neutral). For potable water production and distribution, only the energy costs are included (electricity and natural gas). Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 23 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 13 the main sectors: electricity and natural gas consumption, vehicle miles traveled, airport share, and solid waste management. The bar chart compares the 2010 shares of GHG emissions, energy, and costs for the primary sectors of electricity, natural gas, and vehicle miles traveled, and the line charts illustrate change over time for this information. 4.5. Energy: This spreadsheet summarizes the GHG emissions associated with consumption of electricity, natural gas, major users of fuel oil coal, and shows the changes over time. These are Required Emission Sources. The spreadsheet also includes per-capita emission rates and energy consumption normalized for variable weather conditions. The Minneapolis Assessment includes an additional spreadsheet that estimates the energy equivalents for the University of Minnesota’s Southeast Steam Plant and major users of back-up fuels. The Duluth Assessment includes an additional sheet that estimates the energy and GHG emissions associated with coal burning at the Duluth Steam Plant. 4.6. Electricity: Utility consumption data for all electricity customers within each city’s borders are shown on this spreadsheet. Data are in two primary use categories: Residential and Commercial/Industrial. 4.6.1. Definitions: The following is the definition of a “residential customer” from Xcel Energy (other utilities use similar definitions): “A residential customer is one using electric service for domestic purposes in space occupied as living quarters such as single private residences, duplex units, townhouse units, condominium units, apartment units, mobile homes, fraternity houses, sorority houses, and rooming houses. Domestic purposes or uses are domestic lighting, heating, cooking, and power service.” Other consumption is in the Commercial/Industrial category and the small Public Street and Highway Lighting category. 4.6.2. Xcel Energy’s “15/15 Rule:” In September 2012, it was learned that Xcel Energy had instituted a new policy called the “15/15 Rule” that applies when the company responds to a request for consumption data. According to an Xcel official, the new 15/15 Rule applies when there are less than 15 premises (customers) in a particular batch of information (i.e. Windsource customers) or if the usage for any one particular customer is more than 15% of the sample. In order to protect the data privacy of those customers, that data is excluded. Xcel stated that the consumption data for the following 11 of the project’s 20 participating cities have data excluded because of the application of the 15/15 Rule: Coon Rapids: Commercial/Industrial wind Eden Prairie: Commercial/Industrial wind Edina: Commercial/Industrial wind Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 24 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 14 Falcon Heights: Commercial/Industrial wind and electric9 Maplewood: Commercial/Industrial gas and electric Minnetonka: Commercial/Industrial wind Oakdale – Residential wind and Commercial/Industrial wind and gas Richfield: Commercial/Industrial wind Shoreview: Residential and Commercial/Industrial wind St. Louis Park: Commercial/Industrial wind White Bear Lake: Residential and Commercial/Industrial wind The excluded wind-based consumption is not likely to comprise a significant portion of overall consumption (probably less than 1%) and its exclusion has no effect on GHG emissions. The Assessments for these cities disclose the facts of this missing data. 4.7. Natural Gas: This spreadsheet includes the consumption data provided by natural gas suppliers. Consumption is categorized for Residential and for Commercial/Industrial uses using similar definitions as defined above for electricity. Refer to the above list of cities for which Xcel Energy has excluded gas consumption data. 4.8. Conversion Factors: There are several components to the Conversion Factors spreadsheet: 4.8.1. Conversion Factors for Utilities: Table 1 provides the GHG emission factors and their references for electricity, natural gas, and other stationary fuel consumption. The conversion factors for electricity depend on the fuel mix used by each electricity supplier (i.e. the shares of coal, natural gas, biomass, wind, geothermal, and hydro) and the fuel mix for purchased electricity. The factors vary over time according to the particular power company. The electricity utilities provided annual emission factors for CO2. Unlike electricity, the CO2 emission factor for natural gas is relatively stable over time and among all suppliers. The table uses the conversion factors for the other primary greenhouse gases, N2O and CH4, to calculate the total CO2 equivalent emission factor (CO2e). 4.8.2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources and Conversion Factors for Liquid Fuels: Tables 2 and 3 work together to provide emission factors for a variety of fuels, their energy equivalents (in kBtu), and the tonnes of greenhouses gases per kBtu. 9 As a result of the 15/15 Rule, Xcel Energy provided revised data for the Commercial/Industrial category in 2009 and 2010 and new data for 2011 that did not include 5 customers that used 15% or greater of the total consumption in that classification. However, the ICLEI Community Protocol requires the reporting of all energy consumption. In order to retain continuity and continue Project compliance with the Protocol, the original figures are used for this analysis. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 25 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 15 4.8.3. Energy Equivalents of Vehicle Miles Traveled: Table 4 relies on the recent carbon baseline assessment prepared for the City of Minneapolis, the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Assessment, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12 (Minneapolis Assessment). The Minneapolis Assessment includes an analysis of the fuel consumption by type of fuel using the national fleet average fuel economy assumptions from the Energy Information Administration’s 2012 Annual Energy Outlook and the national vehicle fleet mix from the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software from ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability.10 The national fuel consumption estimates were modified to account for Minnesota’s requirement that all gasoline and diesel fuels sold in the State since 2006 include 10% and 5% ethanol respectively, and from 2001-2005 to account for the use of 10% ethanol in gasoline only (B5 diesel was introduced State-wide in late 2005). This information enabled the estimation of the amount of energy associated with a million vehicle miles traveled in Minnesota. 4.8.4. Conversion Factors for the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste: This final table, Table 5, addresses the two primary methods for processing municipal solid waste (MSW) via combustion. The Minneapolis Assessment is the source of the data: Mass burn incineration: The table includes the total MSW processed at the Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) and the associated GHG emissions. These data yield conversion factors to calculate GHG emissions on a per-ton basis for MSW processed at the facility. As described above, the table also includes the GHG emissions associated with the electricity and steam that are produced as valuable byproducts of the incineration. The same is true for the Olmsted County Waste to Energy Facility (OWEF) located in Rochester. Refuse derived fuel: The other major combustion method is to process MSW into refuse derived fuel (RDF) pellets that are burned in certified Xcel Energy power plants in Minnesota. Section 4.12 provides additional detail regarding RDF processing. 4.9. Cost Factors: As described above, the Project includes estimates of retail costs to the consumer of energy (electricity, natural gas, and other fuels), the costs of transportation fuels, the statewide average costs for the various waste management methodologies, and the energy costs (electricity and natural gas) associated with the production and distribution of potable water. This spreadsheet provides the conversion factors for these cost estimates and the sources for the data. 10 Refer to: http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/tools/cacp-software. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 26 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 16 4.10. Seasonal Cooling and Heating Degree Days: Because temperature has such a large effect on building energy consumption, this spreadsheet allows the normalization of the data pertaining to building energy consumption to better assess year-to-year consumption changes and trends. The “Base” figures, which are the 118-year averages of Heating Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days (HDD/CDD) for the Twin Cities, serve as the bases for calculating the “Normalizing Factor” for all cities participating in the Project. For example, if the actual seasonal cooling degree day is 10% higher than the Base, the portion of electricity consumption attributable to air conditioning is decreased by 10% to be normalized. It is assumed that 25% of all electricity consumption is for air conditioning. The remaining 75% is unaffected. Similarly for heating, if the seasonal CDD figure is 10% higher than the Base, the portion of total natural gas consumption associated with heating (which is assumed to be 80%) is reduced by 10% for normalization. 4.11. On-Road Transportation: The ICLEI Community Protocol defines on-road transportation as a Required Emission activity, and describes two methods to estimate emissions: the “Demand Method” and the “Polygon Method.”11 The latter method is used in this Assessment. Translating Vehicle Miles Traveled into GHG Emissions: The first step is to measure the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within each city’s boundaries. Fortunately, this is the easy step because the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) compiles accurate data regarding VMT on the State’s roads and aggregates them by cities and counties.12 Translating Vehicle Miles Traveled into Energy: The Minneapolis Assessment includes annual fuel consumption by fuel type, which permitted the estimation of an annual rate of energy consumed per 100 million VMT as detailed above in the description of Table 4 of the Conversion Factors spreadsheet (Section 4.7.1.). 4.12. Vehicle Miles Traveled Charts: This spreadsheet includes three charts that help describe long-term changes in roadway transportation: total VMT, per-capita VMT, and per-capita GHG emissions associated with VMT. 4.13. Airports: How an airport is addressed depends on whether it is located within the community and how large it is. 4.13.1. Community Share of the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport Emissions: The Minneapolis Saint Paul International (MSP) Airport is a major hub airport that serves an area larger than the Twin Cities region. It 11 Compared to Demand Method, the Polygon Method will somewhat over-predict VMT for communities with a disproportionately large amount of through traffic on major roads and under-predict for the opposite case. The Demand Method has similar drawbacks. The Minneapolis Assessment compared both approaches and chose to use the Polygon Method. The comparison showed that the Demand Method yielded results that were about 20% higher than the Polygon Method in Minneapolis. 12 Refer to: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/reports/vmt.html Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 27 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 17 is contiguous to Minneapolis, St. Paul and the suburban cities of Bloomington, Eagan, Mendota Heights, and Richfield.13 According to the ICLEI Community Protocol, it is classified as an Optional Activity, which means on this basis alone, it could be excluded from this Assessment. However, the MSP Airport emissions are included because each city’s share of these emissions exceeds the de minimis threshold of 5%. In other words, when allocating the MSP Airport’s emissions to a city in the region, the amount is greater than 5% of that city’s total emissions. If it were less than 5%, the city’s share of the Airport’s emissions could be excluded from its Assessment. The Metropolitan Airport Commission conducted a GHG baseline assessment for the MSP Airport for the years 2005, 2007, and 2009.14 The Minneapolis Inventory relied on this assessment and used linear regression analysis to estimate GHG emissions for 2006, 2008, and 2010. Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, each city’s share of the MSP Airport’s total emissions were assumed to be equal to the percent of home- based vehicle trips associated with the city that had either an origin or destination at the Airport. The Metropolitan Council calculated the “percent of city resident, home-based trips, as a percent of MSP total home-based trips” for 2010. Each city’s share of vehicle trips was assumed to be relatively stable and, therefore, this percentage was used for all study years. 4.13.2. Duluth and Rochester International Airports: Two other large airports serve cities participating in the Initiative: Duluth International Airport (DLH) and Rochester International Airport (RST). Data for the cities of Rochester and Duluth already capture ground-based emissions related to the operation of the airports including energy (electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil for buildings and facilities), vehicle miles traveled, and municipal solid waste. What remains are emissions related to aircraft operations. The Assessments for the cities include estimates that take into account aircraft fleet characteristics, average number of operations for each aircraft type from 2005 to 2011, typical fuel burn rates by aircraft type, estimated time of typical operation, and the GHG emission rate for aviation fuel. According to the ICLEI Community Protocol, these airports would be classified as Optional Sources because their emissions occur within the jurisdictional boundary of the host cities. They are too small for their emissions to be treated as “shared” or “allocated,” and the estimates show that emissions are de minimis. However, since the “airport share” emissions for the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport are not de minimis, emissions for these international airports are included in the respective 13 For more information: http://www.mspairport.com/directions.aspx 14 Refer to: Greenhouse Gas Report: Metropolitan Airports Commission , December 2010, http://www.mspairport.com/docs/about-msp/sustainability/MSP-2010-GHG-Report-Jan-2011.aspx. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 28 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 18 city’s assessments to maintain consistency of methodology among all 20 participating cities. 4.13.3. Reliever Airports: The Twin Cities include eight smaller airports with one of their roles being to relieve the MSP Airport of some of the private aircraft and cargo operations. Three of these airports are located within cities participating in the Initiative: The St. Paul Downtown Airport (Holman Field), the Flying Cloud Airport in Eden Prairie, and the Lake Elmo Airport in Lake Elmo. Like the Rochester and Duluth airports, the ICLEI Community Protocol classifies these airports as Optional Sources because their emissions occur within the jurisdictional boundary of the host cities, and they are too small for their emissions to be treated as “shared” or “allocated.” Again, since the “airport share” emissions for the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport are not de minimis, emissions for the reliever airports are included in the respective city’s assessments to maintain consistency of methodology among all 20 participating cities. 4.14. Waste and Wastewater Treatment: The ICLEI Community Protocol classifies the emissions associated with the processing of solid waste as Required Activities. Although cities often gather selected data regarding city-sponsored, residential recycling programs, counties are the primary compilers for comprehensive municipal solid waste (MSW) management data, which they report via Waste Certification Reports to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. In order to estimate waste management amounts at the municipal level, it is assumed that on a per-capita basis, waste will be generated and processed within the city at the same rates as those measured for the county.15 4.14.1. Emissions and Byproducts from Solid Waste Incineration: The Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) is a waste-to-energy garbage incinerator located in downtown Minneapolis that processes municipal solid waste from communities throughout the region. Emissions come in two forms: biogenic and non-biogenic (or fossil-based emission).16 Only the non-bio-genic/fossil-based emissions are counted for the purposes of carbon baseline assessments per the ICLEI Community Protocol. The fossil-based emissions also include all of the CH4 and N2O emissions. To develop conversion factors for incineration that yield GHG tonnes per ton of waste incinerated at the HERC facility, this Assessment relies on the GHG assessment prepared for the City of Minneapolis, which, in turn, 15 The data for the City of Minneapolis is from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Assessment, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. 16 According to the ICLEI Community Protocol (Appendix E, p. 15), “The combustion of MSW components originally manufactured from fossil fuels (e.g., plastics, certain textiles, rubber, liquid solvents, and waste oil) results in fossil based CO2. The CO2 emissions from combusting the biomass portion of MSW (e.g., yard waste, paper products) are biologic in origin and are reported separately.” Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 29 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 19 relies on the GHG assessment prepared for the HERC facility. HERC is a “shared” facility, so its emissions are allocated on a per-ton basis for all of the cities that send waste to it for processing. A second garbage incinerator, the Olmsted County Waste-to-Energy Facility (OWEF), serves Rochester. The facility produces power and sends the waste steam into the city’s downtown district energy system. As with the HERC facility, the per-ton GHG emission rates were derived using the measured GHG emissions for the study years. Natural gas consumption: To avoid double counting, the other fuel consumed at the two garbage incinerators, natural gas, is subtracted from the natural gas consumption totals for Minneapolis and Rochester. Exported energy: The two incinerators are essentially co- generation power plants that produce two products: electricity that is dispatched to the electrical grid, and steam that is piped into the two downtown district energy systems. To highlight the value of the exported electricity and steam, the waste spreadsheets disclose the equivalent per-ton-incinerated GHG emissions associated for waste generated within each city. Consistent with the ICLEI Protocol, the GHG emissions associated with these byproducts are not treated as “negative” emissions in the calculation of the GHG emission rate. In other words, the Assessments disclose for informational purposes only, the GHG emissions attributable to the electricity and steam generated via the incineration of each city’s portion of the waste stream. 4.14.2. Emissions and Byproducts from Refuse Derived Fuel Combustion: Two refuse derived fuel (RDF) facilities accept solid waste from cities within the region and process it into fuel pellets that are burned in certified Xcel Energy power plants in Minnesota (Elk River RDF plant and the Ramsey/Washington County RDF facility in Newport). According to the EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM), processing MSW into RDF yields a more uniform fuel that has a higher heating value than that used for a mass burn facility (such as HERC). The EPA and ICLEI-USA have yet to derive a GHG emission rate that applies to MSW that has been processed and burned in this manner. As a default until an acceptable rate is available, the GHG emission rate for the HERC facility is used. The per-ton GHG equivalent of the electricity byproduct is assumed to be the same as for exported electricity for the HERC facility. 4.14.3. Emissions from Landfilling, Recycling, and Composting: ICLEI’s Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) Software provides estimates of GHG emissions associated with landfilling, which are primarily methane emissions from the anaerobic digestion of organic wastes. The CACP Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 30 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 20 software accounts for this by incorporating the percent of the waste that is in landfills with methane recovery and the rate of recovery. The table in the Solid Waste spreadsheet accounts for that portion of the landfilled waste stream sent to landfills with no methane recovery by using a higher lifecycle-methane-production rate than waste sent to landfills with methane recovery. No GHG emissions are assumed to be directly associated with waste that is recycled or composted. As stated above, the Olmsted County Kalamar Landfill is located within the City of Rochester. The Assessment for the City discloses the landfill’s non-biogenic emissions, consistent with the Protocol. 4.14.4. Wastewater Treatment: Consistent with the ICLEI Protocol, the Assessments include each city’s share of the GHG emissions from wastewater treatment facilities. The Metropolitan Council provided total emissions for the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul and each participating city’s percentage share of these emissions. The Rochester Water Reclamation Plant, located in Rochester, did not prepare a greenhouse gas assessment. Emission estimates for Rochester’s wastewater are based upon the emission rate for the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant multiplied by the known wastewater flow for the city. The same is true for the Western Lake Superior Wastewater Treatment Plant in Duluth. 4.15. Solid Waste Composition: The CACP software takes into account the composition of the MSW. This spreadsheet includes the results of two waste composition studies for comparison purposes and to confirm the appropriateness of the use of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study for this analysis. 4.16. Demographics: Many of the spreadsheets rely on per-capita, per-household, and per-job calculations. This spreadsheet provides population, household, and employment data for each city, county, and region. 4.17. Precipitation and Potable Water: The Assessments include data regarding annual precipitation and the distribution of potable water within the city. As stated above, the ICLEI Community Protocol requires the collection of emissions associated with energy used in delivery of water used within the jurisdictional boundary of the community, regardless of the location of the water delivery infrastructure. Carbon baseline assessments prepared for the cities of Minneapolis and Burnsville indicate that the energy (electricity and natural gas) needed to treat and distribute potable water constitutes less than 1% of the total GHG emissions for each city (well under the 5% de minimis threshold). While the Assessments do include the electricity and natural gas consumption data associated with the distribution of potable water, the data are not disaggregated from the citywide consumption data for each city. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 31 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 21 4.18. Greenhouse Gas Forecasts: The State of Minnesota has developed forecasts of GHG emissions by three major categories (energy, travel, and waste) for the State.17 Included are two future scenarios: Business as usual and a reduction target based on the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act, which established statewide goals of 15% by 2015, 30% by 2025, and 80% by 2050. For the Assessment, it is assumed that these statewide forecasts are applicable for each city as well. While acknowledging the significant differences among the Project’s participant cities and the obvious differences among urban areas as compared to statewide conditions, the Minnesota forecast still offers a valuable resource on which to base equilateral projections for the participating cities. The Assessment uses the State forecast to generate a 2005 base case, then, using actual city data for 2010, it uses the percentage growth and reduction assumptions in the State’s forecast to generate a business as usual forecast and a reduction target for 2020 and 2030. 4.19. Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy: The intent of the following table is to provide a convenient summary that categorizes the various emission sources, lists their classifications per the ICLEI Community Protocol, and identifies the primary data sources. The table also includes the data resources used to calculate the energy value of the various emission sources. 17 Final Minnesota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2025, Center for Climate Strategies, March 2008. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 32 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 22 Summary of Baseline Assessment Methodology for Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy, Costs, and Forecasts Emission Source, Activity, and Classification Applicability Source of Data Estimation Methodology Electricity Consumption Required Activity All cities A, B MWh times conversion factors and energy content Shared Source 1 Host city Minneapolis: Xcel Energy's Riverside Generating Station A, C Natural gas consumption subtracted from citywide total to avoid double counting Shared Source 1 Host city St. Paul: Xcel Energy's High Bridge Generating Station A Natural gas consumption subtracted from citywide total to avoid double counting Not a shared Source: Virtually 100% of consumption within city limits. Host City Rochester: Rochester Public Utility power plants: Cascade Creek (natural gas) and Silver Lake (coal and natural gas) A MWh times conversion factors and energy content B Natural gas consumption subtracted from citywide total to avoid double counting. Not a shared Source: Virtually 100% of consumption within city limits. Host city Duluth: Minnesota Power's Hibbard steam and power plant provides electricity and steam to the downtown district energy system A, B GHG emissions from natural gas and coal consumption subtracted from citywide total to avoid double counting. For coal-based energy, short tons of coal consumed times conversion factors. Natural Gas Consumption, Required Activity All cities A, B Therms times conversion factors and energy content Fuel Oil Consumption, Optional Activity Cities that host major fuel oil users B, D Gallons times conversion factors and energy content Energy Consumption from District Energy Facilities, Required Activity The Assessment accounts for all fossil fuels consumed by district energy facilities (natural gas, electricity, fuel oil, and coal). There are 9 district energy systems that serve 4 of the participating cities. None of these systems serves multiple cities so they are not “shared” facilities. 