Loading...
04/08/2014 - Energy and Environment Advisory CommissionENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION Tuesday, April 8, 2014, 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. Eagan Municipal Center, 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 the Regular Meeting on February 11, 2014 7:04 p.m. IV. Visitors to be Heard 7:08 p.m. V. Director Updates 7:10 p.m. A. Council Approval of Ordinance Changes to Allow Residential Low Maintenance Landscape VI. Old Business 7:15 p.m. A. Building Subcommittee Report & Recommendations – Ross, Amir, William VII. New Business 7:45 p.m. A. Correspondence Received VIII. Roundtable 8:00 p.m. IX. Adjournment 8:15 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 GOAL WORKSHOP - TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 2014 7:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOMS 2A&B TO: THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION (EEAC) FROM: JULI SEYDELL JOHNSON, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: APRIL 3, 2014 SUBJECT: ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 8, 2014 A meeting of the Energy and Environment Advisory Commission (EEAC) will take place on Tuesday, April 8, 2014 from 7:00 to 9:00 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 3-4 The minutes of the Regular Meeting on February 11, 2014, 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. DIRECTOR’S UPDATES Direction Seydell-Johnson to discussion the City Council’s approval of the ordinances changes to allow residential low maintenance landscape. VI. OLD BUSINESS – Pages 5-15 A. Building Subcommittee Report (Ross, Amir, William) – Review subcommittee report and provide recommendations to be presented to the City Council for approval. VII. NEW BUSINESS – Pages 16-33 Correspondence received - The City of Eagan received the attached press release and report from the US Conference of Mayors after participating in a recent survey of communities who previously received EECBG funding. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 1 VIII. 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. IX. ADJOURNMENT /s/Juli Seydell Johnson Director of Parks and Recreation Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION Tuesday, February 11, 2014 MINUTES OF MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2014 A regular meeting of the Eagan Energy and Environment Advisory Commission was held on Tuesday February 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Those present were Member LeClair, Member Nadav, Member Bintner, Member Ische, Member Wisniewski, and Member Drucker. Staff present was Juli Seydell Johnson, Director of Parks and Recreation and Amy Grannes, Administrative Supervisor. Guest present was Ali Elhassan from the Metropolitan Council. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Director Seydell Johnson stated there were no changes to the agenda. Member Bintner moved to approve the agenda as presented, Member Drucker seconded with all present members voting in favor. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Member Bintner moved, Member Drucker seconded, with all present members voting in favor to approve the minutes of December 10, 2013, as presented. VISITORS TO BE HEARD There were no visitors to be heard on items that were not on the agenda. DIRECTORS UPDATE There were no Director updates to discuss at this time. OLD BUSINESS Waste Hauler Reporting Director Juli Seydell Johnson stated per request from the Commission, included in the packet is information concerning the waste hauler rates taken directly from the City of Eagan’s website. Commission Members had a brief discussion on waste hauler rates and Member Nadav gave an overview of the section of City Code relating to the reporting requirements for waste haulers. The discussion concluded with a request from the Commission for the City Clerk to move the follow sentence “Taxes and additional services (such as seasonal yard waste pick up) are not included in price Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 3 unless noted” to right above the rate table and to add sentence “Please contact individual waste haulers to determine price.” Director Seydell-Johnson will discuss request with the City Clerk and report back to the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Met Council Regional Groundwater Report Ali Elhassan from the Metropolitan Council gave a presentation regarding Metropolitan Council’s efforts to monitor regional groundwater levels and to future plans to conserve these levels. The Metropolitan Council involvement consists of water supply assessment and planning, land use planning, wastewater collection and treatment, water quality monitoring and assessment, and surface water protection coordination. Mr. Elhassan overviewed the ground water use statics from the seven county metro area along with the projections of the region by 2030. Maps and graphs were shown regarding the current Aquifer conditions and what the condition will be in 2030 if we continue to