2 A, B, D Host city Duluth: Duluth Steam Plant provides steam to the downtown district energy system. It burns natural gas and coal. A, B The natural gas consumption is captured in Comfort Systems data. For coal consumption: Tons of coal times emission factor. For coal-based energy, short tons of coal consumed times conversion factors. Vehicle Miles Traveled, Required Activity All cities E VMT by roadway by city B, D, E, F Calculation includes VMT, national vehicle fleet mix, average fuel economy statistics, Minnesota fuel characteristics Airports Emissions, Optional Source Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 33 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 23 Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport; Optional Source (but exceeds de minimis threshold that would permit exclusion) Cities in the Twin Cities H Total MSP Airport emissions in report I Met Council analysis enabled allocation of MSP Airport emissions to each city in region. Rochester International Airport; Optional Source (de minimis) Host city Rochester B, N, P Emissions are de minimis but since the "airport share" emissions for the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport are not de minimis, they are included to maintain a consistent methodology for all participating cities. Methodology: Average operations for each aircraft type from 2005 to 2011, times typical fuel burn rates by aircraft type, times estimated time of typical operation, times GHG emission rate for aviation fuel. Duluth International Airport; Optional Source (de minimis) Host city Duluth Twin Cities Reliever Airports; Optional Sources (de minimis) Host cities: St. Paul (St. Paul Downtown), Eden Prairie (Flying Cloud), Lake Elmo (Lake Elmo) B, O, P Rail Operations; Optional Source Duluth; the city with the most intense rail concentration M Emissions are less than 5% de minimis threshold of city total; therefore, not included 4, 6 Seaport; Optional Source Host city Duluth: Duluth Port Authority M Emissions are less than 5% de minimis threshold of city total; therefore, not included 4, 6 Solid Waste Management; Required Activity All cities J County per-ton, waste management methods apply to each city on a per-capita basis to estimate waste amounts by processing methods (combustion, landfilling, recycling) Combustion Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) users C Calculate GHG emission rate (tonnes of GHG per ton of waste) times tons of waste for each city Byproducts of combustion Per-ton GHG value of electricity and steam disclosed but not counted in emissions totals Shared Source 1 Host city Minneapolis: HERC facility C Subtract 100% natural gas from citywide total to avoid double counting. Combustion Users of Redwing garbage incinerator C Assume same GHG emission rate as for HERC Byproducts of combustion Combustion Users of Washington/Ramsey and Elk River refuse derived fuel (RDF) facilities C ICLEI Community Protocol does not yet have a GHG emission rate for RDF. Assume same GHG emission rate as for HERC and same electricity production rate per ton of waste as for HERC. Byproducts of combustion Combustion Users of Olmsted Waste to Energy Facility (OWEF) K Calculate GHG emission rate (tonnes of GHG per ton of waste) times tons of waste for city Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 34 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 24 Byproducts of combustion Per-ton GHG value of electricity and steam Shared Source 1 Host city Rochester: OWEF Subtract 100% natural gas from citywide total to avoid double counting. Landfilling All cities F CACP software emission rates for landfilled waste times methane recovery rate times tons landfilled. Shared Source 1 Host city Rochester: Olmsted County/Kalamar Landfill (no methane recovery) K, R Disclose non-biogenic emissions. Wastewater Treatment; Required Activity All cities For cities in Twin Cities region, city share of total emissions from the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. Since the plants in Rochester and Duluth do not have a GHG assessments, the per-gallon emissions rate for the Metro Plant is a surrogate for both cities. Shared Source 1 Host city St. Paul: Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant L Subtract electricity and natural gas consumption from citywide totals. Electricity production for on-site use only. Not a shared Source 5 Host city Duluth: Western Lake Superior Sanitary District Duluth plant A, R Subtract consumption of natural gas and fuel oil from citywide totals. Disclose electricity production. Not a shared Source. More than 99% of users are within the city. Host City Rochester: Rochester Public Utility A, R Subtract electricity and natural gas consumption from citywide totals. Electricity production for on-site use only. Greenhouse Gas Emission Forecasts 7 All Q The Minnesota GHG data was used to generate a base case scenario for 2005 for each city and then project business-as-usual forecasts and a target forecasts for 2020 and 2030 for energy, VMT, and municipal solid waste. Cost estimations: 8 All cities Electricity S Electricity consumption by customer class times the average cost per MWh. Natural gas S Natural gas consumption by customer class times the average cost per therm. Vehicle miles traveled T Average fuel prices by type of fuel for 2008 to 2011 times total statewide consumption by fuel type, divided by total VMT yielded an average fuel cost per VMT per year. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 35 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 25 Solid waste management U Statewide average per-ton costs per waste management method times tons managed. Potable Water Production and Distribution V Gallons of water times the energy cost factor (electricity and natural gas) Forecasts: All cities W The State forecasts include 2 future GHG emission scenarios for energy, travel, and waste: Business as usual and a reduction target based on the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act. These statewide forecast methods are applied to each city Excluded emission sources (de minimis): 4 Back-up energy and on-site home heating: Minor users of fuel oil, diesel for back-up generators, propane, compressed natural gas, etc. Rail and marine vessel operations: The baseline assessment prepared for Minneapolis (Source C) calculated the GHG emissions associated with rail and marine operations within Minneapolis to equal less than 1% of total emissions. The same is true for Duluth per source M. Upstream emissions and imbedded energy in materials: This potential source of emissions analysis has yet to be widely accepted for inclusion in GHG assessments and it is not a Required Source according to the ICLEI Community Protocol. Current methodologies result in questi ons regarding the double counting of emissions. Information Sources: A Utility data B International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol , Version 1.1, May 2010, ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, et al. C City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. D Fuel oil consumption data for major users, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the USEPA’s GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgdata/index.html E Minnesota Department of Transportation F Clean Air Climate Protection software from ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, et al. G Federal Energy Information Administration’s 2012 Annual Energy Outlook. H Greenhouse Gas Report: Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 2010. I The Metropolitan Council calculated the “percent of city resident, home -based trips, as a percent of MSP total home -based trips” for 2010. Each city's share of vehicle trips was assumed to be relatively stable and therefore used for all study years. J MPCA SCORE Reports and county Waste Certification reports K U.S. EPA's Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (MRR): http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do L Metropolitan Council Environmental Services data for the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. M City of Duluth Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast, 2008, Wencke Assoc. N US Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Activity System (ATADS); ATADS Report - http://aspm.faa.gov/opsnet/sys/opsnet-server-x.asp Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 36 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 26 O Activity Forecasts Technical Report, Appendix A, HNTB Corporation. http://metroairports.org/MAC/appdocs/meetings/pde/agenda/pde_a_1151/Appendix_A_AviationActivityForecast_072712.pdf P Numerous sources were used to estimate the average fuel -burn rates by aircraft type for a typical operation. Q Final Minnesota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990 -2025, Center for Climate Strategies, March 2008 R U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012 S Xcel Energy provided average costs for NSP Minnesota customers for 2008 to 2011 for electricity and natural gas. For utilitie s other than NSP Minnesota, average cost per customer for electricity and natural gas in Minnesota from 2008 to 2011 is from the US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_smn_a.htm. T Fuel consumption by type of fuel and by year came from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12 (Source C). Average fuel prices are from the following sources: Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices , Minnesota (all grades). Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_smn_a.htm. Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report , US Department of Energy, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/publications/search/keyword/?q=alternative%20fuel%20price%20report. Midwest #2 Diesel Retail Prices: Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emd_epd2d_pte_r20_dpg&f=a U The source for statewide average per-ton costs by waste management method (recycling, combustion, and landfilling) is from “2008 Payments and Spending for Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) in Minnesota,” Sig Scheurle, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. V Cost estimates for the production and distribution of potable water include the energy costs. The electrical consumption rate is based on the collective experience of numerous US cities as reported in the Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant, by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA, "Low maintenance landscaping" model. Baseline analyses for other cities indicate that n atural gas consumption costs related to the production and distribution of potable water constitute about 8% of total costs. Therefore, the electricity costs are divided by 0.92 to acc ount for the natural gas costs. W Final Minnesota Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990 -2025, Center for Climate Strategies, March 2008 Notes: 1 Consistent with the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability USA (ICLEI Community Protocol), the emissions from certain facilities with region-wide user bases (e.g. power plants, solid waste and wastewater treatment facilities, and airports) are considered shared facilities and their emissions are allocated among the users of the facilities. To avoid double counting, utility-based energy (electricity and natural gas) for these facilities are subtracted from the totals of the host cities. 2 Per the ICLEI Community Protocol, the city totals do not count GHG emissions associated with biomass fuels, i.e. the waste wood burned by St. Paul District Energy and the University of Minnesota’s Southeast Steam Plant. 3 The Duluth and Rochester international airports are located within their respective cities. They are not considered shared fa cilities that have significant region-wide user bases for this analysis for the following reasons: 1) The majority of the airport u sers have a direct economic and geographic relationship to their respective host cities. 2) They are small compared to the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport. 3) Emission estimates are de minimis for their respective host cities. This same argument holds for the Twin Cities reliever airports. 4 According to the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2012, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability USA, de minimis emissions are "a quantity of GHG emissions from any combination of sources and/or gases, which, when summed, equal less than five percent (5%) of community GHG emissions that are required to be included in the community GHG emissions report ." De minimis emissions are not required to be reported. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 37 Regional Indicators Initiative Project 27 5 The Western Lake Superior Sanitation District operates a wastewater treatment plant in Duluth. It currently treats wastewater from only one subdivision outside the City limits, Chester Heights with about 90 households (about 0.2% of total City households). 6 The GHG assessment prepared for Duluth in 2008 estimated the GHG emissions for rail and marine operations and both were de mi nimis sources: Rail (1% of total), marine (0.3% of total). 7 The Minnesota data includes actual GHG emissions by major categories (energy, travel, and waste) for the State and 2 future scenarios: Business as usual and a reduction target based on the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act, which established statewide goals of 15% by 2015, 3 0% by 2025, and 80% by 2050. It is assumed that each city forecast matches the State's percentage reduction projections. 8 Cost estimations focus on the costs of energy to the consumer. In the case of electricity and natural gas, the estimates incl ude the average retail costs for all of the consumption costs and related fees. For vehicle miles traveled, it includes the average statewide costs for the fuel only, no t the full costs of driving. For waste management, the costs are statewide averages of the total retail service costs and fees for the various waste management methods. Excluded are costs associated with household hazardous waste and problem materials ($225 per ton), source -separated organics ($220 per ton), and re-use and reduction efforts (which are assumed to be cost neutral). For potable water production and distribution, only the energy costs are included (electricity and natural gas). Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 38 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2020 11 2030 11 Population1 Residents 65,847 65,933 64,206 64,456 74,446 71,250 70,800 Jobs 51,349 49,333 49,526 48,246 47,335 58,900 65,700 Households 25,561 25,562 25,249 25,373 28,725 28,500 29,500 Pop. Density (Res/sq. mi.) 2 31.32 2,102 2,105 2,050 2,058 2,377 2,275 2,261This spreadsheet provides a detailed summary of all of the major components of the Assessment. All of the data come from the other spreadsheets so sources for the data can be found in the source spreadsheets. It shows the percent change from 2008 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2010 to facilitate trend analysis. It also lists key indicators: City population change and per-capita emissions, the decrease in NSP Minnesota's CO2 emission rate for electricity production (which is a major factor in the change in electricity-related CO2e emissions), and heating and cooling degree days for the Twin Cities (which are major factors that affect building energy consumption for cooling and heating). It also included building data normalized for weather (refer to the description for Attachment A3). Attachment A14, prepared by LHB, Inc., provides a unique and valuable summary since it is intended to serve as a stand-alone snapshot of the key metrics in the Assessment. Energy3, 12 Cooling Degree Days4 859 774 1,088 1,129 0 Electricity (MWh)Res 225,743 221,466 235,197 226,173 0 Com/Ind 779,145 752,542 761,251 759,999 0 Total 1,004,888 974,008 996,449 986,172 0 Heating Degree Days4 8,264 7,778 7,170 7,357 0 Therms Res 21,068,359 19,662,973 17,766,579 18,591,799 0 Com/Ind 16,367,957 15,379,022 13,635,174 20,411,855 0 Total 37,436,316 35,041,995 31,401,753 39,003,654 0 Total Energy (MMBtu)Res 2,877,071 2,721,939 2,579,151 2,630,881 0 Com/Ind 4,295,237 4,105,576 3,960,907 4,634,303 0 Total 7,172,308 6,827,516 6,540,058 7,265,184 0 Res. Energy (kBtu/person/day)120 113 110 112 0 Com/Ind Energy (kBtu/job/day)229 228 219 263 0 Total Energy (kBtu/person/day)298 284 279 309 0 Regional Indicators Initiative Project: City of Eagan Updated 11/19/12 RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Initiative Summary 1of5Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 39 Regional Indicators Initiative Project: City of Eagan Updated 11/19/12 Water5 Precipitation (inches)27.38 29.19 40.57 27.98 Potable Water (gallons)Res 2,126,300,000 2,267,800,000 1,926,800,000 2,001,600,000 Com/Ind 1,496,600,000 1,178,800,000 1,115,100,000 1,089,100,000 Total 3,622,900,000 3,446,600,000 3,041,900,000 3,090,700,000 Res. Water (gal./person/day)88 94 82 85 Com/Ind Water (gal./job/day)80 65 62 62 Total Water (gal./person/day)151 143 130 131 0 0 Travel6 Travel Energy (MMBtu)5,275,455 5,213,467 5,035,519 5,027,302 0 Travel Energy (MMBtu/person)80 79 78 78 0 Vehicle Miles Traveled 762,679,584 762,537,195 746,998,780 746,998,780 0 Travel (VMT/person/day)31.7 31.7 31.9 31.8 0.0 Waste (pounds)7 Recycled 72,035,498 75,555,672 71,899,404 72,661,709 Incinerated 12,760,689 13,739,998 14,785,913 13,872,307 Landfill 64,690,798 56,981,712 60,848,070 54,717,855 Total 149,486,985 146,277,381 147,533,387 141,251,871 Waste (per person per day)6.2 6.1 6.3 6.0 RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Initiative Summary 2of5Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 40 Regional Indicators Initiative Project: City of Eagan Updated 11/19/12 Total 1,344,803 1,256,515 1,210,496 1,255,199 CO2e (tonnes/person)20.4 19.1 18.9 19.5 Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2e tonnes)9 Total 1,425,077 1,326,046 1,272,922 1,315,820 CO2e (tonnes/person)21.6 20.1 19.8 20.4 Total Costs10 Total 266,959,731$ 216,645,459$ 233,501,871$ 270,945,258$ Cost ($/person)4,054$ 3,286$ 3,637$ 4,204$ Keyed Notes on Sources: Subtotal of Primary Sources Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2e tonnes)8 1. Demographic data from Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/data_download/DD_start.aspx 2. Land area (first cell to right) from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/27000.html 3. Sum of total energy consumed in city. Source: Utility data. 4. Heating and Cooling Degree Days from Degree Days.net, Station ID: KMSP, http://www.degreedays.net 5. Precipitation from Minnesota Climatology Working Group, State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Zip Code 55424, http://climate.umn.edu/wetland/wetland.asp. Potable water data from city. 6. Vehicle miles traveled from Minnesota Department of Transportation, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/reports/vmt.html. Vehicle fuel consumption by fuel type and GHG emissions rates for Minnesota from City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis , 5/11/12. "Travel energy" refers to energy content of fuel consumed. Conversion factors for energy content by fuel type from the International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol, Version 1.1 , May 2010. RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Initiative Summary 3of5Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 41 Regional Indicators Initiative Project: City of Eagan Updated 11/19/12 7. Per-capita amounts by waste management method for the county are used to estimate per-capita amounts for the city. Waste amounts from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency SCORE reports (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/data/score/recycling-and-solid-waste-data.html) and county Waste Certification reports. Waste composition from: Final Report, Statewide MSW Composition Study: A Study of Discards in the State of Minnesota , Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 2000. 8. Subtotal of Primary Sources include greenhouse gas emissions from energy consumption, vehicle miles traveled, and solid waste management in units of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Primary sources for these estimates are as follows: a) CO2 emission factors for electricity and natural gas from the utility companies. Emission factors for other greenhouse gases from the International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol, Version 1.1, May 2010, produced by the United Nations, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability and The Climate Registry. b) Calculation of emissions from vehicle miles traveled (VMT) involve four primary data sources and calculations that include VMT, national vehicle fleet mix, average fuel economy statistics, and Minnesota fuel characteristics. Data sources include the federal and State departments of transportation, the USEPA, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software, 2009, developed by ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, and the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory , City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. c) Calculations of solid waste emissions from landfilling are based on the waste-in-place estimates from the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software, 2009, developed by ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability. d) Calculations of emissions from the combustion of solid waste are from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory , City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. 9. In order to comply with the reporting requirements of the U.S. ICLEI Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions , October 2012, "Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions" also include the city's share of emissions from the Minneapolis St. Paul International Airport (MSP) and from the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant. MSP Airport emissions are from: Greenhouse Gas Report: Metropolitan Airports Commission , December 2010. http://www.mspairport.com/docs/about-msp/sustainability/MSP-2010-GHG-Report-Jan-2011.aspx. The city's share of MSP emissions are from the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities. Source for the city's share of wastewater treatment emissions is the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. 10. Total costs include costs associated with the retail cost of delivered energy; the fuel costs for vehicle miles traveled; statewide average costs of solid waste management for combustion (incineration and RDF processing), recycling, and landfilling; and electricity and natural gas costs of producing and distributing potable water and treating wastewater. Primary sources not already listed above include the following: RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Initiative Summary 4of5Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 42 Regional Indicators Initiative Project: City of Eagan Updated 11/19/12 d) Potable water costs: Energy consumption rate per gallon is based on the collective experience of numerous US cities as reported in the Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant , by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA, "Low maintenance landscaping" model. Cost per gallon based on the statewide average, commercial/industrial electricity rate (cited above). e) Wastewater treatment: Source of energy consumption figures: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. Costs derived using NSP Minnesota cost averages since the Metro Plant is located in St. Paul. 11. Forecasted estimates for 2012, 2020, and 2030 are based on the assumption that the averages of the actual data (2008 to 2011) for per-capita and per-job, potable water consumption yield "business-as- usual" forecasts. 12. In September 2012, it was learned that Xcel Energy had instituted a new policy called the “15/15 Rule.” The new rule applies when there are less than 15 premises (customers) in a particular batch of information (i.e. Windsource customers) or if the usage for any one particular customer is more than 15% of the sample. In order to protect the data privacy of those customers, that data is excluded. The rule applies to the electricial consumption data for Commercial and Industrial wind in the case of the City and Commercial and Industrial electricity and natural gas consumption. The extent of the excluded data and for which years the rule was applied is not known. However, the wind-based consumption is not likely to comprise a significant portion of Commercial and Industrial consumption (probably less than 1%) and its exclusion has no effect on GHG emissions. a) Energy costs (electricity, natural gas, fuel oil, coal): Xcel Energy; the US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_smn_a.htm; and State Electricity Profiles 2010, January 2012, U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/pdf/sep2010.pdf; "Residual Fuel Oil Prices by Sales Type" Source: US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PRI_RESID_DCU_R20_M.htm. Prices for sub-bituminous coal from "Table 7.9 Coal Prices, 1949-2011." Source: US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/coal/data.cfm#prices b) Vehicle miles traveled costs: Total fuel costs are derived in Table 4b in the Conversion Factors spreadsheet. Primary sources: Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices, Minnesota (all grades). Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_smn_a.htm; Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, US Department of Energy, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/publications/search/keyword/?q=alternative%20fuel%20price%20report; Midwest #2 Diesel Retail Prices: Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emd_epd2d_pte_r20_dpg&f=a c) Solid waste management costs: Source: “2008 Payments and Spending for Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) in Minnesota,” Sig Scheurle, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Initiative Summary 5of5Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 43 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Updated: 11/19/12 Amount GHG Emissions (tonnes)Amount GHG Emissions (tonnes)Amount Percent Change Amount GHG Emissions (tonnes) Amount Percent Change Amount GHG Emissions (tonnes) Amount GHG Emissions (tonnes) Energy: * Electricity (MWh):1,004,888 764,338 974,008 695,641 (68,697) -9%996,449 681,976 (13,665) -2%986,172 686,252 - - Residential (MWh)225,743 192,376 221,466 176,975 (15,401) -8%235,197 180,312 3,337 2%226,173 175,218 - - Commercial & Industrial (MWh)776,292 569,637 749,698 516,494 (53,144) -9%758,480 499,625 (16,869) -3%757,279 508,991 - - Public street and highway lighting 2,853 2,324 2,845 2,172 (152) -7%2,771 2,039 (133) -6%2,720 2,043 - - Natural gas (therms)37,436,316 205,877 35,041,995 192,710 (13,167) -6%31,401,753 172,691 (20,019) -10%39,003,654 214,497 - - Residential 21,068,359 115,863 19,662,973 108,135 (7,729) -7%17,766,579 97,706 (10,429) -10%18,591,799 102,244 - - Commercial and industrial 16,367,957 90,014 15,379,022 84,575 (5,439) -6%13,635,174 74,985 (9,590) -11%20,411,855 112,253 - - Subtotal GHG emissions 970,215 888,351 (81,864) -8%854,667 (33,684) -4%900,749 - Percent of total Community emissions 68%67%-1%67%0%68% Per-capita GHG emissions 14.7 13.5 (1.3) -9%13.3 (0.162) -1%14.0 0.0 Normalized for weather 985,261 932,537 (52,724) -5%846,120 (86,417) -9%883,094 Weather-normalized per-capita emissions 15.0 14.1 (0.8) -5%13.2 (1) -7%13.7 Transportation: Vehicle miles traveled 762,679,584 362,654 762,537,195 356,867 (5,787) -2%746,998,780 344,068 (12,800) -4%746,998,780 343,619 - - Share of MSP Airport emissions 75,031 64,457 (10,574) -14%57,861 (6,596) -10%55,633 0 Subtotal GHG emissions 437,686 421,324 (16,361) -4%401,928 (19,396) -5%399,252 Percent of total Community emissions 31%32%1%32%-0.2%30% Per-capita GHG emissions 6.65 6.39 (0.3) -4%6.26 (0.1) -2%6.19 - Solid Waste Management Estimated total MSW managed (US tons)74,743 11,934 73,139 11,296 (638.1) -5%73,767 11,762 466 4%70,626 10,831 - Percent of total Community emissions 0.8%0.9%0.01%0.9%0.1%0.8% Per-capita GHG emissions 0.2 0.2 (0.01) -5%0.2 0.01 7%0.2 City share of wastewater treatment emissions 5,243 5,075 (168) -3%4,565 (510) -10%4,988 Percent of total Community emissions 0.4%0.4%0.01%0.4%-0.02%0.4% Per-capita GHG emissions 0.1 0.1 (0.003) -3%0.1 (0.01) -8%0.1 0.0 Community Emissions Total:1,425,077 1,326,046 (99,031) -7%1,272,922 (53,124) -4%1,315,820 Per-capita emissions 21.6 20.1 (1.5) -7%19.8 (0.3) -1%20.4 Normalized for weather 1,440,123 1,370,233 (69,891) -5%1,264,376 (105,857) -8%1,298,166 Weather-normalized per-capita emissions 21.9 20.8 (1.1) -5%19.7 (1) -5%20.1 Other factors: City population 65,847 65,933 86 0.1%64,206 (1,727) -3%64,456 74,446 NSP Minnesota GHG emission factor (tonnes GHG/MWh)0.583 0.551 -0.032 -5%0.508 (0.044) -8%0.531 0.004 Seasonal cooling degree days 859 774 -85 -10%1,088 314 41%1,129 - Seasonal heating degree days 8,264 7,778 -486 -6%7,170 -608 -8%7,357 - Residential Commercial Total Electricity 681,976 54%3,399,883 29%35%21%59%80% Natural Gas 172,691 14%3,140,175 27%11%11%9%20% Vehicle Miles Traveled 344,068 27%5,035,519 44%49% Airport share 57,861 5%not applicable not applicable not applicable Solid Waste 11,762 1%not applicable not applicable 5.1% City Share of Wastewater Treatment 4,565 0.4%not applicable not applicable 0.3% Potable Water not applicable not applicable not applicable not applicable 0.1% Total 1,272,922 100%11,575,577 100%100%33%67%100% Note: * Detailed Greenhouse Gas Assessment Summary Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources 2008 2009 GHG Change from 2008 In September 2012, it was learned that Xcel Energy had instituted a new policy called the “15/15 Rule.” The new rule applies when there are less than 15 premises (customers) in a particular batch of information (i.e. Windsource customers) or if the usage for any one particular customer is more than 15% of the sample. In order to protect the data privacy of those customers, that data is excluded. The rule applies to the electricial consumption data for Commercial and Industrial wind in the case of the City and Commercial and Industrial electricity and natural gas consumption. The extent of the excluded data and for which years the rule was applied is not known. However, the wind-based consumption is not likely to comprise a significant portion of Commercial and Industrial consumption (probably less than 1%) and its exclusion has no effect on GHG emissions. 2011 2012GHG Change from 20092010 Percent of Total Costs Percent of GHG from Building EnergySector Share of GHG and Energy, 2010 GHG (Tonnes) Percent of Total GHG MMBtu Percent of Total MMBtu RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Detailed GHG SummaryEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 44 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Falcon Heights Updated: 11/2/12 Amount Costs Amount Costs Amount Costs Amount Costs Amount Costs Energy: Electricity (MWh):1,004,888 75,524,890$ 974,008 75,566,825$ 996,449 80,716,226$ 986,172 82,247,422$ - - Residential (MWh)225,743 21,987,363$ 221,466 22,235,191$ 235,197 24,907,395$ 226,173 24,818,680$ - -$ Commercial & Industrial (MWh)776,292 53,370,065$ 749,698 53,153,566$ 758,480 55,634,518$ 757,279 57,250,313$ - -$ Public street and highway lighting 2,853 167,461$ 2,845 178,068$ 2,771 174,313$ 2,720 178,430$ - -$ Natural gas (therms)37,436,316 39,802,223$ 35,041,995 28,150,127$ 31,401,753 24,549,103$ 39,003,654 29,378,410$ - -$ Residential 21,068,359 23,786,177$ 19,662,973 17,677,013$ 17,766,579 15,563,523$ 18,591,799 16,100,498$ - -$ Commercial and industrial 16,367,957 16,016,046$ 15,379,022 10,473,114$ 13,635,174 8,985,580$ 20,411,855 13,277,912$ - -$ Subtotal Energy Costs 115,327,113$ 103,716,951$ 105,265,329$ 111,625,832$ - Percent of total Community costs 43%48%45%41%#DIV/0! Per-capita costs 1,751$ 1,573$ 1,639$ 1,732$ 0.0 Residential 695$ 605$ 630$ 635$ -$ Commercial and industrial 1,056$ 968$ 1,009$ 1,097$ -$ Vehicle Miles Traveled:762,679,584 762,537,195 746,998,780 746,998,780 0 Total fuel costs 138,635,152$ 100,107,838$ 115,472,905$ 146,974,022$ Percent of total Community costs 52%46%49%54%#REF! Per-capita costs 2,105$ 1,518$ 1,798$ 2,280$ -$ Solid Waste Management Estimated total MSW managed (US tons)74,743 11,929,660$ 73,139 11,755,656$ 73,767 11,816,702$ 70,626 11,357,117$ - #DIV/0! Processed via combustion (incineration and RDF processing)6,380 1,116,560$ 6,870 1,202,250$ 7,393 1,293,767$ 6,936 1,213,827$ #DIV/0!#DIV/0! Landfilling 32,345 4,690,083$ 28,491 4,131,174$ 30,424 4,411,485$ 27,359 3,967,044$ #DIV/0!#DIV/0! Recycling 36,018 6,123,017$ 37,778 6,422,232$ 35,950 6,111,449$ 36,331 6,176,245$ #DIV/0!#DIV/0! Percent of total Community costs 4.5%5.4%5.1%4.2%#DIV/0! Per-capita costs 181$ 178$ 184$ 176$ #DIV/0! Water Consumption (gal): Residential 2,126,300,000 474,835$ 2,267,800,000 540,082$ 1,926,800,000 461,071$ 2,001,600,000 499,530$ #REF! Commercial and Industrial 1,496,600,000 334,214$ 1,178,800,000 280,734$ 1,115,100,000 266,836$ 1,089,100,000 271,801$ #REF! Total 3,622,900,000 809,049$ 3,446,600,000 820,815$ 3,041,900,000 727,907$ 3,090,700,000 771,331$ #REF! Percent of total Community costs 0.3%0.4%0.3%0.3%#DIV/0! Per-capita costs 12$ 12$ 11$ 12$ -$ Energy Costs of Wastewater Treatment: City share of wastewater treatment 2.59%258,757$ 2.61%244,198$ 2.53%219,028$ 2.39%216,956$ Percent of total Community costs 0.1%0.1%0.1%0.1%#DIV/0! Per-capita costs 4$ 4$ 3$ 3$ -$ Community Costs Total:266,959,731$ 216,645,459$ 233,501,871$ 270,945,258$ #DIV/0! Per-capita costs 4,054$ 3,286$ 3,637$ 4,204$ #DIV/0! Other Factors: City population 65,847 65,933 64,206 64,456 74,446 Residential Commercial Total Electricity 80,716,226$ 35%24%53%77% Natural Gas 24,549,103$ 11%15%9%23% Vehicle Miles Traveled (total fuel costs)115,472,905$ 49% Solid Waste 11,816,702$ 5% Water Consumption (costs of energy)727,907$ 0.3% Wastewater Treatment (energy costs)219,028$ 0.1% Total 233,501,871$ 100%38%62%100% Costs Greenhouse Gas Emission Activities 2008 2009 2010 2012 Sector Share of Costs, 2010 Costs Percent of Total Costs Percent of Total Costs from Building Energy 2011 RIIP Eagan.xlsx; CostsEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 45 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Sector Shares of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Updated: 11/21/12 Electricity, 681,976 , 54% Natural Gas, 172,691 , 14% Vehicle Miles Traveled, 344,068 , 27% Airport share, 57,861 , 4% Solid Waste, 11,762 , 1% City Share of Wastewater Treatment, 4,565 , 0% Sector Share of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2010 (tonnes) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Electricity Natural Gas Vehicle Miles Traveled 54% 14% 27% 29% 27% 44% 35% 11% 49% Sector Share of Energy, 2010 Percent of Total GHG Percent of Total MMBtu Percent of Total Costs - 5 10 15 20 25 2008 2009 2010 2011 Per-Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions (tonnes) Total Residential Commercial/ Industrial Transp. (incl. airport) Solid Waste - 50 100 150 200 250 2008 2009 2010 2011 Per-Capita Energy (MMBtu) Total Residential Commercial/ Industrial Vehicle miles traveled $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 2008 2009 2010 2011 Per-Capita Costs Total Residential Energy Commercial/ Ind. Energy VMT Fuels Solid Waste Management Water & Wastewater Energy RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Sector SharesEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 46 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Updated: 11/19/12 Amount GHG Amount GHG Amount % Change Amount GHG Amount % Change Amount GHG Amount GHG Residential 225,743 192,376 221,466 176,975 235,197 180,312 226,173 175,218 - 0 Commercial and Industrial 776,292 569,637 749,698 516,494 758,480 499,625 757,279 508,991 0 0 Public street and highway lighting 2,853 2,324 2,845 2,172 (152) -7%2,771 2,039 (133)-6%2,720 2,043 0 0 Electricity totals 1,004,888 764,338 974,008 695,641 (152) (0) 996,449 681,976 (133) (0) 986,172 686,252 - - Normalized for weather 3 1,046,417 795,925 1,045,423 746,646 (49,280) -6%976,529 668,343 (78,303)-10%958,220 666,801 Natural gas (therms) 1 Residential 21,068,359 115,863 19,662,973 108,135 (7,729) -7%17,766,579 97,706 (10,429)-10%18,591,799 102,244 - - Commercial and Industrial 16,367,957 90,014 15,379,022 84,575 (5,439) -6%13,635,174 74,985 (9,590)-11%20,411,855 112,253 - - Natural gas totals 37,436,316 205,877 35,041,995 192,710 (13,167) -6%31,401,753 172,691 (20,019)-10%39,003,654 214,497 - - Normalized for weather 3 34,428,364 189,335 33,802,145 185,892 (3,444) -2%32,326,725 177,778 (8,114)-4%39,330,231 216,293 970,215 888,351 (81,864) -8%854,667 (33,684)-4%900,749 - 985,261 932,537 (52,724) -5%846,120 (86,417)-9%883,094 NSP Minnesota GHG emission rates (tonnes GHG/MWh)0.583 0.551 (0.03) -5%0.508 (0.04) -8%0.531 Population 65,847 65,933 86 0.1%64,206 (1,727) -3%64,456 74,446 Per-capita rates: Electricity 15.3 11.6 14.8 10.6 (1.1) -9%15.5 10.6 0.1 1%15.3 10.6 - - Natural gas 568.5 3.1 531.5 2.9 (0.2) -7%489.1 2.7 (0.2) -8%605.1 3.3 0.0 0.0 Total GHG for electricity and natural gas 14.7 13.5 (1.3) -9%13.3 (0.2) -1%14.0 0.0 Total GHG for electricity and natural gas, normalized for weather 15.0 14.1 (0.8) -5%13.2 (1.0) -7%13.7 1 2 3 4 Consumption and GHG 4 Sectors and Fuels Energy Consumption and Associated Greenhouse Gas Emissions Electricity (MWh) 1 GHG Change from 200820092008 Source: Xcel Energy for electricity and CenterPoint Energy for natural gas The wind turbines that are used for Xcel Energy's "Windsource" program are treated as separate assets. They are not part of the regular system supply and they do not count toward Xcel Energy’s target under Minnesota’s renewable energy standards. Normalized Standard Heating/Cooling Degree Days predicts the energy consumption based on the average HDD/CDD, not the actual amounts. For electricity, it is assumed 25% of electricity consumption is for air conditioning. For natural gas, it is assumed 80% is for heating buildings. Electricity in MWh, natural gas in therms. Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) are expressed in metric tonnes, which equal 1,000 kilograms, 2,204.6 pounds, or 1.102 US tons. 2010 GHG Change from 2009 2011 2012 Total GHG for electricity and natural gas, normalized for weather Total GHG for electricity and natural gas Other factors: Notes: RIIP Eagan.xlsx; EnergyEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 47 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Eagan Electricity Updated: 11/19/12 Class of Service Electric Only Premise Count Total Energy Consumed (MWh) Electric Energy Generated by Wind (MWh) GHG Emissions (tonnes) Total Energy Consumed (MWh) GHG Emissions (tonnes) 2008 Residential 4,051 28,627 - 16,689 196,628 175,545 225,255 192,234 Res Windsource 59 488 244 142.1 488 142 Commercial and Industrial 911 398,375 - 232,241.5 377,917 337,396 776,292 569,637 Pub St & Hwy Ltg - 719 - 419.0 2,134 1,905 2,853 2,324 Total 5,021 428,209 244 249,491 576,678 514,846 1,004,888 764,338 - - 2009 Residential 4,060 27,597 - 15,212.0 193,454 161,655 221,050 176,867 Res Windsource 56 416 219 108.5 416 109 Commercial and Industrial 886 386,676 - 213,143.4 363,022 303,350 749,698 516,494 Pub St & Hwy Ltg - 721 - 397.3 2,124 1,775 2,845 2,172 Total 5,002 415,409 219 228,861 558,599 466,780 974,008 695,641 - - 2010 Residential 4,062 29,099 - 14,772.6 205,681 165,435 234,780 180,208 Res Windsource 47 418 211 104.7 418 105 Commercial and Industrial 890 372,292 - 189,003.1 386,188 310,622 758,480 499,625 Pub St & Hwy Ltg - 641 - 325.5 2,130 1,713 2,771 2,039 Total 4,999 402,449 211 204,206 594,000 477,770 996,449 681,976 - - 2011 Residential 4,073 28,946 - 15,364.7 196,843 159,755 225,789 175,120 Res Windsource 49 384 198 98.4 384 98 Commercial and Industrial 907 376,118 - 199,646.3 381,162 309,345 757,279 508,991 Pub St & Hwy Ltg - 586 - 311.0 2,134 1,732 2,720 2,043 Total 5,029 406,033 198 215,420 580,139 470,832 986,172 686,252 - - 2012 Residential - - Res Windsource - - Commercial and Industrial - - Pub St & Hwy Ltg - - Total - - - - - - - - Notes (from Xcel Energy): 6. Windsource energy is included in the calculation of Xcel Energy's Colorado Electric Emission Factor. The total emissions for the community, or 'Total Tons of CO2 From CONS' column, is calculated with Windsource emissions assigned a zero emissions factor. This may not reflect current or future carbon reporting protocols or the Company's position on them; check your carbon reporting protocols to determine how green pricing programs are handled. 7. By definition, commercial electric service is delivered at secondary voltage (typically 120, 208, 240 or 480 volts). Industrial electric service is delivered at primary voltage (typically 13 Kilovolts) or transmission voltage (typically 115 or 230 Kilovolts). 2. Only premises showing energy consumption during the reporting period are included. Total Energy Consumed (MWh) 3. The reports include all retail energy consumed within the specified local government's boundaries. Consumption, including streetlights, traffic signals and other non-metered premises, by all types of government is incorporated. Also included is the use of energy by the company, excluding only the gas to fuel power plants (which is accounted for in the electric emission 4. Premises are assigned to a class of service based on the electric and gas rates used at the premise. If a premise has more than one class of service, the service with the highest priority is assigned. Priorities are Residential=1, Residential Windsource=2, Commercial=3, Commercial Windsource=4, Industrial=5 and Industrial Windsource=6. 5. Windsource is a voluntary wind energy program offered by Xcel Energy to its electric customers in Colorado. Customers have the option of purchasing 100 - kilowatt-hour (kWh) blocks of Windsource or the 100% Windsource option. (1000 kWh equals one Megawatt-hour or MWh). For Windsource rows, 'Total Electric Energy Consumed (MWh)' column includes all energy consumed by Windsource premises whether from renewable Windsource generation or from traditional non-renewable sources. Dakota Electric Association DataXcel Energy Data Year Total Emissions 1. An Xcel Energy 'customer' may receive electric, gas or both electric and gas service at a given location. To provide the clearest breakout of customers, this information has been prepared using a 'premise' as a proxy for a customer. A premise is a physical location where electricity, gas or both may be supplied. Typically there is only one meter for electricity and/or one for 8. Apartment buildings often have individual electric meters for each unit, which are served on a residential rate and are included in the electric Residential class of service. They usually have another electric meter for laundry rooms and for common area lighting and cooling, served on a commercial electric rate and included in the Commercial class. These same apartment buildings often have one gas meter connected to a boiler and a water heater providing heat and hot water to all of the individual units. These meters are served on a commercial gas rate and are included in the gas Commercial class. However, if each unit has an individual gas meter serving only that unit's individual furnace and/or water heater, then it is served on a residential gas rate and included in the gas Residential class. 9. For gas transportation customers, where gas is purchased from a third party supplier and Xcel Energy only delivers the gas to the end customer, premises and consumption are included in the gas Commercial class of service rows. 10. Gas transportation customers are set up by contract rather than as traditional premises. The 12-month median of the number of gas transportation service and facilities charges paid in the jurisdiction is used as a proxy. 11. No premise counts are provided for Public Street & Highway Lighting since these are set up by contract rather than as traditional premises. The identified local government is the major or only customer. This report was prepared by Marketing - Information Services. Consumption data is from Xcel Energy's internal databases used for reporting to regulatory agencies. It is based on information available on 6/20/2011. It should be consistent with various reports prepared for those agencies. RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Electricity Data 1 of 1Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 48 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Updated: 11/19/12 Classification Minnesota Energy Resources 2008 Residential Service Gas 19,885,165 Commercial/Industrial Gas 16,132,719 Total 36,017,884 2009 Residential Service Gas 18,802,295 Commercial/Industrial Gas 15,240,788 Total 34,043,083 2010 Residential Service Gas 17,220,292 Commercial/Industrial Gas 13,541,777 Natural Gas Usage RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Natural Gas DataEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 49 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Updated: 11/5/12 GHG Emission Factors Global Warming Potential GHG GHG Emission Factors Global Warming Potential GHG GHG Emission Factors Global Warming Potential GHG GHG Emission Factors Global Warming Potential GHG GHG Emission Factors Global Warming Potential GHG Great River Energy 5 CO2 (lbs/MWh) 1 1,959.0 1 1,959 1,833.0 1 1,833.0 1,764.0 1 1,764.0 1,780.0 1 1,780.0 1 - N2O (lbs/MWh) 2 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 CH4 (lbs/MWh) 2 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 Total CO2e (lbs/MWh)1,968.2 1,842.2 1,773.2 1,789.2 9.2 Total CO2e (tonnes/MWh) 3 0.893 0.836 0.804 0.812 0.004 Xcel Energy/NSP CO2 (lbs/MWh) 1 1,276.0 1 1,276 1,206.0 1 1,206.0 1,110.0 1 1,110.0 1,161.0 1 1,161.0 N2O (lbs/MWh) 2 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 0.02779 310 8.6 CH4 (lbs/MWh) 2 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 0.02880 21 0.6 Total CO2e (lbs/MWh)1,285.2 1,215.2 1,119.2 1,170.2 9.2 Total CO2e (tonnes/MWh) 3 0.583 0.551 0.508 0.531 0.004 CO2 (kg/therm) 5.302 1 5.3 5.302 1 5.3 5.302 1 5.3 5.302 1 5.3 5.302 1 5.3 N2O (kg/therm) 0.00042 310 0.1 0.00042 310 0.1 0.00042 310 0.1 0.00042 310 0.1 0.00042 310 0.1 CH4 (kg/therm) 0.00320 21 0.1 0.00320 21 0.1 0.00320 21 0.1 0.00320 21 0.1 0.00320 21 0.1 Total CO2e (kg/therm)5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Total CO2e (tonnes/therm)0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 Unit Data Source kBtu GHG (tonnes)GHG Per kBtu (tonnes) Electricity (NSP MN 2010)1 kWh 1 3412.0 0.0005 0.0001 Natural gas Therms 1 100.0 0.0055 0.0550 E-10 gasoline US gallon 2 120.1 0.0089 0.0743 B-5 diesel US gallon 2 126.8 0.0105 0.0829 Gasoline US gallon 3 125.0 0.0092 0.0739 Diesel US gallon 3 129.5 0.0107 0.0830 Ethanol US gallon 3 76.1 0.0061 0.0795 Data source: 1 2 3 E-100 (Ethanol) 3 Gasoline Diesel E-10 Gasoline B-5 Diesel 2001-2005: Use of E-10 Only 2006-Present: Use of E-10 and B-5 CO2 (g/gal) 1 5,750 8,780 10,210 9,025 8,477 9,987 8,794 8,746 CO2e (g/gal) 2 6,053 9,242 10,747 9,500 8,923 10,513 9,257 9,206 CO2e (tonnes per 1,000 gal)6.05 9.24 10.75 9.50 8.92 10.51 9.26 9.21 National fleet share 4 2%76%22% Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 Table G.11 and G.13, International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol , Version 1.1, May 2010. Source: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm. "In addition to carbon dioxide, automobiles produce methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) from the tailpipe, as well as HFC emissions from leaking air conditioners. The emissions of CH4 and N2O are related to vehicle miles traveled rather than fuel consumption, and the emissions of CH4, N2O, and HFCs are not as easily estimated from a vehicle as for CO2.[3.] On average, CH4, N2O, and HFC emissions represent roughly 5 - 6 percent of the GHG emissions from passenger vehicles, while CO2 emissions account for 94-95 percent, accounting for the global warming potential of each greenhouse gas. (These percentages are estimated from the EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 - 2001.)" To simplify this estimate, it is assumed that CH4, N2O, and HFCs account for 5 percent of emissions, and the CO2 estimate was multiplied by 100/95 to incorporate the contribution of the other greenhouse gases. Source: Table G.12, International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol provides the E-100 emission factor. Emission factors for E-85 and E-10 are derived as proportionate mixtures of E-100 and gasoline. The national fleet share refers to the percentage share of the main transportation fuels used in the US fleet. Source (2005 data): http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/emerging-technologies/biofuels.php Transportation fuels sold in Minnesota have blends of ethanol that are higher than the national average, thus, per-gallon GHG emissions will be relatively lower. From 2001 to 2005, the state required 10% ethanol in gasoline. From 2006 to the present, the state added the requirement of 5% ethanol in diesel fuels. Conversion Factors Table 1: Conversion Factors for Utilities 2008 2009 Minnesota Energy Resources 2012 Table 2: Energy Conversion Factors Minnesota Public Building Enhanced Energy Efficiency Program (PBEEEP) "Fuel Economy Impact Analysis of RFG". US Environmental Protection Agency. 2007-08-14. http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm. The State of Minnesota requires gasoline and diesel fuels sold in the state be oxygenated by 10% and 5% ethanol respectively. 2010 Xcel Energy emission factor for CO2 is for Xcel's wholly owned generating company, NSP Minnesota. Great River Energy provided its CO2 emission factors. Emission factors for CH4 and N2O are from the USEPA eGRID for Midwest Regional Organization West. Factors do not include emissions from transmission and distribution losses. Latest data is for 2009. Source: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) are expressed in metric tonnes, which equal 1,000 kilograms, or 2,204.6 pounds. Source: Table G.1 and G3, Local Government Operations Protocol, for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Version 1.1, May 2010. The therm (symbol thm) is a unit of heat energy equal to 100,000 British thermal units (BTU). It is approximately the energy equivalent of burning 100 cubic feet (often referred to as 1 hcf) of natural gas. A million BTUs (MMBtu) equals a decatherm (10 therms). Natural gas emission factors do not vary substantially over time. The Dakota Electric Association (DEA) serves a large part of the City. DEA purchases wholesale electricity from Great River Energy, a generation and transmission cooperative in Maple Grove, Minn., and distributes electricity to homes, businesses and farms in parts of Dakota, Goodhue, Scott and Rice counties. The emission factors listed for 2011 are actually for 2010, the most recent data available. From Great River Energy: "Great River Energy's (GRE's) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions intensity data represents the non-biogenic GHG emissions from all of our power generating units as well as estimated emissions associated with all purchased energy including renewable energy. The emission calculations were done in general accordance with protocols established by The Climate Registry." 2011 Table 3: Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Liquid Fuels GHG Emission Factors National Fleet Share 4 Minnesota Fuel Blends5 Minnesota Fleet Emission Factors5 RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Conversion Factors 1of2Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 50 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Updated: 11/5/12 Conversion Factors Gallons MMBtu Gallons MMBtu Gallons MMBtu Gallons MMBtu Year:2006 103,021,426 12,877,678 11,446,825 871,103 24,957,074 3,231,941 509,328 65,242 17,045,965 2,407,535,255 7,080 2007 106,606,651 13,325,831 11,845,183 901,418 26,045,742 3,372,924 531,546 68,088 17,668,262 2,524,701,350 6,998 2008 101,502,106 12,687,763 11,278,012 858,257 25,010,186 3,238,819 510,412 65,381 16,850,220 2,436,024,630 6,917 2009 98,071,149 12,258,894 10,896,794 829,246 23,873,759 3,091,652 994,740 127,421 16,307,213 2,385,221,345 6,837 2010 97,036,508 12,129,564 10,781,834 820,498 23,743,262 3,074,752 1,249,645 160,074 16,184,887 2,400,983,870 6,741 2011 96,168,052 12,021,007 10,685,339 1,355,222 23,663,739 2,842,252 1,245,460 161,287 16,379,767 2,385,924,781 6,865 1 Gallons Cost/Gallon Total Costs Gallons Cost/Gallon Total Costs Gallons Cost/Gallon Total Costs Gallons Cost/Gallon Total Costs Year:2006 103,021,426 2.52$ 259,510,972$ 11,446,825 1.97$ 22,550,245$ 24,957,074 2.67$ 66,610,431$ 509,328 3.31$ 1,685,876$ 350,357,524$ 2,407,535,255 0.15$ 2007 106,606,651 2.77$ 295,620,243$ 11,845,183 2.29$ 27,125,469$ 26,045,742 2.86$ 74,542,914$ 531,546 3.07$ 1,631,846$ 398,920,472$ 2,524,701,350 0.16$ 2008 101,502,106 3.13$ 317,498,588$ 11,278,012 2.60$ 29,322,831$ 25,010,186 3.76$ 93,988,279$ 510,412 3.91$ 1,995,711$ 442,805,409$ 2,436,024,630 0.18$ 2009 98,071,149 2.32$ 227,917,350$ 10,896,794 2.21$ 24,081,915$ 23,873,759 2.43$ 58,084,856$ 994,740 3.07$ 3,053,852$ 313,137,972$ 2,385,221,345 0.13$ 2010 97,036,508 2.79$ 270,246,675$ 10,781,834 2.42$ 26,092,038$ 23,743,262 2.96$ 70,375,029$ 1,249,645 3.55$ 4,436,240$ 371,149,981$ 2,400,983,870 0.15$ 2011 96,168,052 3.55$ 341,396,586$ 10,685,339 3.12$ 33,338,258$ 23,663,739 3.80$ 89,969,536$ 1,245,460 3.80$ 4,732,748$ 469,437,128$ 2,385,924,781 0.20$ 1 2 3 4 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 GHG emissions (tonnes): Fossil 133,191 134,057 133,972 129,883 131,292 140,341 Biogenic 225,765 227,890 228,264 219,170 218,699 193,804 Total waste (US tons)365,000 346,676 348,979 338,337 363,350 364,575 Fossil GHG emission rate (tonnes per ton of MSW)0.365 0.387 0.384 0.384 0.361 0.385 Biogenic GHG emission rate (tonnes per ton of MSW)0.619 0.657 0.654 0.648 0.602 0.532 Byproducts of combustion: Exported electricity (MWh)221,001 223,487 215,402 187,053 206,178 209,117 Energy value of exported electricity (MMBtu)754,055,412 762,537,644 734,951,624 638,224,836 703,479,336 713,507,204 Steam sales (1,000 lbs) 3 101,507 82,504 89,584 Energy value of exported steam (MMBtu) 2 101,507 82,504 89,584 Subtotal of energy value (MMBtu)754,055,412 762,537,644 734,951,624 638,326,343 703,561,840 713,596,788 GHG equivalent of exported electricity (tonnes) 1 131,686 136,005 125,614 103,142 104,710 110,132 GHG equivalent of exported steam (tonnes) 3 6 5 5 Total GHG equivalent of exported electricity and steam 131,686 136,005 125,614 103,148 104,715 110,137 Per ton of MSW total GHG equivalent of exported electricity and steam (tonnes)0.36 0.39 0.36 0.30 0.29 0.30 Fossil GHG emission rate (tonnes per ton of MSW)0.365 0.387 0.384 0.384 0.361 0.385 Biogenic GHG emission rate (tonnes per ton of MSW)0.619 0.657 0.654 0.648 0.602 0.532 GHG emission equivalent for electricity produced by RDF combustion (tonnes per ton of MSW processed)0.36 0.39 0.36 0.30 0.29 0.30 Notes: 1 2 3 4 Steam sales offset natural gas consumption in the downtown district energy systems. Since a therm of natural gas equals 100 kBtu, the energy value of the exported steam is divided by 100 times the natural gas emission factor to yield GHG emissions. These refuse derived fuel (RDF) facilities process municipal solid waste into fuel pellets that are burned in certified Xcel Energy power plants in Minnesota. According to the EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM), processing MSW into RDF yields a more uniform fuel that has a higher heating value than that used for a mass burn facility (such as HERC). The EPA and ICLEI-USA have yet to derive a GHG emission rate that applies to MSW that has been processed and burned in this manner. As a default until an acceptable rate is available, the GHG emission rate for the HERC facility is used. The per-ton GHG equivalent of the electricity byproduct is assumed to be the same as for exported electricity for the HERC facility. Table 5: Emission Factors and Byproducts for the Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Hennepin Energy Resources Center (HERC) mass burn garbage incinerator 1 Ramsey/Washington County (Newport) and Elk River RDF facilities 4 Data for 2006 to 2010 from City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis , 5/11/12. The inventory includes data for the Hennepin Energy Resource Center (HERC) from Hennepin County, which owns the mass-burn, waste-to-energy garbage incinerator. 2010 data available per the US EPA's GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule: http://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do. According to the ICLEI Community Protocol (Appendix E), "The combustion of MSW components originally manufactured from fossil fuels (e.g., plastics, certain textiles, rubber, liquid solvents, and waste oil) results in fossil based CO2. The CO2 emissions from combusting the biomass portion of MSW (e.g., yard waste, paper products) are biologic in origin and are reported separately. Only the fossil-based emissions are counted for the purposes of carbon baseline assessments per the Protocol (Appendix E, p. 15). The fossil-based emissions also include all of the CH4 and N2O emissions. Source for steam sales: Hennepin County. Steam energy content varies with pressure and feed water temperature. Energy value represents industry accepted estimate used when exact steam conditions are not known: 1 kBtu/lb. Source: Natural Resources, Canada, http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/technical-info/tools/2531 Total MMBtu Total VMT MMBtu per Million VMT Notes: Fuel consumption is for the City of Minneapolis from 2006 to 2010. Data are from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Assessment, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. Data for other years are based on linear regression using the actual data and kBtu estimates from the Clean Air Climate Protection software developed by ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability. Table 4a: Derivation of MMBtu Associated with Vehicle Miles Traveled 1 Gasoline Ethanol Diesel Biodiesel Fuel Costs per VMT Notes: Fuel consumption is for the City of Minneapolis from 2006 to 2010. Data are from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Assessment, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. Data for other years are based on linear regression using the actual data and kBtu estimates from the Clean Air Climate Protection software developed by ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability. Table 4b: Derivation of Costs Associated with Vehicle Miles Traveled 1 Gasoline 2 Ethanol 3 Diesel 4 Biodiesel 3 Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices, Minnesota (all grades). Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_smn_a.htm Source: Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report , US Department of Energy, http://www.afdc.energy.gov/publications/search/keyword/?q=alternative%20fuel%20price%20report Midwest #2 Diesel Retail Prices: Source: US Energy Information Agency, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emd_epd2d_pte_r20_dpg&f=a Total Fuel Costs Total VMT RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Conversion Factors 2of2Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 51 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Cost Factors Updated: 10/24/12 2008 2009 2010 2011 Electricity: NSP Minnesota electricity rates (dollars per MWh) 1 Residential 103.35$ 103.33$ 107.94$ 111.87$ Commercial 78.33$ 76.95$ 81.52$ 83.32$ Industrial 63.44$ 63.62$ 64.94$ 68.19$ Retail 81.08$ 80.94$ 84.61$ 87.45$ Average of Commercial and Industrial Rates 70.89$ 70.29$ 73.23$ 75.76$ Residential 97.40$ 100.40$ 105.90$ 109.73$ Commercial 78.80$ 79.20$ 83.80$ 85.60$ Industrial 58.70$ 62.60$ 62.90$ 65.60$ Average of Commercial and Industrial Rates 68.75$ 70.90$ 73.35$ 75.60$ Natural Gas: NSP Minnesota natural gas rates (dollars per therm) 1 Residential 1.132$ 0.897$ 0.894$ 0.879$ C & I Firm 1.070$ 0.832$ 0.814$ 0.806$ C & I Interruptible 0.897$ 0.540$ 0.533$ 0.540$ Average of Commercial and Industrial Rates 0.983$ 0.686$ 0.673$ 0.673$ Residential 1.129$ 0.899$ 0.876$ 0.866$ Commercial 1.052$ 0.796$ 0.760$ 0.743$ Industrial 0.905$ 0.566$ 0.558$ 0.558$ Average of Commercial and Industrial Rates 0.979$ 0.681$ 0.659$ 0.651$ Vehicle Miles Traveled: Cost per vehicle mile traveled (dollars per mile) Total fuel costs 4 0.18$ 0.13$ 0.15$ 0.20$ Solid waste management (dollars per ton) 5 Processed via combustion (incineration and RDF processing)175$ 175$ 175$ 175$ Landfilling 145$ 145$ 145$ 145$ Recycling 170$ 170$ 170$ 170$ Potable Water Production and Distribution Electricity consumption per gallon produced and distributed (kWh per gallon) 6 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 0.0035 Cost per gallon 7 0.00022$ 0.00024$ 0.00024$ 0.00025$ Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant 8 Electricity consumption (MWh)144,693 138,685 126,149 124,925 Cost of electricity 9,179,324$ 8,823,140$ 8,192,116$ 8,518,636$ Natural gas consumption (therms)843,914 790,100 688,632 846,982 Cost of natural gas 829,977$ 542,293$ 463,780$ 569,888$ Total energy costs 10,009,301$ 9,365,433$ 8,655,896$ 9,088,523$ Fuel oil ($ per gallon) 9 1.70$ 1.16$ 1.64$ 1.87$ Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Prices for fuel oil from "Residual Fuel Oil Prices by Sales Type" Source: US Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PRI_RESID_DCU_R20_M.htm Cost Factors Average Retail Price of Electricity, Minnesota (dollars per MWh): 2 Average Retail Price of Natural Gas, Minnesota (dollars per therm): 3 Source: Xcel Energy US Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_smn_a.htm Data for 2011 are forecasted based on actual 2008-2010 data. Source: State Electricity Profiles 2010, January 2012, U.S. Energy Information Administration, http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/pdf/sep2010.pdf Total fuel costs are derived in Table 4b in the Conversion Factors spreadsheet. Figures are highly variable averages based on 2008 data. Since data is not available for subsequent years, the averages are assumed to be relatively stable and applicable for 2009-2011. The data exclude external costs associated with transportation; air, water, and land pollution; greenhouse gases; resource depletion; etc. They also exclude the external values associated with profits, economic activity, employment, resource & energy conservation, reduced long term liability, etc. Not shown are average costs for household hazardous waste and problem materials ($225 per ton), source-separated organics ($220 per ton), and re-use and reduction efforts (which are assumed to be cost neutral). Source: “2008 Payments and Spending for Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) in Minnesota,” Sig Scheurle, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Electrical consumption rate is based on the collective experience of numerous US cities as reported in the Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant , by ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability USA, "Low maintenance landscaping" model. Cost per gallon equals electricity per gallon times the statewide average, commercial/industrial electricity rate. Baseline analyses for other cities indicate that natural gas consumption costs related to the production and distribution of potable water constitute about 8% of total costs. Therefore, the electricity costs are divided by 0.92 to account for the natural gas costs. Source of energy consumption figures: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. Costs derived using NSP Minnesota cost averages since the Metro Plant is located in St. Paul. RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Cost FactorsEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 52 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Updated: 11/12/12 HDD CDD 2008 8,264 859 90%117% 2009 7,778 774 96%129% 2010 7,170 1,088 104%92% 2011 7,357 1,129 101%89% 2012 2020 2030 Base 3 7,434 1,001 100%100% Notes: 1 2 3 Seasonal Cooling and Heating Degree Days Normalizing Factor 3 Heating degree day data includes the winter months prior to the listed year. Because temperature has an effect on building energy consumption, this table allows the normalization of the building energy consumption data to better assess year-to-year consumption changes and trends. The "Base" figures, which are the 118-year averages of Heating Degree Days and Cooling Degree Days (HDD/CDD) for the Twin Cities, serve as the bases for calculating the "Normalizing Factor" for all cities participating in the Regional Indicators Initiative Project (source: http://climate.umn.edu/text/historical/mspcooldd.txt). For example, if the actual seasonal cooling degree day is 10% higher than the Base, the portion of electricity consumption attributable to air conditioning is decreased by 10% to be normalized. It is assumed that 25% of all electricity consumption is for air conditioning. The remaining 75% is unaffected. Similarly for heating, if the seasonal CDD figure is 10% higher than the Base, the portion of total natural gas consumption associated with heating (which is assumed to be 80%) is reduced by 10% for normalization. Heating degree days (HDD), are a measure of how much (in degrees), and for how long (in days), outside air temperature was lower than a specific base temperature (or balance point). They are used for calculations relating to the energy consumption required to heat buildings. Cooling degree days (CDD) are a measure of how much (in degrees), and for how long (in days), outside air temperature was higher than a specific base temperature. They are used for calculations relating to the energy consumption required to cool buildings. Source: Degree Days.net, Station ID: KMSP, http://www.degreedays.net Year HDD 1, 2 CDD 1 RIIP Eagan.xlsx; CDD & HDDEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 53 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Vehicle Miles Traveled Updated: 11/19/12 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Interstate Trunk Highway (ISTH)9.2 267,502,660 261,207,140 265,908,705 265,270,212 267,190,950 264,660,770 264,660,770 283,703,802 284,343,395 274,935,520 Minnesota Trunk Highway (MNTH)15.3 169,746,900 162,508,585 165,434,060 169,922,088 171,152,150 168,363,185 168,363,185 164,746,848 165,116,875 164,573,755 County State Aid Highway (CSAH)30.3 166,173,550 176,512,905 180,601,270 184,034,316 182,764,260 183,690,995 174,890,115 174,142,068 173,204,910 171,593,070 Municipal State Aid Street (MSAS)45.8 56,736,330 62,777,445 69,912,100 71,791,632 78,581,215 80,908,090 83,664,935 83,009,166 82,115,145 78,237,385 County (CNTY)1.3 1,332,250 Municipal Streets (MUN)196.6 43,920,085 45,894,005 44,113,535 45,027,150 44,811,050 46,321,420 56,468,055 57,077,700 57,756,870 57,659,050 Total VMT 298.5 704,079,525 708,900,080 725,969,670 736,045,398 745,831,875 743,944,460 748,047,060 762,679,584 762,537,195 746,998,780 746,998,780 Percent change from previous year 1%2%1.4%1.3%0%0.6%2.0%0.0%-2.0%0.0% 482.2 484.2 481.0 481.5 474.0 486.4 480.9 475.5 468.0 460.6 460.0 GHG emissions (tonnes)339,507 343,249 349,191 354,406 353,524 361,855 359,736 362,654 356,867 344,068 343,619 MMBtu per million VMT 2 7,080 6,998 6,917 6,837 6,741 6,730 MMBtu associated with VMT 5,267,127 5,234,833 5,275,455 5,213,467 5,035,519 5,027,302 Per-capita rates: Population 64,300 64,700 64,975 65,764 66,709 66,508 67,106 65,847 65,933 64,206 64,456 Per-capita VMT 10,950 10,957 11,173 11,192 11,180 11,186 11,147 11,583 11,565 11,634 11,589 Percent change from previous year 0.1%2.0%0.2%-0.1%0.0%-0.3%3.9%-0.1%0.6%-0.4% Per-capita GHG emissions (tonnes)5.28 5.31 5.37 5.39 5.30 5.44 5.36 5.51 5.41 5.36 5.33 Percent change from previous year 0.5%1.3%0.3%-1.7%2.7%-1.5%2.7%-1.7%-1.0%-0.5% Notes: 1 2 3 GHG emission rates for the national fleet decrease as older less-efficient vehicles are replaced by new, more efficient ones and, to a lesser degree, the production of "cleaner" fuels.. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled 1 Roadway Classification GHG emission rate (tonnes/million VMT) 2, 3 Source of data: Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT). http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roadway/data/reports/vmt.html. Data for 2011 is not yet available. Per the advice of MNDOT staff, 2010 data is assumed to be stable for 2011 until actual 2011 data is available. Miles of roadway vary slightly over time as designations of roads change. Figures listed in 2008 mileages. The emission rates for 2006 to 2010 are from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory, City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12. To develop fuel consumption by type of fuel, the analysis used a combination of national fleet mix from the Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software from ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability (see: http://www.icleiusa.org/action-center/tools/cacp-software) and national fleet average fuel economy assumptions from the Energy Information Administration’s 2012 Annual Energy Outlook. Fuel consumption estimates account for Minnesota's requirement that all gasoline and diesel fuels sold in the state since 2006 include 10% and 5% ethanol respectively, and from 2001-2005 to account for the use of 10% ethanol in gasoline only (B5 diesel was introduced state-wide in late 2005). Emission rates from 2001 to 2005 are derived via linear regression analysis based on the actual data from 2006 to 2010 from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the GHG emission rate predicted by CACP software (which, as a national rate, is less accurate for Minnesota). The emission rate for 2011 is derived via linear regression using the 2001 to 2010 figures. The MMBtu per 100 million VMT rate for 2006 to 2010 is based on the projected fuel consumption by fuel type in the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Table 2.6. using the kBtu per fuel type listed on the "Conversion Factors" spreadsheet in this Regional Indicators Initiative Project report. The MMBtu per 100 million VMT rate for 2001 to 2005 are derived via linear regression analysis based on the actual data from 2006 to 2010 from the City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories and the total VMT for those years. Miles of Roadway 1 RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Vehicle Miles TraveledEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 54 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Vehicle Miles Traveled Charts 670.0 680.0 690.0 700.0 710.0 720.0 730.0 740.0 750.0 760.0 770.0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 M i l e s Vehicle Miles Traveled (millions of miles) (dashed trend line) 10,600 10,800 11,000 11,200 11,400 11,600 11,800 M i l e s Per-Capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (dashed trend line) RIIP Eagan.xlsx; VMT ChartsEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 55 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 T o n n e s Per-Capita Greenhouse Gas Emissions (dashed trend line) 10,400 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (dashed trend line) RIIP Eagan.xlsx; VMT ChartsEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 56 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Airport Share: Minneapolis Saint Paul International Airport Updated 8/14/12 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Minneapolis St. Paul International (MSP) Airport: 1, 2 Departing flight and airport CO2e emissions (tonnes)4,295,573 4,008,781 3,808,471 3,262,233 2,802,477 2,515,685 2,418,816 Aircraft operations 2 532,239 475,668 452,972 450,044 432,395 437,075 436,506 CO2e per operation (tonnes) 1 8.1 8.4 8.4 7.2 6.5 5.8 5.5 City share of MSP Airport emissions 3 Percent of city resident, home-based trips, as a percent of MSP total home-based trips 2.3%2.3%2.3%2.3%2.3%2.3%2.3% City allocation of airport emissions (tonnes)98,798 92,202 87,595 75,031 64,457 57,861 55,633 Notes: 1 2 3 Category The Metropolitan Airport Commission conducted a greenhouse gas baseline assessment for the Minneapolis St. Paul International (MSP) Airport for the years 2005, 2007, and 2009. (Refer to: Greenhouse Gas Report: Metropolitan Airports Commission, December 2010, http://www.mspairport.com/docs/about-msp/sustainability/MSP-2010-GHG-Report-Jan- 2011.aspx.) The greenhouse gas inventory prepared for the City of Minneapolis (City of Minneapolis Greenhouse Gas Inventories: A Geographic Inventory , City of Minneapolis, 5/11/12) used linear regression to estimate GHG emissions for 2006, 2008, and 2010. The GHG emissions per aircraft operation for 2011 is derived using linear regression based on the 2005 to 2010 data. The 2011 estimate of GHG emissions is the result of the per-operation emission rate times the 2011 total aircraft operations. Source for MSP Airport aircraft operations for 2006 to 2011: http://www.mspairport.com/about-msp/statistics.aspx. Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the city’s share of the MSP Airport’s total emissions were assumed to be equal to the percent of home-based vehicle trips associated with the city that had either an origin or destination at the Airport. The Metropolitan Council calculated the “percent of city resident, home-based trips, as a percent of MSP total home- based trips” for 2010. The Airport’s total home-based trips equaled 51,506. The city's share of vehicle trips was assumed to be relatively stable and therefore used for all study years. RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Airport ShareEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 57 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Solid Waste Management and Wastewater Treatment Updated: 11/5/12 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Population (thousands)398.5 400.7 398.6 425.2 432.2 Processing/disposal methods: 3 MSW processed at resource recovery facilities (thousands of tons)38.6 41.7 45.9 45.8 - HERC and Redwing incinerators 5.6 10.0 8.8 8.8 Elk River and Newport refuse derived fuel facilities 33.1 31.8 37.1 36.9 Processed as a % of total MSW managed 9%9%10%10% HERC and Redwing incinerators 1%2.2%1.9%1.9% Elk River and Newport refuse derived fuel facilities 7%7%8%8% Total recycled (thousands of tons)218.0 229.6 223.2 239.6 Recycled as a % of total MSW managed 48%52%49%51% Land disposal of MSW (thousands of tons)195.7 173.1 188.9 180.5 Land disposal as a % of total MSW managed 43%39%41%39% Total MSW managed 3 452.3 444.5 457.9 465.9 Per-capita MSW managed 1.14 1.11 1.15 1.10 - Methane recovery calculation: 4 Land disposal of MSW (thousands of tons)195.7 173.1 188.9 180.5 Unprocessed MSW to landfills without methane recovery (thousands of tons) 5 13.1 14.2 14.1 13.4 Percent of unprocessed MSW landfilled in landfills with methane recovery 93%92%93%93% Methane recovery factor 6 70%69%69%69% Eagan 7 Population 65,847 65,933 64,206 64,456 74,446 Estimated total MSW managed 74,743 73,139 73,767 70,626 - Per-capita MSW managed 1.14 1.11 1.15 1.10 - Processing/disposal methods: Estimated MSW processed via combustion 6,380 6,870 7,393 6,936 HERC and Redwing incinerators 918.9 1,644.6 1,423.9 1,336.3 Elk River and Newport refuse derived fuel facilities 5,461.4 5,225.4 5,969.0 5,599.9 Estimated processed as a % of MSW managed 9%9%10%10% Estimated MSW recycled 36,018 37,778 35,950 36,331 Estimated recycled as a % of MSW managed 48%52%49%51% Estimated land disposal of MSW 32,345 28,491 30,424 27,359 Estimated land disposal as a % of MSW managed 43%39%41%39% GHG emission estimates (tonnes) 8 GHG emissions from combusting MSW 9 HERC and Redwing incinerators Fossil 353 631 515 514 Biogenic 601 1,065 857 710 Elk River and Newport refuse derived fuel facilities Fossil 2,097 2,006 2,157 2,156 Biogenic 3,572 3,385 3,593 2,977 Total GHG emissions from combusting MSW 2,449 2,637 2,671 2,670 GHG emission rate for landfilling (tonnes per ton landfilled) 10 0.293 0.304 0.299 0.298 GHG emissions from landfilling MSW 9,485 8,659 9,091 8,161 Total estimated GHG emissions 11,934 11,296 11,762 10,831 Per-capita GHG emissions 0.18 0.17 0.18 0.17 GHG value of energy exports of MSW combustion (tonnes) 11 2,297 2,094 2,130 2,095 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Scope 2 120,234 115,241 99,124 Scope 1 82,569 79,388 81,295 202,803 194,629 180,419 208,968 137,302 129,735 163,565 Total emissions from the Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant (tonnes)340,105 324,364 343,984 208,968 Percent of fossil emissions attributable to the City 2.59%2.61%2.53%2.39% Emissions attributable to the City 5,243 5,075 4,565 4,988 Notes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Solid Waste Management 1 Dakota County 2 Municipal solid waste (MSW) in U.S. tons unless otherwise noted. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are in metric tonnes. Data for 2008 to 2010 from MPCA SCORE reports: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/data/score/recycling-and-solid-waste-data.html. 2011 data from County Certification report. Based on the MPCA website: The SCORE Report (from the Governor's Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment) is an annual examination of Minnesota waste management programs and data, as well as providing detailed data by county. The figures are gathered through a formal survey of county solid waste officers. Ambitious goals for recycling and waste reduction were set for Minnesota counties and have typically been met, if not exceeded. Metro Wastewater Treatment Plant (tonnes of CO2e) 12 Fossil Emissions Total Fossil Emissions Biogenic Emissions The emission rate for 2011 is an average of the known rates for 2008 to 2010. Total emissions for 2011 are based on this assumption. Source: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Linda Henning, Special Projects Manager. It is assumed that the city's waste will be sent to the closest processing facility. For MSW combustion, only the fossil-based emissions are counted for the purposes of carbon baseline assessments per the ICLEI Community Protocol (Appendix E, p. 15). The fossil-based emissions also include all of the CH4 and N2O emissions. Also refer to the explanatory footnotes dealing with the combustion of MSW in the Conversion Factors spreadsheet. The Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software, developed by ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, estimates the GHG emissions resulting from landfilling of the MSW collected for processing. The software incorporates the waste composition percentages from the 2000 MPCA waste composition study and calculates the GHG emissions based on the following: y= -976.3x + 976.3 where y=GHG emissions and x=% Methane Recovery Factor. The HERC facility has two byproducts, electricity which is sold to Xcel Energy, and steam, which is sold to Target Field, NRG (district energy), and the Hennepin Energy Center (district energy). Consistent with the ICLEI Community Protocol, the GHG emissions associated with these byproducts are not treated as "negative" emissions in the calculation of the GHG emission rate. They are disclosed here for informational purposes. The footnotes for Table 5 in the Conversion Factors spreadsheet contain additional information. To estimate the GHG emissions from landfilled waste, methane recovery must be accounted for because methane is the primary GHG emission from landfills. All waste landfilled in Minnesota went to landfills with methane recovery plus waste that went to the Central Disposal facility in Iowa. The remaining waste went to landfills in Wisconsin that do not have methane recovery. Staff from the MPCA recommended using a 75% methane recovery rate for unprocessed MSW in a landfill with methane recovery. The "Methane recovery factor" is derived by multiplying the percent of the total landfilled waste that is deposited in landfills with methane recovery times the MPCA average recovery rate of 75% for methane. Per-capita amounts by waste management method for the County are used to estimate per-capita amounts for the City. When estimating total recycling, the SCORE reports show a 5% credit for composting waste in the County. Waste collected for composting is not counted in the MSW totals. It is not a factor for estimating GHG emissions because proper composting of organic materials generates a net zero amount of GHG emissions. RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Waste & WastewaterEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 58 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Community Solid Waste: Waste Composition Updated: 6/24/10 CACP Category 5 2000 MPCA Study 1 2005 Iowa Study 2 Change Paper products 34.2%33.0%-1.2% Food waste 3 12.9%13.0%0.1% Plant debris 2.9%3.1%0.2% Wood/textiles 4 11.4%12.9%1.5% All other waste 38.6%38.0%-0.6% Total 100.0%100.0% Notes: (1) Source: Final Report, Statewide MSW Composition Study: A Study of Discards in the State of Minnesota , Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 2000. (2) Iowa Statewide Waste Characterization Study, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, February 2006, http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/waste/wastechar05.pdf (5) CACP refers to the Clean Air Climate Protection software developed by ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability. The 2000 waste composition study by the MPCA is the most recent study of its kind in Minnesota. Since the more recent 2005 Iowa waste composition study did not vary more than 1.5% from the older Minnesota study, the MPCA study was used to estimate GHG emissions. (3) Includes diapers (4) Includes "other organic material" RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Waste CompositionEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 59 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Updated: 8/17/12 Population Households Jobs 1970 10,398 2,607 139,808 1,874,612 1980 20,700 6,824 194,279 1,985,873 1990 47,409 17,427 275,227 2,288,721 2000 63,557 23,773 355,904 2,642,062 2001 64,300 24,086 362,348 2,674,927 2002 64,700 24,274 369,593 2,708,916 2003 64,975 24,443 375,642 2,740,985 2004 65,764 24,708 383,076 2,771,030 2005 66,709 25,222 391,558 2,810,179 2006 66,508 25,284 391,613 2,821,779 2007 67,106 25,536 398,177 2,849,003 2008 65,847 25,561 51,349 398,487 2,870,250 2009 65,933 25,562 49,333 400,675 2,881,812 2010 64,206 25,249 49,526 398,552 2,849,567 2011 64,456 25,373 48,246 425,153 2,873,444 2012 74,446 28,725 47,335 432,179 2020 71,250 28,500 58,900 2030 70,800 29,500 65,700 Notes: 2012 figures are forecasts based on actual historical data Population, Households, and Jobs Dakota County Population 7 County Region Source: Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities: http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/data_download/DD_start.aspx Year City RIIP Eagan.xlsx; DemographicsEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 60 Regional Indicators Initiative City of Eagan Precipitation and Potable Water Distribution Updated: 11/5/12 Period Inches Residential Commercial Total 2008 27.38 2,126,300,000 1,496,600,000 3,498,200,000 2009 29.19 2,267,800,000 1,178,800,000 3,446,600,000 2010 40.57 1,926,800,000 1,115,100,000 3,041,900,000 2011 27.98 2,001,600,000 1,089,100,000 3,090,700,000 2012 2020 2030 Notes: 1 2 Potable Water Distribution (gallons)2Precipitation 1 Source: http://climate.umn.edu/wetlands/wetlands.asp Source: City data. Because greenhouse gas emissions associated the production and distribution of potable water will likely constitute less than 1% of total emissions, they are not reported as a separate category in this carbon baseline analysis. They are, however, included in the citywide energy figures. RIIP Eagan.xlsx; Precip & WaterEnergy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 61 1 EAGAN ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION WATER EFFICIENCY SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS April 2013 The EEAC Water Subcommittee met with Public Works Director Matthys and Superintendent of Utilities Eaton on March 15 to discuss the subcommittee’s recommendations. Revisions to the water subcommittee’s recommendations appear underlined below, along with follow up materials provided by Director Matthys and Superintendent Eaton and additional background on water supply benchmarks from the MN Department of Natural Resources. Attachments: 2012 Eagan Water Supply Summary Data Eagan Water Utility Historical Data & Projections Background from the MN DNR on Water Supply Benchmarks & Conservation Measures Background information; The City of Eagan uses an average of 3 - 3.5 billion gallons of water each year and sends an average 2 - 2.5 billion gallons of water each year to the Seneca Wastewater Treatment plant. On a typical year, about 30% of the water used in the city of Eagan does not go down a drain, some of which is composed of water uses classified under Minnesota Statutes as “sixth priority non-essential uses.” While this water goes through an expensive treatment process, some non- essential water uses such as lawn irrigation could be met in part through alternatives such as rainwater, or reduced via rain sensors, water-efficient landscaping, and other mechanisms. In the Summer of 2010, the City of Eagan implemented a water conservation rate structure. Average summer water use has trended slightly lower in the first two years, although the impact of the rate structure on annual city-wide water usage has not yet been determined. Eagan’s water use over the past decade has remained relatively constant and trended slightly downward since peaking in 2006. Nearly 70% of Eagan’s housing units were constructed before 1990. In 1992, new federal water efficiency standards were enacted, which reduce per capita water usage for new construction and can improve the water efficiency through retrofits and remodels to existing buildings. As an example, toilets installed before 1990 used anywhere from 3 - 7 gallons per flush. Toilet models today can use 1.6 gallons per flush, and high-efficiency WaterSense-certified toilets use even less. Water efficiencies for dishwashers, washing machines, faucets, showerheads, and other water-using devices have also improved. The City of Eagan’s Water Supply and Distribution Plan projects a roughly 20% increase in average per capita daily water use in Eagan and a 33% increase in per capita maximum day Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 62 2 water use, compared to a projected increase in population of around 14% (see reference material).1 To meet this growing need, the plan identifies investments in new supply and storage of over $7 million. The attached documents indicate actual population size and water demand. City staff note that of the $7 million figure in the plan, around $3 million is intended for storage and not based on demand. Communities across the country are achieving significant water savings by implementing water efficiency programs. These programs may include a variety of approaches such as rainwater harvesting, water efficient landscaping, and incentives to encourage private investment in the existing building stock to improve water efficiencies partially in lieu of public investments in new supply. Such an approach in Eagan may potentially offer a cost-effective use of resources with co-benefits and complement, or partially offset, the 2008 Water Supply & Distribution Plan’s projected investments of over $7 million in new supply and storage. Actions for Consideration: The water efficiency subcommittee recommends that the Eagan Energy & Environment Advisory Commission recommend the following items to City Council for consideration: ● Adopt a city-wide goal of reducing per capita daily water use 10% by 2020 and 15% by 2025 below a baseline of the average per capita daily water use from 2005 - 2010. ● Register the City in the free and voluntary WaterSense partnership program and appoint the water utility to administer program implementation. ● Authorize water utility budget funds for water conservation education, training, efficiency and conservation upgrades to city facilities, and for rebates, or financing, for rain sensors, rainwater capture and use, and WaterSense certified appliances and devices installed on private property. ● Direct the Eagan water utility, with input from the Energy & Environment Advisory Commission, to develop and implement a water conservation plan to achieve or exceed the city’s water reduction goal. WaterSense Action Item: Recommend to City Council Approval of the WaterSense Partnership Agreement and Designation of Eagan Water Utility as the Implementing Entity Background WaterSense is a free and voluntary national partnership program among federal, state and local government agencies, builders, manufacturers, water utilities, retailers and other entities. The goal of the program is to encourage water conservation. WaterSense offers free educational materials, technical assistance and a national certification for appliances and devices that are 20% more water efficient than conventional models as determined by independent, third-party testing. 1 Potential reasons for growth include a new large industrial customer, redundancy in supply and conservative engineering estimates. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 63 3 Since the program’s inception in 2006, WaterSense reports helping consumers save a cumulative 287 billion gallons of water and over $4.7 billion in water and energy bills. As of January 2013, over 3601 organizations across the country were WaterSense partners. Public sector partners in Minnesota include the cities of Farmington, Oakdale, Roseville, Luverne, Marshall Municipal Utilities, Rochester Municipal Utilities, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program. GreenStep Cities provides credit for cities that implement educational programs and incentives for use of WaterSense-labelled appliances. Joining the WaterSense program will provide the city of Eagan with access to materials and assistance that will help the city complete GreenStep best practice action 20.7 and enhance the city’s implementation of GreenStep action 2.5. By joining, the city agrees to promote the value of water efficiency and the meaning of the WaterSense label, provide annual data about city activities to promote water efficiency, feature the WaterSense label on the website and promotional materials, and allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to recognize the city’s participation in the program. In return, partners receive access to a partners-only website with free resources (such as tutorials, public education materials, and access to a peer network of examples from other locales) that the city may use to implement its water savings program. Attachments ● WaterSense Partnership FAQs http://www.epa.gov/watersense/faq_partners.html ● WaterSense Partnership Agreement: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/partnership_promopartners508.pdf Proposed Water Conservation Plan Elements ● Install rain barrels, cisterns or surface water reuse on city facilities, where appropriate, and utilize rainwater for grounds irrigation. Provide public education signage at high visibility demonstration sites ● Install and expand low-water landscaping on city facilities, where appropriate, and provide educational signage and tours at high visibility demonstration sites ● Provide regular water saving tips on city facebook page, newsletter, Eagan TV, city utility bills ● Partner with energy utilities serving Eagan on the promotion and distribution of their free water-saving kits for Eagan Households ● Provide educational seminars or tours for the public on water conservation, reuse, and rainwater capture and use ● Offer water assessments for private properties to help identify opportunities for water efficiency, conservation, and reuse ● Develop a financial incentive program to encourage water efficiency and conservation upgrades on private property along with possibilities for reuse, and rainwater use practices by prioritizing water utility funds for these activities over investments in new storage and supply Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 64 4 ● Explore, with Eagan CFO Pepper, revisions to the water utility conservation rate structure to encourage conservation and equitable cost-allocation ● Explore enforcement mechanisms and penalties to discourage repeat violations of existing water conservation ordinances REFERENCE MATERIAL Water Saving Examples from Other Cities Adapted from Report, “Cases in Water Conservation”2 (except the Edina, Eden Prairie and Colorado Spring examples) City Approach Results Colorado Springs, CO3 Residential irrigation equipment rebates, Commercial pre-rinse spray valve retrofits, toilet and urinal rebates, incentives for water-efficient landscaping, conservation rate structure, clothes washer rebate, dishwasher rebate, xeriscaping education and workshops, xeriscaping demonstrations, water use audits, showerheads & faucet aerators, among others 2000 - 2006 System Wide Water Use decreased 13.3% 2000 - 2006 System Wide Per Capita Water Use decreased 20% The 2008 - 2012 Conservation plan is expected to save 3 billion gallons of water per year by 2017, equivalent to 7.58% of projected annual production. Cary, North Carolina Public education, landscape and irrigation codes, toilet flapper rebates, residential audits, conservation rate structure, new homes points program, landscape water budget, and a water reclamation facility. Cary’s water conservation program will reduce retail water production by an estimated 4.6 mgd by the end of 2028, a savings of approximately 16% in retail water production. These savings reduced operating costs and have already allowed Cary to delay two water plant expansions. Barrie, Ontario Rebates to replace inefficient showerheads and toilets and distribution of information kits Barrie was able to save an average of 14.5 gallons per person per day. The reduction in wastewater flows enabled Barrie to defer a capital expansion project. Water conservation efforts saved an estimated $17.1 million (Canadian dollars) in net deferred 2 http://www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/utilityconservation_508.pdf 3 http://www.csu.org/residential/water/Documents/item14309.pdf Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 65 5 capital expenditures. Tampa, Florida High efficiency toilet retrofits, conservation kits (containing toilet tank dams, efficient showerheads, leak detection kits, and information), encouraged low-water landscaping, irrigation evaluations and free rain sensors, irrigation restrictions, and increasing block rate structure. From 1989 to 2001, population served increased 20% & water use decreased 26% per capita. Toilet rebate program reduced household water use by 15%. Landscaping evaluations reduced water use by 25%. Eden Prairie, Minnesota Rate structure implemented with higher rate for high use tiers. $50,000 from high tier revenue set aside for education & rebates for irrigation controllers, WaterSense toilets, showerheads and faucets, and Energy Star washing machines since 1998 Eden Prairie’s residential rates currently have 5 Tiers ranging from $1.90/1000gal for up to 36k gallons to $4.40/1000gal for use over 78,001 gallons per quarter. Over 2,100 rebates distributed from 2000 - 2012. Over 75% of all residential customers use under 36,000 gallons of water per quarter. Edina, Minnesota Two conservation rate tiers; Base $1.66/1000gal Tier1 $2.19/1000gal (+32%) Tier2 $3.45/1000gal (+108%) Base; use under 8700gal/mo Tier 1 between base and 16200 gal/mo Tier 2 over 16200 gal/mo Alternate rate tier Water Supply and Distribution Plan - City of Eagan http://www.cityofeagan.com/upload/images/PublicWorks/Eng/RSCP%20CompWaterSupply.pdf Year Population Served Maximum Daily Demand (Million Gallons) Average Day (Gallon / Capita) Max Day (Gallons / Capita) 2005 69,226 25.8 140 373 2010 70,500 26.84 144 380 4 According to the City of Eagan Public Works Annual report, actual maximum daily demand in 2010 equaled 18.7 million gallon/day, http://www.cityofeagan.com/upload/images/PublicWorks/Eng/ARUA.pdf Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 66 6 2020 73,000 29.0 150 397 2030 75,500 31.2 156 413 Ultimate 79,000 34.5 169 437 % Change 2005 - Ultimate 14.12% 33.72% 20.71% 17.16% Capital Improvement Cost Estimates Included in Supply and Distribution Plan New Proposed Investments in new Supply and Storage exceed $7 million. ● Distribution $3,087,400 ● Cliff Rd. Booster Station Improvements $372,400 ● Supply $3,860,000 ● Storage $3,497,800 ● Safari Reservoir Altitude Valve & Booster Pump $137,700 ● Treatment $1,406,100 ● Total $12,361,400 Metropolitan Council Water Conservation Toolbox: Tips and Resources http://www.metrocouncil.org/environment/WaterSupply/conservationtoolbox_residential.htm Toilets, Sink Faucets and Showerheads The 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act required all toilets, sink faucets and showerheads manufactured in the United States after January 1, 1994 be low-volume fixtures. Toilets must use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf); sink faucets no more than 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm); and showerheads no more than 2.5 gpm, respectively. Fixtures installed before 1994 were not required to be retrofitted; therefore, 5 to 7 gpf toilets and 3 to 4 gpm sink faucets and showerheads are still in extensive use throughout the United States. Clothes Washers and Dishwashers The efficiency of clothes washers and dishwashers installed between 1980 and the early 2000s are estimated to range from 27 gallons per load (gpl) to 51 gpl and 7 gpl to 14gpl, respectively. Although recent models (since year 2000) are twice as water-efficient as those of 20 years ago (1980), water conservation measures are still important because as population increases so does total water use. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 67 7 Implementation Status of Relevant GreenStep Cities Actions Best Practice 20.7 Create a demand-side management program to reduce demands on water and wastewater systems. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail_actions.cfm?bpid=20&aid=883 Status: Eagan has not yet reported completion of this action Implementation Guidance (from GreenStep website) ○ 1 Star: Offer incentives to homes and businesses to reduce use of water and to limit wastewater, such as using WaterSense rated appliances, smart lawn-watering techniques, replacing old toilets, harvesting rainwater for landscaping, and water re-use where appropriate and allowed under Minnesota code. Report building or development code water efficiency, as part of Green Building efforts, under best practice 2, action 5. ○ 2 Stars: Achieve 1 Star rating AND study the cost-savings from deferring capacity additions and reducing energy and maintenance operating costs if demand is reduced. Report demand-reduction savings to residents and businesses. ○ 3 Stars: Achieve 2 Star rating AND modify rate structures to target peak-use times and discourage or defer use, OR create a sustainable water use plan. Best Practice 2.5 Conserve drinking/groundwater resources by adopting a watering ordinance, conservation rate structure, dynamic user feedback, model landscaping ordinance, or WaterSense purchasing program. http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPracticesDetail_actions.cfm?bpid=2&aid=725 Status: Eagan has reported implementing a tiered rate structure and odd-even watering. Implementation is complete at a 1 star level. The city’s information on the GreenStep website appears below. The City of Eagan has permanent conservation program for outside water usage. If your address ends in an odd number such as 311, outdoor watering is allowed on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc., day of the month. If your address ends in an even number such as 312, outdoor watering is allowed on the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, etc., day of the month. This permanent system is in effect throughout the entire outdoor watering season. The State has enacted legislation requiring cities with a water utility to adopt a rate structure that encourages water conservation. To comply with the law, most cities, including Eagan, have chosen to adopt a tiered rate structure. Eagan has a two-tier system in place. Effective July 1, 2010 residents pay the same rate they are accustomed to paying$1.40 per thousand gallons for the normal indoor usage. The normal usage level will be defined as water used in the winter quarter, a period void of outdoor use such as watering lawns, washing cars, and filling swimming pools. Water used in the non-winter quarters in excess of normal will be billed at $1.75 per thousand gallons." found on the Cities web page at http://www.cityofeagan.com/live/page.asp?menu=21444. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 68 8 Implementation Guidance (from GreenStep website) ○ 1 Star: Implement a robust water ordinance OR robust conservation rate structure. Report water use changes (which can be reductions of around 10%) or the rate structure/pricing. ○ 2 Stars: Modify and adopt a model landscaping ordinance that encourages low water- use landscaping, OR arrange for water users to see their water use history/use compared to similar users. ○ 3 Stars: Achieve 1 Star rating AND create a rebate or feebate program to promote purchases of WaterSense- and/or Energy Star-rated appliances, consistent with best practice 20, action 5. Report on rebates granted by appliance type and estimated water/energy savings. Eagan Housing Vintage Data from Metropolitan Council Community Profile http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx?c=02394586 ● Census Number of Housing Units 1990: 18,450 ● Estimated Number of Housing Units in 2011: 26,443 ● Percent of Housing Units in Eagan built before 1990: 69.77% Water Use Priorities State Statute 103G.291 established an emergency water allocation priority system which must be considered in determining pre-reduction procedures. The table below illustrates the priorities as they apply to Eagan's customer uses. ● First Priority Domestic water supply, excluding industrial and commercial uses of municipal water supply. ● Second Priority Water uses involving consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day. ● Third Priority Agricultural irrigation and processing of agricultural products (does not apply). ● Fourth Priority Power production (does not apply). ● Fifth Priority Uses other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural products, and power production. ● Sixth Priority Non-essential uses such as lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, park irrigation, and filling swimming pools. US EPA Water Conservation Plan Guidelines http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/guide.html Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 69 9 Source: http://www.cityofeagan.com/upload/images/PublicWorks/Eng/ARUA.pdf Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 70 lr-Benchmarks for WS Plan07.doc Water Supply Plans and Water Appropriation Permit Approvals Water Supply Plan (WS Plan) approvals may also include approval for increased water volumes and/or new wells that are planned over the ten year life of the plan. Requesting permit approvals as part of the WS Plan is optional and would most likely benefit growing communities that anticipate large increases in water use or a number of new wells over the next ten years. To qualify for the ten year permit approval certain benchmarks or conservation measures are required along with adequate documentation on the need for increased water volumes and new wells. Benchmarks and Conservation Measures. Permit approvals will be based on meeting specified benchmarks listed below. If water demands exceed Benchmarks for unaccounted water, residential per capita, and peak demands then permit approval will be contingent on implementation of one or all the listed Conservation Measures or Programs until the benchmark is achieved. Benchmarks Conservation Measures or Programs Unaccounted Water (water withdrawals minus sales) Less than 10% If over 10%, a plan is required that addresses reduction of unaccounted water through universal metering and accounting of water use, routine meter testing and repair, and distribution system leak detection and repair. Metering of source water and customers. Accounting for public uses. Water audits to determine unaccounted water. A leak detection survey that also includes an inspection of hydrants once each year. Operational procedures that include an established schedule for repairing leaks within 30 days. Operational procedures that include an established schedule for meter testing, maintenance and repair. Residential Gallons Per Capita Less than 75 GPCD If over 75 GPCD, a plan is required that evaluates and implements measures targeted at reducing residential per capita. Analyze residential customer use to determine reasons for high per capita use. Customer education a minimum of four times per year that targets reduction of indoor and outdoor uses. Contact customers with high volumes and large volume increases and offer home audits and conservation tips. Incentive programs to reduce per capita use, such as distributing showerheads, aerators, leak detection kits, or soil moisture meters, rebates for washing machines or ULF toilets rebate programs, or other types of incentives. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 71 lr-Benchmarks for WS Plan07.doc Peak Demands Maximum Day to Average Day Ratio Less than 2.6 If over a ratio of 2.6, a plan is required to reduce peak demands. Ordinances for lawn watering including time of day, scheduling (along with information on how often to water) and water wasting (runoff) with adequate enforcement and penalties for non- compliance. Development approvals with criteria that minimize large open turf areas, require organic soil augmentation for new turf areas on sandy soils, and require one or more trees for new construction. Customer education/conservation tips during summer peak demands a minimum of four times between May and September of each year. Conservation Water Rate Structure: Increasing block or summer surcharge with 25-cent minimum increments between blocks or normal rates. Rate Structures - A conservation or conservation neutral rate structure is required that does not include any volume of water in the service or base charge (lifeline exceptions allowed). Monitoring Plan – A monitoring plan approved by DNR that includes monthly water level readings in production wells and/or observation that may be required. Monitoring data must be submitted to DNR once each year or upon request. Sustainability – All impacts and limits on natural resources and other water users must be satisfied. Permit Approval Requests and Process 1) The Water Supply Plan must be approved by DNR. 2) A letter summarizing the permit approvals being requested for new water sources (CIP) and increased volumes (demand projections) for the next 10 years along with documentation that Benchmarks or Conservation Measures and Programs are being implemented. 3) Billing for permit amendment fee. 4) DNR review of permit request, which may require additional information or discussions with the public water supplier. 5) DNR final action on request (approve, approve with limitations, or deny). 6) Compliance reporting by public water supplier. DNR Waters 8/16/2007 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 72 FO R 2 0 1 2 … Ac c o u n t D e s c r i p t i o n V o l u m e Co n n e c t i o n s Re s i d e n t i a l 9 5 . 1 g a l l o n s p e r c a p i t a p e r p e r s o n p e r d a y CO C o m m e r c i a l 6 1 2 , 3 7 3 18 . 2 % 58 9 P o p u l a t i o n 6 4 , 4 5 6 IS I n s t i t u t i o n a l 2 0 6 , 0 7 6 6. 1 % 68 M a x U s e r 2 0 , 9 5 0 k g a l RE R e s i d e n t i a l 2 , 2 3 7 , 0 0 2 66 . 5 % 18 , 3 1 8 A v g U s e r 1 2 2 k g a l IN In d u s t r i a l 30 6 , 5 0 2 9. 1 % 80 Mi n U s e r 0 kg a l IN In d u s t r i a l 30 6 ,50 2 9.1% 80 Mi n Us e r 0 kg a l To t a l S o l d 3 , 3 6 1 , 9 5 3 10 0 . 0 % 19 , 0 5 5 To p U s e r s 30 3 g a l l o n s 55 1 C o n n e c t i o n s 3 . 0 1 % o f t h e t o t a l c o n n e c t i o n s Pe r c e n t G P Y C o n n U s a g e % o f T o t a l To p U s e r s U s e 1% 5 5 0 1 8 4 4 1 7 , 8 0 4 18 . 7 % 48 5 , 8 3 6 G a l l o n s 2 1 . 7 2 % o f t h e t o t a l u s e 2% 35 9 36 7 46 7 3 2 8 20 9 % 2% 35 9 36 7 46 7 ,32 8 20 .9% 3% 3 0 3 5 5 1 4 8 5 , 8 3 6 21 . 7 % 5% 2 5 9 9 1 5 4 9 8 , 1 7 8 22 . 3 % 10 % 2 0 4 1 8 4 7 5 1 0 , 8 8 3 22 . 8 % Vo l u m e C o u n t 20 0 04 2 11 9 22 9 32 1 41 7 52 1 14 0 16 0 18 0 20 0 5% 3% 2 % 1% 10 % 5 21 61 4 71 3 83 3 93 2 10 4 3 11 38 6080 10 0 12 0 14 0 5% 3% 2 % 1% 11 38 12 4 7 13 5 7 14 5 8 15 6 8 16 8 0 17 94 020406080 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1 5 9 3 7 1593715 17 9 4 18 6 3 19 8 1 0 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155 169 183 197 211 225 239 253 267 281 295 309 323 337 351 365 379 393 407 421 435 449 463 477 491 505 519 533 547 561575589603617631645 En e r g y & En v i r o n m e n t Ad v i s o r y Co m m i s s i o n Ap r i l 9, 20 1 3 Page 73 Estimated Water Flow by Class (based on Utility Billing) Actual %Projected %Projected %Projected %Total GPCD Residential %GPCD Projected % Served 2030 Comp 2008 WSMP Estimate Kgal Kgal 2008 WSMP Residential Institutional Commercial Industrial Ultimate 79,000 4.6%169 8.3% 2030 70,800 -0.6%75,500 3.4%70,821 0.30%3,200,000 124 2,016,000 63%78 156 4.0% 2020 71,250 5.4%73,000 3.5%68,731 0.30%3,200,000 128 2,016,000 63%80 150 4.2% 2015 67,710 0.30%3,200,000 129 2,016,000 63%82 2013 67,305 0.30%3,200,000 130 2,016,000 63%82 2012 66,976 0.5%67,104 0.30%3,515,692 144 2,124,698 60%87 2124.7 70.6 664.1 144.0 2011 66,666 -0.1%66,903 0.30%3,206,228 132 2,001,370 62%82 2001.4 65.0 607.9 149.8 2010 66,703 0.2%67,600 0.7%70,500 0.4%66,703 3,041,868 125 1,926,806 63%79 144 0.7%1926.8 61.8 581.6 143.0 2009 66,556 0.2%70,228 0.4%3,446,634 142 2,098,097 61%86 143 0.7%2098.1 2008 66,424 0.3%69,978 0.4%3,373,959 139 1,935,410 57%80 142 0.7%1935.4 2007 66,206 0.7%67,106 69,727 0.4%3,519,523 146 2,239,572 64%93 141 0.0%2239.6 2006 65,750 0.1%69,477 0.4%3,397,095 142 2,302,202 68%96 141 0.7%2302.2 2005 65,682 2.8%69,226 3,158,503 132 2,021,832 64%84 140 2021.8 2004 63,916 0.2%3,352,241 144 2,202,044 66%94 2202.0 2003 63,771 -0.2%3,539,319 152 2,259,278 64%97 2259.3 2002 63,898 -0.2%3,037,826 130 1,911,863 63%82 1911.9 2001 64,052 0.8%3,416,923 146 2,045,359 60%87 2045.4 2000 63,557 6.0%3,297,583 142 2,093,193 63%90 2093.2 1999 59,972 1.0% 1998 59,366 1.6% 1997 58,421 2.0% 1996 57,281 1.9% 1995 56,215 2.4% 1994 54,901 2.2% 1993 53,733 3.5% 1992 51,899 4.2% 1991 49,823 5.1% 1990 47,409 129.0% 1980 20,700 99.1% 1970 10,398 207.5% 1960 3,382 185.4% 1950 1,185 -32.6% 1935 1,759 86.7% 1905 942 21.9% 1885 773 36.3% 1860 567 Water UsagePopulation Served The 13-year average for residential water use is 63% of the total use. Using the recent 3 years, the average residential GPCD 83. 10% reduction = 75 GPCD 20% reduction = 67 GPCD 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 GP C D Year Total Vs. Residential Trend Total Residential Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 74 Eagan By IGH Met Eagan By IGH Rosemount Population Burnsville Council Burnsville Served Ultimate 74,700 200 3500 1000 79,000 2030 69,000 69,571 200 3200 72,571 2020 68,000 70,283 200 2900 72,983 2015 69,841 200 2840 72,481 2013 69,400 200 2780 71,980 2012 64,456 68,958 200 2720 66,976 2011 64,206 68,517 200 2660 66,666 2010 64,303 200 2600 67,000 68,075 66,703 2009 64,186 200 2570 66,556 2008 64,084 200 2540 66,424 2007 63,897 200 2509 66,206 2006 63,471 200 2479 65,750 2005 63,433 200 2449 67,000 65,682 2004 63,916 63,916 2003 63,771 63,771 2002 63,898 63,898 2001 64,052 64,052 2000 63,557 63,557 63,557 1999 59,972 1998 59,366 1997 58,421 1996 57,281 1995 56,215 1994 54,901 1993 53,733 1992 51,899 1991 49,823 1990 47,409 1980 20,700 1970 10,398 1960 3,382 1950 1,185 1935 1,759 1905 942 1885 773 1860 567 EstimateActual Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 75 Estimated Sanitary Flow by Class (based on Utility Billing) Residential Institutional Commercial Industrial 2012 1170.297 102.62 312.861 190.903 2011 1277.025 93.622 306.595 194.603 2010 1323.281 95.279 308.305 210.949 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 76 OMB Control Number 2040-0272 Approval Expires 06/30/2013 Partnership Agreement: Promotional Partners Section I: EPA WaterSense® Program Goals The EPA WaterSense program aims to use water resources more efficiently to preserve them for future generations and to reduce water and wastewater infrastructure costs by reducing unnecessary water consumption. Through WaterSense, EPA provides reliable information on high-performing, water-efficient products and practices, raises awareness about the importance of water efficiency, ensures water-efficient product performance, helps consumers identify products and servic es that use less water, promotes innovation in product development, and supports state and local water-efficiency efforts. Section II: Partnership Pledge As an EPA WaterSense promotional partner, _________________________________ (name of organization), shares EPA’s goals as outlined above and is proud to commit to the following activities to further these goals: 1. Educate consumers, residents, businesses, and institutions on the value of water efficiency, the importance of saving water, and the meaning of the WaterSense label. Where feasible, undertake activities and events to achieve mutual WaterSense goals. 2. As appropriate, encourage eligible constituents, members, or affiliates to participate as partners in the EPA WaterSense program. 3. For utilities and governments: On an annual basis, provide data to EPA on promotional activities and incentive programs to assist in determining the impact of the program in promoting labeled products. 4. For applicable trade associations: Provide aggregate data to EPA on market share of WaterSense labeled prod ucts and programs in relevant industry. Compile data submitted by members who are also WaterSense partners into a summary report to assist EPA in evaluating market trends and the success of the WaterSense program, with out disclosing any proprietary information from members. 5. Adhere to all policies and procedures contained in the Program Guidelines. 6. Feature the WaterSense promotional label and partner logo on website and in other promotional materials. 7. Adhere to WaterSense program mark guidelines and ensure that authorized representatives, such as advertising agencies, distributors, and subcontractors, also comply. Help EPA maintain program integrity by alerting EPA to possible misuse(s) of the WaterSense program marks. 8. Grant the EPA WaterSense program permission to include partner’s name on a list of participating partners on the WaterSense website, program materials, and announcements. Partners understand that from time to time, EPA will be interested in profiling partner accomplishments in case studies and articles. If selected for such promotion, partners will have the opportunity to provide input and review the final print or web document before EPA releas es it to the public. Further, the partner understands that EPA might refer media contacts interested in publicizing water efficiency to partners for information about products and accomplishments. Section III: EPA WaterSense Program’s Commitments to Partners 1. Develop national specifications for water-efficient products and programs through an open, public process. 2. Increase awareness of the WaterSense brand by distributing key messages on the benefits of labeled products and programs, and the importance of water efficiency. 3. Provide current EPA WaterSense program news, information, and reference documents (via the program website, WaterSense Helpline, e-mail, or other means), including a listing of labeled products and programs on the website. 4. Provide WaterSense partners with public recognition for their involvement in the program and role in protecting the environment through online listing of partners, special awards, publications, and other efforts. 5. Respond swiftly to partner requests for information or clarification on EPA WaterSense program policies. 6. Provide materials, templates, and program marks for promotional use, consistent with the WaterSense Program Guidelines. 7. Review pre-press promotional items, draft websites, packaging, or other materials that use the WaterSense marks upon request. EPA Form Number 6100-06 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 77 Section IV: General Terms and Disclaimers 1. The partner will not construe, claim, or imply that its participation in the EPA WaterSense program constitutes fed eral government (EPA) approval, acceptance, or endorsement of anything other than the partner’s commitment to the program. 2. Nothing in this agreement, in and of itself, obligates the EPA to expend appropriations or to enter into any con tract, assistance agreement, interagency agreement, or incur other financial obligations that would be inconsistent with Agency budget priorities. The partner agrees not to submit a claim for compensation for services rendered to EPA or any Federal Agency in connection with any activities it carries out in furtherance of this agreement. 3. The partner and the EPA WaterSense program will assume good faith as a general principle for resolving conflict and will seek to resolve all matters informally, so as to preserve maximum public confidence in the program. 4. Failure to comply with any of the terms of this partnership agreement can result in its termination and cessation of access to the benefits of the program, including use of the program marks. 5. The EPA WaterSense program will actively pursue resolution of noncompliance related to the use of the program marks. 6. Both parties concur that this agreement is wholly voluntary and may be terminated by either party at any time, and for any reason, with no penalty. Termination will begin effective immediately upon written notice to or from the EPA WaterSense program. Upon termination of this agreement, partners agree to remove program marks in a timely manner, consistent with the WaterSense program mark guidelines. To be completed by partner Authorized Partner Representative1 (printed name):______________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________ E-mail:______________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________ Organization Name:_________________________________________________ Number of employees: ______________ Organization Type (choose one): ❑ Nongovernmental Organization ❑ Utility ❑ Local Government ❑ State Government ❑ Trade Association ❑ Home Builders Association Industry/SIC/NAICS code: ________________________________ Population served2: __________________________ Primary Contact: Dr./Mr./Mrs./Ms. __________________________________________________________________________ Title: _______________________________________ Dept.: ________________________________________________ E-mail: ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________________________ City/State/ZIP:__________________________________ Water District, if applicable:________________________________ Website: ____________________________________ Telephone: _____________________________ Alternate Telephone:__________________________________________ How did you find out about this program? ❑ Website ❑ Referral, Name: ______________________________________ ❑ Periodical: __________________________ ❑ Workshop, Sponsor:__________________________________________ ❑ Mailing:________________________________ ❑ EPA Region: ________ ❑ Other: ____________________________ To be completed by EPA Sheila E. Frace Director, Municipal Support Division watersense@epa.gov Authorized EPA Representative (printed name): __________________________________________________________ Title: __________________________________________________ E-mail:______________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________ 1 The authorized partner representative should be a person in the organization with signing authority (e.g., vice president). 2 Please indicate the total residential population served rather than the number of hookups. EPA Form Number 6100-06 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 78 Submit the Partnership Agreement (rewriteable PDF) to WaterSense via: Fax: (703) 841-1440 Mail: WaterSense, c/o ERG, 2300 Wilson Blvd, Suite 350, Arlington, VA 22201 Electronically: If you have Adobe Acrobat, you can complete the form electronically and e-mail it to: watersense@epa.gov. Please contact the WaterSense Helpline at (866) WTR-SENSE (987-7367) if you have any questions about eligibility, partnership, or for general program inquiries. After signing, EPA will send partners an executed copy of this agreement. The public reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 8 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of auto mated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed Partnership Agreement to this address. EPA Form Number 6100-06 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 79 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission Ordinances Subcommittee Report April 2013 The Ordinances Subcommittee met on March 17, 2013 to review the Minnesota Solar Challenge report for Eagan and the proposed revisions to the landscaping ordinance. Solar Recommended Action: ● Request a meeting with the Advisory Planning Commission to review and develop final recommendations on proposed changes to ordinances, permits and permitting fees in response to the Minnesota Solar Challenge Report. Background: The EEAC work plan approved by City Council in 2012 directed the commission to review city ordinances and develop recommendations to support best practices for renewable energy. The EEAC subsequently recommended that the City of Eagan apply for free technical assistance from the Minnesota Solar Challenge, a program administered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The City was selected to receive technical assistance, and the Minnesota Solar Challenge consultant submitted a report with findings related to: ● Zoning Code ● Subdivision Requirements ● Model Permits ● Permit Fees The City Building Official and City Planner are currently exploring next steps and the possibility of presenting some, or all, recommendations to the Advisory Planning Commission. Attachments: ● Minnesota Solar Challenge Report to the City of Eagan ● Minnesota Solar Challenge Draft Model Solar Permit Application Landscaping Recommended Action: ● Recommend denial of the City Attorney and City Staff’s proposed revisions of ordinance 10.21. ● Request meeting with City Councilmember Bakken, City Council Liaison to the Energy & Environment Advisory Commission, to discuss the EEAC landscaping ordinance recommendations and request guidance on next steps. Background: The EEAC work plan approved by City Council in 2012 directed the commission to review city ordinances and develop recommendations to support best practices for landscaping, as a Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 80 continuation of efforts from the previous year. The EEAC identified a model ordinance on sustainable landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, developed by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and available through the GreenStep Cities program. The EEAC sought city staff feedback on the model ordinance via an in-person meeting and then in writing and received input from the fire department, planning, code enforcement, public works, and parks and recreation. The subcommittee subsequently revised the model ordinance recommendation based on the input from city staff. The attachments show the City Attorney’s proposed revisions to the city ordinance, and the city staff responses to the subcommittee’s questions on the reason behind the changes from the revised model ordinance recommended by the EEAC. Attachments: ● Proposed revisions by the City Attorney ● City Staff responses to subcommittee questions on changes City Staff Responses to Subcommittee Questions about the Proposed Ordinance Amendment 1. Sub.2 A. 2. Nonapplication of Turf Grass Requirement – Is the intent here to require turf grass on at least 50% of the yard? This seems significantly more restrictive than the EEAC recommendation in the model ordinance, where landscaping is limited in setbacks from streets, trails and side yards. Only that part of the yard that is not covered by a driveway, walkway, etc. or a landscape be, as defined in Subd. 2(4), is calculated in determining the 50% of a yard. Thus, the entire back yard could be alternative landscaping within a landscape bed and 50% of the front and side yards could also be alternative landscape – resulting in 75% of the entire lot being covered by alternative landscape. 2. Several elements of the EEAC recommendations in the model ordinance do not appear in the revisions from the city attorney. Thank you for clarifying if they are addressed in other sections of city code or why they were omitted: Fencing – EEAC recommended allowing by right fencing under 36” (intent was to allow smaller garden fences) Any decorative fence is allowed under the Code now. Only perimeter fences need a zoning permit. Raised beds – EEAC recommended allowing by right raised beds under 36” The code does not prohibit raised beds and thus, need not expressly state in the ordinance that they are prohibited. (Ordinances state what we can’t do, not what we can do.) Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 81 Composition of setback areas – EEAC recommended allowing rock, gravel, wood chips, or other groundcover below 8" in height Without a fence delineating the property line; a turf grass border is appropriate. If there is a fence or if both property owners agree to same groundcover, then rock, gravel, wood chips and other groundcover is allowed. Landscaping within the ROW – EEAC recommended setbacks from the street but not wholesale restrictions on landscaping within the ROW. The city currently has a permit process for landscaping near and within the ROW. There are many residents who have already implemented landscaping within the ROW. The City Attorney determined activity upon public property should be restricted. The primary objective is to keep the ROW free of obstructions. 3. What is the intent behind introducing a definition for "alternative landscaping"? Streamlines the language in the code and minimizes repetition of individual terms. 4. What is the intent behind excluding from the Subd.1 some of the itemized benefits listed in the model ordinance's "Purpose" section? “Promoting public health, safety and general welfare” was thought to be adequate. 5. Under the proposed revisions, what is the intent behind distinguishing between "landscape beds" and "alternative landscaping"? Would "landscape beds" with edible and/or native vegetation not be subject to the same restrictions as "alternative landscaping"? Alternative landscaping is the vegetation; landscape bed is a place where the alternative landscape may be located. 6. Under the proposed revisions, in what cases would permits be required, if any, to establish "landscape beds" or to install border features/trim/edging? Anything at ground level is fine. A raised bed needs a no-cost Zoning Permit. The City requires a Zoning Permit for any exterior property improvement that does not require a Building Permit. 7. Did the city attorney identify changes to any other portions of the city code that should be considered in order advance the EEAC landscaping model ordinance recommendations (for example, Sec. 7.08 “Regulation of grass, weeds, trees, and landscaping”)? No other changes – recommendations cover it all. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 82 Administered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources Made possible through a U.S. Department of Energy SunShot Initiative Rooftop Solar Challenge grant April 3, 2013 Juli Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation City of Eagan, Minnesota Juli: We have reviewed Eagan’s zoning and subdivision ordinances for potential barriers to solar energy development in the city. The following is a summary of our scan, and questions that we believe need to be answered in order to ensure that the solar development process is predictable and transparent to property owners, contractors, city staff, and appointed and elected officials. This memo is only based on an ordinance scan, and not an in-depth reading of the ordinance. We may have missed points or may not have appropriate information on how to apply some elements. Thus we have outlined options for you to consider rather than specific recommendations. The scan was informed by the Eagan Energy and Environment Advisory Committee Ordinance Subcommittee memo dated 12/11/11. This memo noted that solar energy issues were inadequately covered in the ordinance, and concluded with the following recommendations: Clarify current city code parameters that apply to the design and installation of solar energy systems. Work with city staff to create handbook on solar access referenced in city code. Propose changes to current city code guidelines and restrictions on solar energy system use, culminating in the possible adoption of a self -contained solar energy ordinance. Basic Zoning Issues Basic zoning issues (uses, height, setbacks, lot coverage) affect the ability of a property owner to capture the property’s solar resource. In the case of each of these basic zoning standards, the community needs to identify how much flexibility is justified for solar development, given your community’s housing stock, standards, accepted aesthetic in terms of bulk and massing, etc. For many of the basic zoning issues, Eagan has yet to identify clear standards as to how solar energy systems are treated. The following issues are among those to consider. Uses. Eagan does not identify solar collectors as a permitted use in any zoning district. Solar system definitions are found in the subdivision ordinance: Sec. 13.04: Solar energy system means a set of devices whose primary purpose is to collect solar energy and convert and store it for useful purposes, including heating and cooling of buildings and other energy using processes, or to produce generated power by means of any combination of collecting, transferring or converting solar generated energy. Solar skyspace means the space between a solar collector and the sun which must be free of obstructions that shade the collector to an extent which precludes its cost effective operation. Since solar energy systems, as defined, are not explicitly allowed in any zoning district, the assumption is that they would be regulated either as an integral part of a building or as an accessory structure. Therefore, solar energy systems would presumably be regulated under the height and setback limits for principal buildings and accessory structures. The definition of solar skyspace is descriptive, but the ordinance does include a prescriptive application that applies the definition. The description may, depending on how it is ultimately applied, need to be tightened in order to create clear boundaries for “cost effective operation.” Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 83 Administered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources Made possible through a U.S. Department of Energy SunShot Initiative Rooftop Solar Challenge grant As described below, some additional definitions that make important distinctions between types of solar energy installations may be helpful. The city’s options for addressing solar energy uses include the following: Add “solar collectors” to the list of allowed accessory uses in all districts, and consider adding them as a principal use in industrial districts. Modify the definition of solar skyspace to note that solar systems require access to direct sunlight for several hours every day, usually including solar noon, for the entire year, in order to properly function. Consider a separate definition for “solar resource,” where the characteristics of a meaningful solar resource can be defined in order to distinguish between a functioning system and a solar sculpture. Consider adding a definition for “building-integrated” solar energy systems. Consider a definition for ground-mount solar energy installations. Consider a definition for solar as a principal use (solar farm, solar garden). Height. The height limit is a potential solar access issue in developed urban areas because the solar “resource” on a building may be located above the existing roofline due to shading from trees in the lot in question or by trees or buildings on adjacent lots. Many cities include exceptions to height limits, such as church spires, monuments and flagpoles, antennas, chimneys, smokestacks, transmission towers and similar structures. The only exceptions that Eagan appears to allow are in the Public Facilities District, where steeples, ornaments and antennas are not required to meet the required setback of two feet of setback for each one foot of height (Sec. 11.60, Subd. PF). Therefore, it appears that solar energy systems could not exceed the prescribed height limit in any district. This restriction may preclude roof-mounted solar systems on taller buildings (those at or close to maximum height limits) Possible options to consider include: Allowing solar installations to exceed the height limit for a limited distance (probably no more than 3 or 4 feet) above the roof peak in urban density residential districts, regardless of principal building height limit; Allowing solar installations to exceed the height limit, but as a conditional use, upon demonstration that the owner otherwise would have inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy production (consistent with the solar hardship variance definition in Minn. Statutes 394.25, Subd. 7, and consistent with Metropolitan Land Planning statutory language for solar protection elements in comprehensive plans, 473.859 Subd. 2.a.); Allow solar installations to be higher than the peak of the roof by a limited distance (3 or 4 feet) unless doing so exceeds the height limit; Require that rooftop solar installations be lower than the peak of pitched roofs, even if that restricts the homeowner’s access to their solar resource. Districts also have height limits for accessory structures, such as a ground-mounted (rack or pole) solar installations. Accessory “buildings” and “structures” are both defined in Eagan’s ordinance, essentially as buildings: Sec. 11-30: Building, accessory means an accessory structure detached from the principal structure, having a roof and walls to provide weather protection. This includes detached garages, storage sheds, gazebos and similar structures. A carport attached to an accessory building is considered part of that accessory building. Accessory buildings and structures may not exceed the height of the principal structure. The definition of accessory building does not explicitly include solar collectors, but it could be argued that these would be considered “similar structures,” although they lack a roof and walls. The city might want to consider clarifying that with a separate definition of a ground-mount solar installation (see above). Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 84 Administered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources Made possible through a U.S. Department of Energy SunShot Initiative Rooftop Solar Challenge grant Setbacks. Setback requirements can pose similar barriers to utilizing solar resources. If a given lot’s solar resource is located in a reserved setback area (rather than on a rooftop or a yard), does the city allow flexibility for ground-mount systems or building-mounted awnings that extend into the required setback? Eagan’s ordinance allows certain accessory structures to extend into required yard setbacks: Sec. 11-40, Subd. 4: The following shall not be considered as encroachments on required yard setbacks: 1. Air conditioning or heating equipment, chimneys, flues, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and similar features, provided they do not project more than 30 inches into the required yard. 2. Decks, patios, balconies, stoops, or other similar features provided they do not extend more than 30 inches above the finished grade and a distance greater than eight feet into a required front yard, five feet into a required side yard and five feet into a required rear yard and provided they do not encroach upon a public easement. 3. In rear yards, recreational equipment and clothes lines, arbors and trellises, gazebos, breezeways, detached accessory buildings, air conditioning and heating equipment may encroach to a point not less than five feet from the rear lot line. It is possible that solar ground-mount systems might be determined to be similar to air conditioning and heating equipment (since their purpose and functions are similar), but the City may wish to consider adding them to the list of equipment allowed to project into required yards and encroach into rear yards. Coverage. As with setbacks, where trees and buildings are closer together, the lot’s solar resource may only be in a yard rather than on a rooftop. Eagan’s code includes a coverage limit for buildings that ranges from 20% in most residential districts to 35% in the most intense commercial and industrial districts and 40% in the Business Park district. Ground or pole-mounted systems, if allowed as accessory structures, would be affected by coverage limitations. Depending on whether buildings on a given lot are approaching the coverage limits, this requirement could act as a barrier to solar installations. A residential ground-mount installation will have a collector surface area approximately between 200-300 square feet although some systems can be somewhat smaller or larger. Residential accessory building coverage limits are defined in the ordinance: 11-40, Sub. 5 (4) When an attached garage is present on the site, the total floor area of all detached accessory structures (including garages) shall not exceed 576 square feet. (5) When an attached garage is not present on the site, the total floor area of all detached accessory structures shall not exceed 800 square feet. Assuming that the accessory building coverage limits would apply to ground-mount solar installations, the City should consider whether the 576 or 800 square foot limit might prevent ground-mount solar installations on existing developed lots, particularly in the larger lot districts. Options to consider include: Exempting ground-mount solar installations from the total coverage limit, but setting a maximum size on the solar collector square footage (a percentage of the principal building, a percentage of the lot, or a fixed square footage) Allowing ground-mount solar systems that exceed the accessory building limitation as a conditional use, upon demonstration that the owner has no other reasonable option for accessing the solar resource. Regulating ground-mount installations no differently than other accessory uses. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 85 Administered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources Made possible through a U.S. Department of Energy SunShot Initiative Rooftop Solar Challenge grant Screening: Eagan’s code requires several types of screening of equipment from public view, which could limit solar development. In the Cedar Grove District, roof-mounted equipment must be screened: 11-60, Subd. 21, (J)(6) All mechanical equipment, whether roof-mounted or ground-mounted, shall be completely screened from the ground-level view of adjacent properties and public streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of the principal building. Under the City’s performance standards, screening is required for both roof- and ground-mounted mechanical equipment for most non-single-family development: 11-70, Subd. 21. Design and construction requirements for multiple family, office, commercial, industrial, and public and institutional developments. (D) Site design and development requirements (b) General requirements. The following requirements apply to all building and ground mounted mechanical equipment: (i) All mechanical equipment shall be designed and located so as not to disrupt or detract from the visual theme and appearance of the subject building. (ii) All mechanical equipment, whether located on a roof, side of a structure, or on the ground, shall be entirely screened from public view and from the ground level of any adjacent property or street that is of equal grade with the subject building. (iii) Prior to any building construction or the issuance of a building or mechanical permit, all mechanical equipment and proposed screening shall be depicted on the building's site plan and/or building elevation drawings. (iv) Screening and finishes shall be kept in a state of good repair and condition. (v) All building mounted mechanical equipment on new buildings or newly located equipment on existing buildings shall be set back from the edge of the roof a minimum of 20 feet. If solar installations are considered a rooftop mechanical system, the screening requirement would effectively make the installation non-functional. Commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings frequently have flat roof with excellent solar resources. Requiring solar installations to not be visible from public streets makes solar development on those roofs difficult or dramatically reduces the potential size of the solar installation. I should note that OHSA regulations already require a six foot setback from the edge of commercial, industrial or institutional buildings, so installations will not be right at the edge of the building. Options to consider include: Exempt solar installations from the provisions of 11-70, Sub. 21, Enact a separate section for rooftop solar installations that requires the contactor/designer to minimize visibility of the system through integration into building design, setback from edge of building adjacent to public streets, or other consideration, Address the rooftop visibility issue district by district. Screening of ground-mounted equipment could present similar barriers to solar installations, depending on whether the screening blocks solar access. The City may wish to consider a similar exemption that would minimize visibility from streets and adjacent properties to the extent feasible (without affecting the functioning of the solar installation). Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 86 Administered by the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Division of Energy Resources Made possible through a U.S. Department of Energy SunShot Initiative Rooftop Solar Challenge grant Subdivision requirements As noted above, Eagan’s subdivision regulations define solar energy systems; the regulations also list planning for solar energy use as part of preliminary and final plat requirements: Sec. 13-20, General provisions. Subd. 6. Findings related to preliminary and final plats. In the case of all platting, the planning commission and the council shall be guided by criteria, including the following, in approving, denying or establishing conditions related thereto: (I) That the subdivision has been properly planned for possible solar energy system use within the subdivision or as it relates to adjacent property. (Refer to city handbook on solar access.) Sec. 13-30. Data and design standards. Subd. 12. Solar access. The city requests that the developer consider all potential solar energy conservation measures when planning a subdivision. A city handbook, outlining the design criteria for solar access, is available at city hall. Solar energy access provisions can be put into place during the subdivision process far more easily than after lots are being sold (dealing with a single landowner rather than dealing with many landowners). Minnesota State law allows cities to create “solar easements” and record them with the property (see Minnesota Stat. 500.30 Subd. 30. Moreover, clear best practices and standards for “solar ready” buildings now exist that can be encouraged as part of the subdivisions process for lots with good solar resources (see U.S. EPA’s Renewable Energy Ready Home specifications, www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=rerh.rerh_index). We encourage the City to consider how these standards might be implemented, either through finalizing the handbook or through making some of the zoning changes suggested above. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 87 Revised 2/2013 DATE _____________ ROOFTOP SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATION/PERMIT CITY in MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE DIVISION Draft model solar permit, 2/24/13 Based on the Expedited Permit Process, Solar ABCS, http://www.solarabcs.org/about/publications/reports/expedited-permit/ JOB SITE ADDRESS __________________________________________________________________ NAME OF BUILDING OWNER ________________________________________________________ JOB VALUATION ____________________________________________________________________ Name ______________________________________________________________ Installation Address _____________________________________________________________ Contractor City _____________________________ State _______ Zip _______________ State License No. ______________________________ Phone _________________ Required Information for Permit: 1. Site plan showing location of major components on the property and a framing cross section that identifies type of support (rafter or truss), spacing, span dimension, and approximate roof slope. The drawings need not be exactly to scale, but it should represent relative location of components. 2. Specification sheets and installation manuals for all manufactured components including, but not limited to, PV modules, inverter(s), combiner box, disconnects, and mounting system. 3. If city manages electric permit process - Electrical diagram showing PV array configuration, wiring system, overcurrent protection, inverter, disconnects, required signs, and AC connection to building (see accompanying standard electrical diagram). Step 1: Structural Review of PV Installation Mounting System 1. Is the solar installation to be mounted on pitched roof in good condition, without visible sag or deflection, no cracking or splintering of support, or other potential structural defect? Yes No For truss systems, additional information may be needed on the truss’ design loads. Please contact the building official for standards on when structural analysis will be needed. 2. Is the equipment to be flush-mounted to the roof such that the collector surface is parallel to the roof? Yes No 3. Is the roofing type lightweight ? Yes (composition, lightweight masonry, metal, etc…) No 4. Does the roof have a single layer roof covering? Yes No If No to any of questions 1 -4 above, a study or statement regarding the structural integrity of the proposed solar installation and all proposed structural modifications, stamped by a Minnesota licensed/certified structural engineer, and other information, may be required. Please contact the building official to determine additional information requirements. 5. Provide method and types of weatherproofing for roof penetrations (e.g. flashing, caulk). ______________________________________________________________________ Mounting System Information: 6. Is the mounting structure an engineered product designed to mount PV modules with no more than an 18” gap beneath the module frames? Yes No If No, provide details of structural attachment certified by a design professional. Manufacturer’s engineering specifications are sufficient to meet this requirement. 7. For manufactured mounting systems, fill out information on the mounting system below: Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 88 Revised 2/2013 DATE _____________ ROOFTOP SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC APPLICATION/PERMIT CITY in MINNESOTA BUILDING CODE DIVISION Draft model solar permit, 2/24/13 Based on the Expedited Permit Process, Solar ABCS, http://www.solarabcs.org/about/publications/reports/expedited-permit/ a. Mounting System Manufacturer ___________________________________ b. Product Name and Model#______________________________________ c. Total Weight of PV Modules and Rails ______________ lbs d. Total Number of Attachment Points________________ (attachment points must be equally distributed across the array) e. Weight per Attachment Point _____________________ lbs f. Maximum Spacing Between Attachment Points on a Rail ______________inches (see product manual for maximum spacing allowed based on maximum design wind speed). g. Total Surface Area of PV Modules (square feet)_________________ ft2 h. Distributed Weight of PV Module on Roof (b÷f)_______________ lbs/ft2 If distributed weight of the PV system is greater than 5 lbs/ft2, a study or statement demonstrating the structural integrity of the installation, stamped by a Minnesota licensed/certified structural engineer, may be required. Contact the building official with questions. Step 2: Electrical Review of PV System (to be completed only if the local government administers electric permits. Electric permit application can be a separate document, as the licensed electrician may be a different contractor) Please document the following information to be issued an electric permit. If the installation does not meet the following thresholds, additional information may be needed, as requested by the permit official. 1. PV modules, utility-interactive inverters, and combiner boxes are identified for use in PV systems. 2. The PV array is composed of 4 series strings or less per inverter. 3. The total inverter capacity has a continuous AC power output 13,440 watts or less 4. The AC interconnection point is on the load side of service disconnecting means (NEC 2011 705.12(D), NEC 2008 690.64(B)). 5. A standard electrical diagram should be used to accurately represent the PV system. Acceptable diagrams, in interactive PDF format, are available at www.solarabcs.org/permitting. Fill out the standard electrical diagram completely. A guide to the electrical diagram is provided at www.solarabcs.org/permitting to help the applicant understand each blank to fill in. If the electrical system is more complex than the standard electrical diagram can effectively communicate, provide an alternative diagram with appropriate detail. Step 3: Permit fee for residential installations ____ Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (fixed fee between $100 – 250, consistent with cost for services). ____ Additional inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50.00 (When re-inspection is needed) TOTAL FEE = $_______ RECEIPT NO. __________________________ DATE ____________________________ I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have completed and examined this application and certify that the information contained therein is correct. If a permit is issued, I agree all work will be done in conformance with all applicable ordinances and codes of this City and laws of the State of Minnesota. ___________________________________________________ CONTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT/HOMEOWNER Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 89 Sec. 10.21. - Planting and maintenance of trees, and turf grass, and alternative landscaping on private property. Subd. 1. Purpose and application. The regulations set forth in this section are for the purposes of protecting and promoting the public health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city by regulating the planting and maintenance of trees in order to protect trees and to prevent and abate hazardous and nuisance trees and conditions within the city. It is also the purpose of this section to regulate establishment of turf grass or alternative landscaping to promote proper maintenance of vegetation, control noxious weeds, and encourage the planting and maintenance of alternative landscaping to provide diversity and environmental benefits (reduction of use of water, fertilizers, and chemical pesticides and herbicides, thereby protecting groundwater and public waters from pollutants). This section applies to all private property at all times on a continuing basis. Subd. 2. Definitions. 1. Alternative landscaping means designed and established vegetation that is one or a combination of the following: meadow; woodland; rain garden; low maintenance ground cover; and edible vegetation when planted with other alternative landscaping. 2. Edible vegetation means any herb plant or fruit or vegetable producing plant which all or a part thereof is edible. 3. Established turf grass means an area of land that is covered by a minimum of 90 percent turf grasses. 4. Landscape bed means an area or tiered areas delineated by landscape material or established turf grasses as its border(s) and is designed for and maintained with ornamental plants or native grasses and forbs or edible vegetation. 5. Low maintenance turf grasses or ground covers means turf grasses and ground covers of a species which is appropriate for the property’s soil type and growing zone and that is of a cultivar that requires little or no water or mowing once established. 6. Meadow means an area of grasses and forbs (flowering broadleaf plants) that are native or adaptive to this State, excluding noxious weeds and turf grasses, but including and not limited to: sedge meadow, mesic prairie, dry prairie, wet prairie, perennial wildflower, and native plant communities. 7. Native grasses and forbs mean grasses, including prairie grasses, and forbs (flowering broad-leaf plants) that are indigenous to this State. 8. Native plant communities mean groupings of native grasses, forbs and other plants that generally occur together in an area due to soil and light conditions, such as: wet prairie, dry prairie, oak savannah, or maple-basswood forest. 9. Noxious weeds means plants designated according to Minn. Stat. § 18.77, subd. 8 10. Ornamental plants means grasses, flowering perennial and annual plants, shrubs and groundcovers that may not be indigenous to Minnesota, but are adaptable. Ornamental grasses do not include turf grasses. Formatted: Highlight Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 90 11. Public right-of-way means the surface, air space above the surface and the area below the surface of any public street, highway, lane, path, alley, sidewalk, trail, avenue, boulevard, drive, court, concourse, bridge, tunnel, park, parkway, skyway, waterway, or similar property within the city owned by or under control of the city, or dedicated or otherwise conveyed to the city, for general public use. 12. Rain garden means a shallow excavated depression with loosened sub-soils in which ornamental plants or native grasses and forbs that are adapted to moist conditions and have deep roots are planted for the purpose of infiltrating and filtering rain water and reducing storm water runoff. 13. Restoration or restored means the process of re-establishing or returning an area to be covered by and comprised of vegetation that is of a native plant community original to the locale of the property to be restored. 14. Turf grasses means commercially available cultured grass plant varieties, including bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass blends, that are commonly used in regularly cut lawn areas and low maintenance turf grasses as defined herein. 15. Unmanaged vegetation means diseased, dead, or poisonous vegetation, overgrown shrubs, alternative landscape area as permitted in this Section that is overgrown by nuisance or noxious weeds. 16. Vegetation means any non-woody plants. 17. Woodland means an area of coniferous or deciduous trees interspersed with shrubs, grasses, broadleaf plants, and other vegetation, excluding nuisance and noxious weeds, that are native or adaptive to this State. Subd. 23. Lawn establishment and maintenance Turf grass and alternative landscaping establishment and maintenance requirements. A. Scope and application. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply to any property which has been approved by the city for development or has been improved with a building, as defined in the building code, including vacant property combined with improved property for tax purposes. B. Definitions. 1. Meadow means an area of grasses and flowering broadleaf plants, excluding noxious weeds and turf grass, which are native or adaptive to the state, including, but not limited to, sedge meadow, mesic prairie, dry prairie, wet prairie and perennial wildflower communities. 2. Woodland means an area of coniferous or deciduous trees interspersed with shrubs, grasses, broadleaf plants, and other vegetation, excluding noxious weeds, which are native or adaptive to the state. 3. Turf grasses means commercially available cultured turf grass varieties, including bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass blends, commonly used in regularly cut lawn areas. 4. Turf grass means an area of land which is occupied by a minimum of 90 percent turf Formatted: Highlight Formatted: Highlight Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 91 grasses. 5. Regularly cut means mowing or otherwise cutting the vegetation so it does not exceed six inches in height. 6. Noxious weeds means those plants designated as such in Minn. Stat. § 18.77, subd. 8 7. Property means that property to which this subdivision applies. 8. Vegetation means any non-woody plant. C A. Turf grass and meadow or woodland conditions establishment standards. Any property that has been approved by the City for development or has been improved with a building, as defined in the building code, including vacant property combined with improved property for property tax purposes shall be subject to the following establishment requirements: 1. Turf grass establishment required. All disturbed or maintained areas of a property which that are not described in paragraph DB(2) and constitute the yard of the property, as the term is defined in the zoning regulations of this Code, that is not otherwise occupied by the driveway or other parking surface, accessory structures, landscape beds, or recreational improvements (such as: swimming pool, tennis or sport court, play equipment) or occupied by buildings, parking, storage, landscape beds or other physical improvements shall be covered by maintainable turf grasses which is that are compatible to with the property’s existing property conditions, including soil, slope and shade conditions. (a) All established turf grass shall be established completed through sodding or seeding and mulching within eight months of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or within 12 months of issuance of a building permit, whichever is earlier. (b) Any established turf grass establishment on and within three feet of all impervious surfaces shall be accomplished through sodding. (c) The property owner shall be responsible for supplemental watering of all areas established with turf grasses to insure ensure sufficient establishment and root development. (d) All areas of the property shall comply with the provisions of the Land Disturbance and Erosion Control regulations and any other provisions of the City Code and as in effect for the property. 2. Nonapplication of turf grass establishment requirement. No more than Up to 50 percent of all disturbed or maintained areas requiring established turf grass on the property may be established with or restored to alternative landscaping as the term is defined herein, may be restored to a meadow or woodland condition, provided the following requirements are met: (a) The vegetation presently existing in the proposed establishment or restoration area shall be eliminated in its entirety, and the meadow or woodland alternative landscaping vegetation shall be established through transplanting, seeding or other means of propagation. (b) No area established or restored to a woodland or meadow an alternative landscaping condition shall have any noxious weeds or any prohibited tree species as Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 92 provided in this section. (c) A minimum of three (3) feet of established turf grass shall be established and maintained along the property line edge of a the property where a meadow or woodland restoration area alternative landscaping abuts established turf grass areas on an adjoining property in order to provide a transition zone between the two types of plant communities. The minimum of three (3) feet of established turf grass need not be maintained as required in this paragraph if: a fence is installed along the property line pursuant to a Zoning Permit; the alternative landscaping abuts a public park, open space, a vacant lot, or a wetland, pond, lake, stream or natural area; or the alternative landscape area is located on slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). (d) Soil erosion shall be controlled during the transition or establishment period of a meadow, edible landscape, low maintenance lawn, rain garden or woodland restoration the alternative landscaping vegetation, and all areas of the property shall comply with the provisions of the Land Disturbance and Erosion Control Plan and in effect for the property. (e) No alternative landscaping may be placed or maintained within the public right-of-way unless the alterative landscaping is a city-approved rain garden established and maintained pursuant to a permit issued by city. (f) Any meadow or woodland restoration area should be consistent with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ native planting restoration best practices methods and standards. (g) Rain gardens shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the best practice methods and standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or other similar industry practices and standards for rain gardens. (h) Alternative landscaping shall be properly maintained as to not be in a state or condition of unmanaged vegetation. DB. Turf grass and alternative landscaping and meadow or woodland conditions maintenance standards. 1. All vegetation shall not exceed a height of eight inches, measured from the base at ground level to the tip of each stalk, stem, blade or leaf. 2. Paragraph D (1) herein above shall not apply to the following: (a) A wetland or floodplain designated on the official city wetland inventory or zoning map; (b) A drainage pond or ditch which that stores or conveys storm water; (c) An area currently being used as pasture land for domestic hoofed animals when permitted by the city’s zoning regulations in this Code; Comment [SH1]: Under new FEMA map, an area may be within the floodplain, but still subject to turf grass establishment or maintained area. Perhaps use of “shoreland” or “wetland buffer” be used instead. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 93 (d) An area in which where the land and vegetation appears has not to have been graded, landscaped, mowed or otherwise previously disturbed by human or mechanica l means; (e) An steeply sloped area that is steeply sloped as to makes mowing or cutting of the vegetation not reasonably practical for equipment operation or safety; and (f) Grasses, forbs or edible vegetation that characteristically grows taller than 8 inches and are planted within an alternative landscaping A meadow or woodland area established and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision Section. Subd. 4. 3. Public nuisance. The following shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be immediately abated by the property owner: (a) Noxious weeds; (b) Vegetation in violation of paragraph D ( clause 1) of this subdivisionParagraph; and (c) Vegetation in violation of the public rights-of-way plant and vegetation placement provisions in the City Code. (d) Unmanaged vegetation. Subd. 35. City to control tree planting. It is unlawful to introduce plant prohibited species to on any lot or land parcel any tree or seed therefrom that is a prohibited species where such trees are not naturally occurring. Prohibited species are defined as the following trees: Ginkgo (female only) Box elder Non-disease-resistant elm species Nonhybrid cottonwood species Subd. 46. Shade tree diseases. A. It is unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or permit, upon owned premises owned by him or upon public property where the person has the duty of tree maintenance, any nuisance as defined in section 10.20 of the City Code. B. Inspection, diagnosis and abatement of a nuisance shall be by spraying, removing, burning, or otherwise effectively treating the infected tree or wood in accordance with the procedures and methods specified in section 10.20 of the City Code. Subd. 57. Abatement. If any such owner fails to assume the primary responsibility described in subdivisions 2, 3, or 4 of this Section or to abate any public nuisance under this Section, then the City’s performance of the work necessary for compliance of this Section or the abatement of the public nuisance shall be in accordance with this Chapter. Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 0.69", Tab stops: 0", Left + Not at 0.69" Comment [SH2]: Revised language per Ordinance No. 505, May 2012. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 94 Landscaping & Maintenance of Vegetation Ordinance Comments from the following groups were used in the creation of this recommendation, including: ~EEAC Ordinance Subcommittee members (Mike Wisniewski, Amir Nadav, Jon Drucker) ~City of Eagan (Juli Johnson, Gregg Thompson, Mary Granley, Mike Ridley, Pat Diloia) Ordinance Subcommittee - September 3, 2012 9/3/2012 Summary of major discussion points include: -While we all agree there is a need for the ordinance to contain separate commercial standards, our initial recommendations focus on residential ordinance changes. Commercial ordinance recommendations will follow at a later date. -We recommend including language on restrictive covenants (Sec IX) pending additional feedback from City Attorney, keeping in mind ultimate policy decision by the city council -Model ordinance setback limits were used in most instances -Inclusion of fencing and raised beds, 36" or lower, without need of permits -Inclusion of existing enforcement and assessment language from city code Sec 10.21 -Additional definitions were included from comments provided by city staff -Highlighted sections within document indicate modification of model ordinance language The Ordinance subcommittee recommends the EEAC consider the changes to the model ordinance below. Requested Motion: Recommend revisions to the model ordinance contained in the EEAC packet and request final review and input from City Staff for consideration in October EEAC meeting. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 95 Landscaping and Maintenance of Vegetation From Policy to Reality Updated ^ Model Ordinances for Sustainable Development 2000 Environmental Quality Board 2008 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Funded by a Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Sustainable Communities Grant Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 96 Primary Author: Project Coordinator: Brian Ross Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 97 INTRODUCTION Background Landscape alternatives to turf grass lawns can offer significant benefits to a community, including stormwater management, habitat, local food, and visual appeal. Nevertheless, vegetation must be maintained in order to protect public health, safety and the property value of adjacent lots. This ordinance balances these two interests by specifically allowing alternative landscaping techniques at the same time it provides standards for the mainte- nance of vegetation. One of the major negatives associated with turf grass is the substantial amount of water required to maintain a lush, green lawn. According to the University of Minnesota Extension Services, turf grass lawns in Minnesota need to receive between 1 and 1.5 inches of water a week during the summer. Therefore, each square foot of turf grass needs approximately 11 gallons of water to stay green between the beginning of June to the end of August. For a suburban 4,000 sq. ft. lawn, that could amount to 44,000 gallons of water per summer! While some of this water may come from rainfall, in a dry year a large portion of it needs to be provided through ir- rigation. Although Minnesota is naturally endowed with abundant water, over-pumping of groundwater sources is causing declining water levels in aquifers. Moreover, turf grass lawns often require application of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides which contribute to eutrophication and pollution in lakes, rivers and streams. By using low-maintenance alternatives to turf lawns, communities can protect ground and surface water resources, ensur- ing that future generations will have access to abundant, clean water resources. We have chosen to focus on three types of alternative landscaping, native landscaping, edible landscaping and rain gardens, because of their growing popularity and because they offer significant benefits to the community at large. We recognize that there may be many other alternative landscaping styles, and encourage you to modify this ordinance so that it addresses those relevant to your community. Each type of alternative landscaping offers unique benefits to a community. Native Landscaping - Native plants are those that grew in Minnesota prior to European settlement. Native landscaping can range from using native plants for their decorative value in a flower bed to restoring natural plant communities such as prairies or oak savanna. As compared to turf grass and non-native ornamental plants, native vegetation requires less irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides. When homeowners use native vegetation rather than turf grass, less water is pumped out of ground- water aquifers for ir rigation and fewer fertilizer and chemicals are washed into our lakes, streams and rivers. Native vegetation also provides food and habitat for birds, pollinators, and other wildlife. Credits This model ordinance was developed from a combination of language from existing land- scaping ordinances and new language developed specifically for this model. Existing ordinances included: • Denver, CO Municipal Code, Chapter 57 – Vegetation, Articles III and V • Edina, MN City Code, Section 1050 – Maintenance of Landscape • Madison, WI Municipal Code, Section 27.05 – Safe and Sanitary Maintenance of Property Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 98 Edible Landscaping - Edible landscaping refers to a practice of incorporating fruit and vegetable producing plants into the landscape in an attractive manner, appropriate for the front and back yard. Encouraging individuals to grow fruits and vegetables in their front and back yards increases local food security, ensures access to healthy foods, and addresses global warming by reducing fossil fuel use in transportation of foods. Rain Gardens - Rain gardens are designed to collect and infiltrate stor mwater that runs off of roofs and pavement, preventing it from entering the storm sewer system and polluting lakes, streams and rivers. Rain gardens consist of shallow depressions with loosened sub-soils, planted with native plants, garden perennials and/or shrubs that are adapted to moist conditions and that have deep roots to help stor mwater seep into the ground quickly. Encouraging homeowners to construct rain gardens is an important way for a community to protect surface water resources and recharge ground water. Sources: 1) Watering Lawns and other Turf. Don Taylor. 1998. University of Minnesota Extension. Depart- ment of Horticulture. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/horticulture/DG2364.html Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 99 I. Authorization, Findings and Purpose A. Statutory Authorizations B. Findings - Model Community finds that traditional turf grass lawns require large amounts of water, fertilizers and chemicals pest controls to maintain. Using large amounts of water to maintain lawns threatens Model Community’s groundwater supply while fertilizers and chemical pest controls pollute our lakes, rivers and streams. Alternative landscape techniques have significant advantages over turf grass, specifically: 1. Native vegetation requires less moisture, fertilizers, and pesticides and places less stress on the public’s water resources. Native vegetation also provides food and habitat to wildlife. 2. Rain gardens filter and infiltrate stormwater, thereby protecting surface water from polluted runoff and recharging groundwater resources. 3. Producing foods locally: a. Increases local food security; b. Addresses global warming by reducing fossil fuel use in transportation of foods; and c. Addresses the obesity epidemic by insuring access to healthy, fresh foods. C. Pur pose - The purpose of this Section is to prohibit the unmanaged growth of vegetation and to control noxious weeds, while encouraging the planting and maintenance of vegetation that adds diversity and richness to the quality of life. There are reasonable expectations regarding the proper maintenance of vegetation on any lot or parcel of land. It is in the public's interests to provide standards regarding the maintenance of vegetation because vegetation which is not managed can decrease the value of nearby properties and threaten public health and safety. It is also in the public's interest to encourage diverse vegetation and landscaping treatments, particularly those that can be environmentally-beneficial to the health of public, which are low-maintenance and economical: 1. Create and maintain attractive and safe neighborhoods. 2. Restore Model Community’s native vegetation. 3. Encourage the local food production system. 4. Protect and improve Model Community’s surface waters through increasing on-site infiltration in existing developed areas. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 100 II. Applicability - This Section applies to lots in residential zoning districts or residential lots in mixed use districts. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 101 III. Definitions - Words and phrases used in this article shall have the following meanings ascribed to them: Clearing or Clear - The trimming and/or removal, as appropriate, and the proper disposal of vegetation. Edible Landscaping - Edible landscaping refers to a practice of incorporating fruit and vegetable producing plants into the landscape in an attractive manner, appropriate for the front and back yard. Landscape Area - The area of the lot between the minimum building setback and the street of the official address of the lot. Native Grasses and Forbs - Grasses, including prairie grasses, and flowering broad-leaf plants which are indigenous to the State. Native Plant Communities - Groups of native plants which generally occur together in an area. Examples include wet prairie, dry prairie, oak savannah, or maple-basswood forest. Noxious Weeds - Noxious weeds or secondary noxious weeds as identified by the State Commissioner of Agriculture pursuant to M.S 18.171, Subd 5. Or namental Plants - Grasses, perennials, annuals, and groundcovers not may not be indigenous to the State. Or namental grasses and g roundcovers do not include turf grasses. Owner - Any person or entity having a legal or equitable interest in real property and its fixtures and appurtenances, including the interests of a tenant or lessee. Proper ty - Real property and its fixtures and appurtenances. The phrase “private property” shall include, in addition to the privately owned property, the adjacent land and improvements located in the public right-of-way from the street curb or edge of the road to the property line and in any public alley from the centerline of the alley to the property line. Rain Garden - A shallow excavated depression planted with native vegetation that filters and infiltrates rain water and reduces stormwater runoff. Responsible Party - an entity or person who, acting as an agent for or in any other legal capacity on behalf of the owner, has authority over property subject to this article or is responsible for the maintenance or management of said property. Restoration - The process of returning degraded native plant communities to their original species composition. Restrictive Covenant - Includes any form of declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions or similar non- governmental mechanisms for controlling land use on private property, including rules, regulations, or guidelines imple- Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 102 mented under the authority of restrictive covenants. Turf Grass - An area of land which is occupied by a minimum of 90 percent turfgrasses. Commercially available cultured turfgrass varieties, including bluegrass, fescue and ryegrass blends, commonly used in regularly cut lawn areas. Unmanaged Vegetation - Overgrown shrubs, br ush, or grasses; diseased, dead, noxious, or poisonous vegetative growth; weeds; and any other improperly maintained or inappropriate vegetation as proscribed in r ules and regulations. Vector - Any animal, insect, or other vermin that can transmit disease to humans or is the potential cause of a public health nuisance. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 103 IV. Maintenance of Landscaping - The owner, agent, or lessee of any real property located within the city must provide regular weeding, pr uning, and other maintenance of all plantings located on said private property. Plant materials which exhibit evidence of pests, disease, or damage shall be appropriately treated, and dead plants shall be removed and/or replaced. V. Landscape Area A. Landscape Area Defined - The landscape area is defined as the area of the lot between the mini- mum building setback and the street of the official address of the lot. B. Landscape Area: Acceptable Landscaping Design Required for Alternative Landscaping - Ornamental plants; native forbs and grasses; or vegetable and fruit bearing plants are allowed acceptable in the landscape area., but they must be planted pursuant to a design. The design must either be created by a professional landscape designer or be consistent with Model Community Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) standards. 1. Fencing and / or raised bed 36" or less within the landscaping area are allowed by right. C. Setback - A three (3) foot setback must be provided along the street and both sides of a trail. A one (1) foot setback from sidewalk. A one (1) foot side yard setback is required but may be reduced to 0 feet if: 1. A 4’ tall opaque fence is installed, pursuant to Eagan city code, adjoining the landscape area, or 2. The planted area abuts: a. a restoration area on any adjoining lot, b. a public park or open space, c. a vacant lot, d. a wetland, pond, lake, stream, or natural area, or 3. The landscape area is located on slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). D. Composition of Setback Area - The setback area required by Subd. (c) of this Subsection shall be primarily composed of rock, gravel wood chips, regularly mowed turf grass or a groundcover below ten eight inches in height. Landscape Area Standards In some communities, landscaping standards may be available from organizations such as the SWCD. If a local set of standards is not avail- able, there are a number of different documents that may be appropriate for your community. One example is the Sustainable Yard Design Series, produced by the University of Minne- sota’s Metropolitan Design Center, available at http://www.designcenter.umn.edu/projects/ past/past_04_07/housing/pdfs/SusYardSer_ Final_011107.pdf. Height Restrictions Some communities may choose to include a vegetation height restriction for the front yard landscape area for safety and crime prevention reasons. Care should be taken to ensure that the height restriction does not prohibit fruit and vegetable producing plants or native plants that may grow taller than traditional ornamental plants. One approach may be to allow a cer- tain percentage of vegetation in the front yard to exceed the specified maximum height. For example, 20% of vegetation (by area) may be allowed to exceed a maximum height limit. This would allow some taller plants while maintain- ing sightlines to the home from the street. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 104 Restoration Standards The MN DNR’s brochure, How to Use Na- tive Plants for Landscaping and Restoration in Minnesota, is available at http://files.dnr. state.mn.us/assistance/backyard/gardens/na- tive_plant/nativelandscaping.pdf. Communities may wish to use this document or other docu- ments developed by their local SWCD to provide instruction on how restoration projects should be installed and managed......... Setback Options Communities may want to alter setback require- ments to suit their unique cultural and geograph- ic characteristics. This model is intended for small urban and suburban lots typical in areas with central sewer and water lines. Some com- munities may want to eliminate backyard or side yard setbacks and reduce street front setbacks. Conversely, communities with larger suburban lots may wish to specify a wider setback from the street or neighboring lot lines. Rain Garden Standards Many documents exist that could provide in- struction to homeowners on how to properly install rain gardens. Blue Thumb is a program that provides information on using landscaping to protect surface water quality. Information on constructing rain gardens is available at their website, http://bluethumb.org/. The document Rain Gardens: A How-to Manual for Hom- eowners, is available from the MN DNR at http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermg- mt_section/shoreland/raingardenmanual.pdf. VI. All Other Yard Areas A. Plants Allowed Acceptable Landscaping - Ornamental plants; native forbs and grasses; or vegetable and fr uit bearing plants are acceptable in the landscape area. 1. Fencing and /or raised bed 36" or less within the landscaping area are allowed by right. B. Restoration and Establishment of Native Plant Communities - Restoration or establishment of native plant communities is allowed in the back yard. Restoration projects should be consistent with the Mn DNR’s brochure, How to Use Native Plants for Landscaping and Restoration in Minnesota. C. Setback - A one (1) foot setback from neighboring property lines is required but may be reduced to 0 feet if: 1. A 4’ tall opaque fence is installed, pursuant to Eagan city code, adjoining the landscape area, or 2. The planted area abuts (i) a planted area on any adjoining lot, (ii) a public park or open space, (iii) a vacant lot, (iv) a wetland, pond, lake or stream, (v) or natural area, or 3. The landscape area is located on slopes equal to or greater than three feet horizontal to one foot vertical (3:1). D. Composition of Setback Area - The setback area required by Subd. (c) of this Subsection shall be primarily composed of rock, gravel wood chips, regularly mowed turf grass or a groundcover below eight inches in height. VII. Rain Gardens A. Rain Garden Location - Rain gardens are allowed in front and back yards, but must conform with the setback requirements specified in Subsections 6 V and 7VI. B. Constr uction - Rain gardens should be constr ucted consistent with the document Rain Gardens: A How-to Manual for Homeowners, available from the MN DNR or other similar rain garden construction manual. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 105 VIII. Landscaping within the public right of way A. City - Maintained Boulevards - City-Maintained boulevards shall be maintained between the curb and three feet back from trails according to standards on file with the city department of parks and recreation. Landscaping or alternative ground cover within this area shall require a permit for landscaping within the right of way. B. Resident - Maintained Boulevards - Resident-maintained boulevards may be landscaped in accordance with allowable uses and setbacks described in sections V, VI and VII without seeking a permit. Nothing in this section shall be construed as to prevent the city and permitted utilities from accessing and maintaining infrastructure within the public right of way. The city and utilities shall minimize damage to, and restore, landscaping within the right of way to the extent practicable but shall not be liable for damages to landscaping. IX. Prohibition on Restrictive Covenants Requiring Turf Grasses A. Prohibition - Any restrictive covenant or any amendment to a restrictive covenant that becomes effective on or after , and that requires cultivated vegetation on property maintained by an individual property owner, shall not specify that any portion of the vegetation must be turf grass. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 106 B. Construction - This section shall not be construed as to restrict the voluntary use of turf grass on individually owned residential property. C. Preferences for Alternatives to Turf Grasses - If turf grass will not be installed, alternative landscaping, plantings and other decorative surface treatments shall be installed and maintained to present an attractive appearance. X. Violation A. Unattended Unmanaged Vegetation - Ever y owner and responsible party who fails to keep private property clear of unattended unmanaged vegetation is in violation of this article and subject to the remedies and enforcement specified herein. B. Prohibited Vegetation - Ever y owner and responsible party is in violation of this article and subject to the remedies and enforcement specified herein if they fail to keep their private prop- erty clear of vegetation that: 1. That presents a fire hazard; 2. That attracts or harbors disease vectors; 3. That obstruct sight lines for the traveling public on streets or alleys; or 4. That includes noxious weeds or secondary noxious weed as identified by the State Commissioner of Agriculture pursuant to M.S. 18.171, Subd. 5. XI. Enforcement - City to perform work. If any such owner or occupant fails to assume the primary responsibility described in this section and, after notice given, has not complied within the allowed time, the city may cause such work to be done, and the expenses thus incurred shall be a lien upon such real estate. The city clerk-treasurer shall certify to the county auditor of the county a statement of the amount of the cost incurred by the city. Such amount, together with interest, shall be entered as a special assessment against such lot or parcel of land and be collected in the same manner as real estate taxes. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 107 XII. Non-Conforming Landscape Areas - Any planned landscape area or restoration area which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this Section may continue to exist and need not comply with the setback requirements within V Landscape Area and VII All Other Areas, but shall eradicate noxious weeds as defined by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture. Any expansion or addition to a non-conforming planned landscaped area or restoration area shall comply with all provisions of this Section. Restrictive Covenants This component of the Model Landscape Mainte- nance Ordinance prohibits homeowner’s associations from creating or enforcing restrictive covenants requir- ing turf grasses. It protects to rights of homeowners to use alternatives to turf lawns such as groundcovers or native plantings. This subsection can be used in combi- nation with the other components of the Model Land- scape Maintenance Ordinance to provide comprehen- sive guidance about what homeowners can and cannot do with their landscape. Violations Each community will need to tailor the violations sec- tions to suit their preferences for appropriate landscape maintenances. We encourage you to look at our model as a starting place for your own modifications. In the interest of space, we have omitted basic ad- ministrative and enforcement sections. The City of Edina’s Maintenance of Vegetation ordinance could provide an example of the type of language that is appropriate for these sections. http://www.ci.edina. mn.us/CityCode/L5-01_CityCodeSect1050.htm For More Information The Metropolitan Council has compiled a Water Conservation Toolbox, available online at http:// www.metrocouncil.org/Environment/WaterSup- ply/conservationtoolbox_residential.htm. This site provides information on how to conserve water and resources while maintaining turf grass and other land- scape elements. It also provides links to a large num- ber of useful websites with information on alternative landscape techniques. Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 108 Recycling & Garbage Eagan’s recycling department is shared between the cities of Eagan, Burnsville and Apple Valley, and goes by the name Dakota Valley Recycling. You can find the answers to these questions and more on their website, www.DakotaValleyRecycling.org, or give them a call at (651) 675-5011. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Who can haul garbage and recycling in Eagan? What items are accepted at The Recycling Zone and when can I bring them there? Where do I take my yard waste? Where do I take unwanted appliances? Where are the landfills in my area? Have other questions about recycling, composting, garbage, household hazardous waste and beyond? Go to the Dakota Valley Recycling homepage or call (651)675-5011. Residential Hauler Rates for 2013 The following rates were submitted by each City-licensed garbage & recycling company and are valid for 2013 for residential customers in Eagan. These rates are for weekly curbside garbage pick up and bi-weekly curbside recycling pick up. Taxes and additional services (such as seasonal yard waste pick up) are not included in price unless noted. Rates are determined by the size of garbage container you choose. For example, when you choose a hauler, service with a 35 gallon garbage cart will always cost less than service with a 95 gallon garbage cart. Recycling service is always included. Small, medium and large-sized recycling containers may be available (inquire with your hauler). Unlike garbage, choosing a larger-sized recycling container will never increase your monthly rate. Click on the hauler name for more information, and to see a list of items each company accepts for recycling. Advanced Disposal (formerly Veolia Environmental Services) 651-487-8546 35 gal. garbage + recycling: $12.25 per month 65 gal. garbage + recycling: $14.25 per month 95 gal. garbage + recycling: $16.25 per month Allied Waste Services 651-455-8634 35 gal. garbage + recycling: $14.75 per month 65 gal. garbage + recycling: $15.00 per month 95 gal. garbage + recycling: $16.00 per month Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 109 Highland Sanitation & Recycling 651-437-0001 35 gal. garbage + recycling: $21.00 per month 65 gal. garbage + recycling: $24.00 per month 95 gal. garbage + recycling: $27.00 per month Lakeville Sanitation/ Dick's Sanitation (DSI/LSI) 952-469-5161 30 gal. garbage + recycling: $14.95 per month 60 gal. garbage + recycling: $15.95 per month 90 gal. garbage + recycling: $17.95 per month Nitti Sanitation 651-457-7497 60 gal. garbage + recycling: $22.00 per month 90 gal. garbage + recycling: $24.00 per month Triangle Services 651-454-1848 30 gal. garbage + recycling: $54.00 per quarter (3 months) 38 gal. garbage + recycling: $57.00 per quarter (3 months) 60 gal. garbage + recycling: $60.00 per quarter (3 months) 90 gal. garbage + recycling: $63.00 per quarter (3 months) Waste Management 952-890-1100 35 gal. garbage + recycling: $16.00 per month 64 gal. garbage + recycling: $17.00 per month 96 gal. garbage + recycling: $18.00 per month 96 + 35 gal. garbage + recycling: $24.60 per month 96 + 65 gal. garbage + recycling: $25.20 per month 96 + 96 gal. garbage + recycling: $25.80 per month Yard waste (optional): $7.00 per month additional to garbage/recycling price Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 110 Garbage, Refuse and Recycling Hauler License Application Name of Company ILI(.o y.7/ t&J/0' 5 Phone Number (e,-/ -70 7' £ / Rate Schedule (please do not attach a separate sheet). Container Size Rate (please note monthly or quarterly) S cog / rig 9 95--g-1 75 Per City Code, residential haulers must offer at least three levels of service, priced on the basis of volume or weight. Haulers are prohibitedfrom charging Residential a greater rate to customers who recycle. Applicants City Code requires haulers to notifythe City if rates change during the licensing period. Rate information is classified as public and will be posted on the City's website. Certification of Service I, n name of applicant), hereby certify that AJL 7crr r, 't«po./ L, t)/f.5(name of company) services at least 25' residential ustomers within the City of Eagan. Ai%Jiro' ture Date Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 111 Garbage, Refuse and Recycling Hauler License Application Name of Company IN.1M \\,/t AG'S 14 6-11 es Phone Number 651- jto? + Rate Schedule (pleasedo not attach a separate sheet): Container Size Rate(please note monthly or quarterly) 35 --mL I Ll ` r O in wick C ' 1 L vl; QUo*e5 Per City Code, residential haulers must offer at least three levels of service, priced on the basis of volume or weight. Haulers are prohibitedfrom charging Residential a greater rate to customers who recycle. Applicants City Code requires haulers to notifythe City if rateschange during the licensing period. Rate information is classified as public and will be posted on the City's website. Certification of Service i, ji°t f/J,i F`l( )(name of applicant), hereby certify that 1.)Ac1f irvicr5Cf lAi ;11)Ci(name of company) services at leastZ50 residential customers within the City of Eagan. l D(Zt' IIIJ0-( Signature Date Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 112 Garbage, Refuse and Recycling Hauler License Application Name of Company Highland Sanitation & Recycling Inc Phone Number 651-437-0001 Rate Schedule (please do not attach a separate sheet): Container Size Rate (please note monthly or quarterly) 35 Gal 14.00/mo. 64 Gal. 17.00/mo. 96 Gal. 20.00/mo. Recycle 7.00/mo. (all customers pay) Per City Code, residential haulers must offer at least three levels of service, priced on the basis of volume or weight. Haulers are prohibited from charging Residential a greater rate to customers who recycle. Applicants City Code requires haulers to notifythe City if rateschange during the licensing period. Rate information is classified as public and will be posted on the City's website. Certification of Service 1, Susan Stewart name of applicant), hereby certify that Highland Sanitation & Recycling Inc (name of company) services at least 250 residential customers within the City of Eagan. 12/6/12 Signature Date Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 113 Garbage, Refuse and Recycling Hauler License Application Name of Company back s S 1-414 UV) 3erv. Inc/"Kev;l/e 5 /r4r`) Sctu•1nC. Phone Number 95?- f&' ` 5i%o1 Rate Schedule (please do not attach a separate sheet): Container Size Rate (please notemonthly orquarterly) Trc.sIN 3o y'a t SS n.% T v n cr. 6e ya i it I S.s `1 s h v yl h Tr4 sk `lD lei ) i /7 , `1S yvl vn ' Per City Code, residential haulers must offer at least three levels of service, priced on the basis of volume or weight. Haulers are prohibited from charging Residential a greater rate to customers who recycle. Applicants City Code requires haulers to notify the City if rateschange during the licensing period. Rate information is classified as public and will be posted on the City's website. Certification of Service I, &-e E-- Anders ort name of applicant), hereby certify that Dick 3 St,r,t 1-u .;c,1 (1GIevi/ie fcinilzry (name of company) servicesat least 250 residential customers within the City of Eagan. Signature Date Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 114 Garbage, Refuse andRecycling Hauler License Application Name of Company /" ( 74-1 L5,LIVM Dn J) > Phone Number Go / 9-1)(4'79/7 Rate Schedule (please do not attach a separate sheet): Container Size Rate (please note monthly or quarterly) moo cal aa. Da m c Per City Code, residential haulers must offer atleast three levels of service, priced on the basis of volume or weight. Haulers are prohibited from charging Residential a greater rate to customers who recycle. Applicants City Code requires haulers to notifythe City if rates change during the licensing period. Rate information is classified as public and will be posted on the City's website. Certification of Service I, Db{'irki- name of applicant), hereby certify that IV I÷ 4-1 5a/Wk/4 69 TAI name of company) services at least 250 residential customers within the City of Eagan. 1-a->-i- Signature Date Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 115 Garbage, Refuse and Recycling Hauler License Application Name of Company TRIANGLE SERVICES Phone Number 651) 454-1848 Rate Schedule (please do not attach a separate sheet): Container Size Rate (please note monthlyor quarterly) 30 GALLON 54.00 + TAX 3 MONTHS. 38 ( T,TON 57.00 + TAX 3 MONTHS. 60 GALLON 60.00 + TAX 3 MONTHS. 90 GALLON 63.00 + TAX 3 MONTHS. Per City Code, residential haulers must offer at least three levels of service, priced on the basis of volume or weight. Haulers are prohibited from charging Residential a greater rate to customers who recycle. Applicants City Code requires haulers tonotify the City if rates change during the licensing period. Rate information is classified as public and will be posted on the City's website. Certification of Service I, JAMES E. ILLEPSCHKO SR. (name of applicant), hereby certify that TRIANGLE SERVTCES name of company) services at least 250 residential customers within the City of Eagan. a till.g3L, 12/10/12 Si4ture Date Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 116 Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 117 TO: JULI JOHNSON, PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR FROM: RUSS MATTHYS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: APRIL 2, 2013 SUBJECT: ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION – APRIL I attended a meeting in Rosemount last week to discuss recent Star Tribune and Pioneer Press articles related to diminishing groundwater levels in the area, as well as past experience and concerns of local agencies with groundwater as the primary source of drinking water. Interest in the subject of groundwater is at a relatively high level with state and regional agencies expressing interest in further regulations of collecting groundwater. One of the cities in attendance, Lakeville, is a member of the Southwest Metro Groundwater Group. The current group was formed in 2002 by a multi-jurisdictional agreement between agencies which set goals, objectives, and policy guidelines for development, use, and protection of the groundwater resource. Members of the group include Burnsville, Lakeville, Savage, Shakopee, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, DNR, and Met Council. The consensus of the group (Apple Valley, Eagan, Empire Township, Farmington, Lakeville, Rosemount) that met last week was that consideration of joining the Southwest Metro Groundwater Group, and perhaps renaming it the South Metro Groundwater Group, may be in each of the city’s best interest. We believe this would be a proactive action and may preempt and possibly help guide future decisions about the use and regulation of ground water in the metro area. Hastings will also be invited to join the group. Our most recent discussions with the Energy & Environment Advisory Commission subcommittee that included Jon Eaton, Utility Superintendent, have focused on the desire to have water conservation practices implemented by the City. Some suggestions have included raising water fees for those using more water and City funds/grants for property owners to acquire low use water fixtures. I support the interest and we are having a good discussion while ensuring that the subcommittee has accurate information upon which to base any recommendations for the City Council. The Rosemount discussion and recent EEAC discussions were similar in nature. I wanted to share this information with the EEAC and anticipate that the Southwest Metro Groundwater Group membership may be a future EEAC consideration/recommendation. I would be happy to share more information as desired. Please contact me with any questions. C: Jon Eaton, Utility Superintendent G:RM/13/Memo/EEAC, April 2013 Johnson Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 118 Does your business or organization want to teach kids about living green?View this email in your browser Does your organization make the world a "greener" place? Come join us and help teach children how to live sustainably. The Eagan & Lakeville Resource Center is partnering with the City of Eagan's Market Fest to bring you the Funding for Going Green is provided by the Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board through Community POWER: partners on waste education and reduction. From:Juli Johnson To:Kerry Phillips Cc:Amy Grannes ; Cherryl Mesko Subject:RE: Going Green Call for Vendors Date:Wednesday, March 27, 2013 4:32:42 PM Excellent – We will add to the next EEAC packet for April. Thanks, Juli From: Kerry Phillips Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:33 PM To: Juli Johnson Subject: FW: Going Green Call for Vendors Item for the next energy and parks advisory commission meetings. Time for them to think about if they want a booth at the Going Green Carnival theme night at Market Fest we are partnering on with Eagan & Lakeville Resource Center. They just put a call out for green vendors to do an interactive children’s activity at their booth and to promote the work of the organization. This is a great opportunity for both commissions to be visible in the community and interact with families. They could each do a booth or collaborate at one booth. I would be able to provide them with a table, chairs and one or two of the Green City of Eagan tents since they are internal to the city. Other green vendors that night will be asked to bring their own tents, etc. Date: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 Time: 4 – 8 pm Location: At Eagan Market Fes See below for more info. I’m also on the Going Green Carnival committee so if you want me to come to a meeting for a few minutes or help them with some activity ideas, let me know. Kerry From: Eagan & Lakeville Resource Center [mailto:sarahs=eaganrc.org@mail84.us2.mcsv.net ] On Behalf Of Eagan & Lakeville Resource Center Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:25 PM To: Kerry Phillips Subject: Going Green Call for Vendors Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 119 Going Green Carnival on June 19th, from 4pm-8pm at Eagan Festival Grounds at Central Park. The Going Green Carnival is a family friendly event focused on teaching kids sustainable living ideas through the magic of play . Each booth at the Carnival is an interactive game or activity around Reducing Waste, Recycling, Reusing, and Composting. The Going Green Carnival Committee is currently recruiting vendors to run educational booths at the Carnival. Does your business or organization want to be involved? All booths must be centered around child- friendly education, and not the sale of a good or service. There is no vendor fee; application deadline is April 26th, 2013. Current booth ideas already include: Puppet Wagon - plays around Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse Photo Booth - make your commitment to the earth with a fun-filled photo Make Your Own Edible Compost - (it starts with pudding and oreos!) Interested? Email Sarah Schmidt, Going Green Coordinator at sarahs@eaganrc.org. Copyright © 2013 Eagan & Lakeville Resource Centers, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website or provided your email address to the organization. Our mailing address is: Eagan & Lakeville Resource Centers 3910 Rahn Road Eagan, MN 55122 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Energy & Environment Advisory Commission April 9, 2013 Page 120