operate as business as usual. Mr. Elhassan and the Metropolitan Council would like to work with all cities to develop plans and projects that ensure sustainable water supply and promote conservation Mr. Elhassan and the Metropolitan Council are available to provide educational presentations to Cities and Communities. After brief discussion with Commission Members the presentation concluded. Building Subcommittee Report The Building Subcommittee (Ross, Amir, William) gave a Subcommittee report regarding potential initiatives to develop an energy efficient building policy for the operation, maintenance, construction and renovation of buildings owned by the City of Eagan. After further discussion with Commission members they agreed to table their recommendations until the next Energy and Environment Advisory Commission regular meeting scheduled on April 8th, 2014 to give Commission Members enough time to thoroughly review the Subcommittee Report. ROUND TABLE There were no round table items to be discussed at this time. ADJOURNMENT After further brief discussion, Member Drucker moved, Member Wisniewski seconded with all members present voting in favor to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 p.m. _______________________________________________ ____________________________ Secretary Date Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 4 EEAC Building Energy Committee Report April 2014 Requested Action: Recommend to the City Council: 1. Adopt the following energy and greenhouse gas performance goals for city facilities: a. 20% energy use reduction by 2020 and 40% by 2025 below a baseline year of 2013. b. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 2. Develop and implement a strategic energy management plan to achieve the above energy saving goals via cost effective measures, including: a. annual energy use benchmarking for all city facilities b. annual public disclosure of energy use and performance for all city facilities for the previous calendar year by April 1 Statement of Purpose: The Eagan Energy and Environment Advisory Commission was given the following direction by the Eagan City Council in 2013: EEAC 2013 - 2014 Workplan Item: Develop an Energy Efficient Buildings Policy for the operation, maintenance, construction and renovation of buildings owned by City of Eagan. Explore policies and initiatives to promote energy efficiencies for existing and newly constructed/remodeled large Commercial/Industrial buildings within the City. Content: This subcommittee report is organized into the following sections: 1. Background Information 2. Examples of local excellence 3. Best Practices for Consideration 4. Examples from other Cities 5. Draft Policy Recommendations 6. Appendix -- Additional Technical Information Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 5 1. Background Information City Government Facilities ● Energy costs for 12 city government facilities in 2013 were approximately ~ $498,000 ● The 12 city facilities included in that figure are: Municipal Center, Police Department, Fire Administration, Maintenance, Old Town Hall, Fire Station 1, Fire Station 3, Fire Station 4, Fire Station 5, Fire Safety Center, Cascade Bay, Civic Arena ● In addition, the 2013 city budget included $778,500 in electricity costs and $98,900 in natural gas costs to operate the city water utility facilities. ● Annual cost savings from 20% energy savings in city facilities: $275,000 ● Annual cost savings from 40% energy savings in city facilities: $550,000 1 ● The city conducts energy performance benchmarking with the B3 tool for city facilities. The B3 tool provides performance ratings for buildings. ● For the period of May 2012 - April 2013, B3 generated the following performance scores for city facilities: (A score greater than 1 means the building performs less efficiently than the energy code; less than one means the building is more efficient than code) ○ Eagan Community Center -- 1.42 ○ Municipal Building -- 1.32 ○ Police Facility -- 1.19 ○ Fire Station Five -- 0.96 ○ Fire Station Four --0.83 ○ Fire Station One -- 0.81 ○ Eagan Civic Arena -- 0.72 (Geothermal project) 1 These figures cover energy use from all city facilities including the water utility. Energy savings from the water utility can come from the EEAC’s proposed water conservation goals and efficiency savings to buildings maintained by the water utility. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 6 ○ Maintenance Facility -- 0.50 ○ Fire Safety Center -- 0.48 (Green Globes Certified) ● Management of city facilities is distributed across departments. There is no one entity responsible for the operations and maintenance of all city facilities. ● The City Council adopted environmentally preferable purchasing guidelines which included ENERGY STAR standards for energy-using devices, however there is no technical expert on staff with the capacity and charge to help apply these energy-saving standards to new projects. ● Some city facilities have maintenance agreements with third parties, but in most cases equipment is replaced or maintained on an as-needed basis. Community-wide Energy Use According to data from the Urban Land Institute Regional Indicators Initiative 2, in 2011: ● The entire city of Eagan (including residents and businesses) ○ spent over $111.625 million on energy costs ○ used over 7.265 million MMBTUs of energy ○ emitted over 1.26 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalents ● Commercial and industrial sectors’ energy use represented 63.79% of the city total ● Eagan’s largest buildings include Thomson Reuters, Blue Cross Blue Shield, US Postal Service, UPS, among others. ● There are over 70 private buildings in the city that are larger than 100,000 square feet. Of those buildings, 10 have earned an Energy Star label. There are 159 buildings in the city that are larger than 50,000 square feet. 2 http://regionalindicatorsmn.uli.org Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 7 2. Examples of Local Excellence ENERGY STAR certified buildings: 21 buildings in Eagan have earned an ENERGY STAR label as of January 31, 2014. This indicates that their energy efficiency ranks among the top 25% in the country. Energy Star buildings in the city of Eagan break down as follows: Number Category Owners - # of certified buildings 10 K - 12 ISD 196 - 9 ISD 197 - 1 6 Office Blue Cross Blue Shield - 3 Lockheed Martin sold to CSM - 1 Grand Oak 1 managed by Cassidy Turley - 1 Eagan Woods Office Center - 1 3 Retail Target, Kohl’s and Goodwill 1 Supermarket Cub Foods 1 Warehouse Ergotron In addition, four Grand Oak buildings (I, II, IX, and X), which are managed by Cassidy Turley, are participating in the 2013 ENERGY STAR National Building Competition. Among the ENERGY STAR certified buildings in Eagan, the 10 most efficient are: (A score of 97 indicates efficiency greater than 97% of similar buildings nationwide) Building Energy Star Score Building Energy Star Score Red Pine Elementary 97 Pinewood Elementary 92 Thomas Lake Elementary 95 Cub Foods (Cliff Rd) 92 Glacier Hills Elementary 95 Goodwill of Eagan, MN 90 Northview Elementary 94 Target 90 Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 8 Oak Ridge Elementary 94 Blue Cross Blue Shield River Park 2 88 As of September 2013, there are over 14,500 Energy Star partners across the country and 352 of which are based in Minnesota. These include ● Utilities -- Dakota Electric, Great River Energy, Xcel Energy, Minnesota Energy Resources ● Schools -- ISD 191, ISD 196, ISD 197, UMN Twin Cities ● Businesses -- 3M, Andersen Corporation, SuperValu, Honeywell, Best Buy, Kohl’s, Target, Walmart, Home Depot, Ecolab, Coca Cola, Kraus-Anderson Construction ● Real Estate -- Northmarq, Ryan Companies, United Properties, Cassidy Turley, CB Richard Ellis, Cushman & Wakefield, Hines, ● Cities -- Woodbury, Anoka, Buffalo, Kasson, Austin, White Bear Lake, Northfield, Roseau ● Eagan-based companies -- Marvin Windows, Honsa Lighting, Residential Science Resources, Scantron Corporation Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 9 3. Best Practices for Consideration: Energy Benchmarking, Rating, and Disclosure for Local Governments Fact Sheet (Source: US Department of Energy) Summary: “You can’t manage what you don’t measure” and “Making the invisible, visible.” Energy benchmarking helps compare energy efficiency performance to peers, watch trends in performance over time, and identify and prioritize buildings that lag energy code. Public building energy benchmarking is the foundation for strategic energy management practices and model a best practice for the private sector. Retro-Commissioning for State and Local Governments Fact Sheet (Source: US DOE) Summary: “Public buildings go long time spans between energy tune-ups,” and “pick all the low hanging fruit for an easy 10-20% energy savings and then reinvest the savings to go deeper.” A re-tuning or continuous commissioning process is used to keep existing systems working at their top performance to meet building occupant comfort levels in an energy efficient manner. Typical continuous commissioning reviews can identify 10-20% savings with payback periods under 2 years. Strategic Energy Management for State and Local Governments Fact Sheet (Source: US DOE) Summary: The process of Strategic Energy Management can lead an organization to achieve much greater success than one-off investments. “Drive the focus to continuous improvement, rather than technology fixes.” ISO50001 and DOE-Supported Superior Energy Performance Program and Energy Star programs provide frameworks. Key points for policy makers in the iterative continuous commissioning process is to make a commitment and evaluate progress. Key points for city operators are to create and implement an action plan. This strategy must receive support from the top. City Council and senior leadership need to embrace and make the energy savings effort an organizational priority. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 10 Luckily, the statewide B3 database provides a good tool to both track and evaluate key energy baseline data. Energy Audits and Retro-Commissioning: State and Local Policy Design Guide and Sample Policy Language (Source: US DOE) Summary: For large building owners, performing an energy audit is a key step after benchmarking, to narrow down potential energy efficiency projects and save money. Retro- commissioning following an energy audit can cost well under one dollar per square foot, and yield energy savings with paybacks of under one year, with median paybacks between 1.1 and 4.2 year. Detailed information describing the retro-commissioning process is included in the document, as well as policy considerations to promote the adoption of the practice in the private sector. Benchmarking and Disclosure: State and Local Policy Design Guide and Sample Policy Language (Source: US DOE) Summary: This document provides technical guidance on energy performance benchmarking & disclosure policies. “Sustainable Energy Management Strategies that Work,” Source: APWA Members library facilities webinar. Summary: City of Charlottesville Virginia describes their balanced approach to sustainability and energy efficiency. Over the course of less than a decade the city transformed its operations from a reactive system with much deferred maintenance to a proactive system with top of their class buildings and many spinoffs with wide community benefits. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 11 4. Examples from Other Cities This section presents the energy efficiency programs and policies that other Minnesota cities have adopted. Eden Prairie: The 20-40-15 initiative, first rolled out by the City of Eden Prairie in December 2006, calls for the City to improve energy efficiency in all of its facilities by 20 percent, increase the fuel efficiency of its vehicle fleet by 40 percent, and accomplish these goals by the year 2015. http://www.edenprairie.org/index.aspx?page=334 http://greaterminnesota.kstp.com/news/news/332802-big-energy-conservation-push-eden- prairie Oakdale: Since 2001, city policy has been that any new construction or major remodel of a city facility is required to be built using Oakdale's own Generation Green building program standards. Building sector goal: 15% reduction goal in GHG emissions from 2007 levels by 2013. Action steps: ● Complete building energy audits every two years or as needed ● Replace furnace and air conditioning system at North Fire Station with energy efficient equipment as old ● equipment fails ● Replace air conditioning system and install radiant heat system in South Fire Station as existing equipment fails Woodbury: In July 2009, the City Council passed a resolution to adopt a Sustainable Building Standard for New and Renovated Municipal Buildings in the City of Woodbury. The resolution states that at a minimum, the city will utilize the B3-State of Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines in the planning, design, construction and commission of new buildings and major renovations greater than 5,000 square feet that are owned by the City of Woodbury. Woodbury City Hall is Energy Star Certified. City Council Resolution Adopting Sustainable Building Standard Minneapolis: Goals approved by city council: ● Reduce citywide greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2015, and 30 percent by Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 12 2025 using 2006 as a baseline. ● Reduce municipal operations greenhouse gas emissions by 1.5 percent annually. ● Citywide, permit 70 renewable energy projects annually by 2015. ● In municipal operations, increase renewable electricity to one megawatt by 2015. ● Additional sustainability goals appear here LEED Building Policy (pdf): The city adopted a policy that requires future municipal buildings or major renovations of buildings, to be Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) Silver Level requirements. Commercial Building Rating and Disclosure Policy (minneapolis): Minneapolis adopted an Ordinance requiring annual energy performance benchmarking for public buildings greater than 25,000 square feet and private buildings greater than 50,000 square feet in size. The city will annually disclose the energy performance of buildings in order to provide information needed in the marketplace to value the high energy performance of efficient buildings and help target incentives and assistance to buildings that could operate more efficiently. ● Commercial building energy rating and disclosure ordinance overview Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 13 5. DRAFT Policy Recommendations: Potential next steps include the identification of a performance goal for city facilities and the development of a plan to achieve it. Below are examples of performance goals for facilities: 20% energy use reduction over 10 years (National Better Buildings Challenge goal -- Eden Prairie set a similar goal by 2015; Governor Dayton adopted this goal for state facilities) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2025 and 80% by 2050 (consistent with the state's greenhouse gas reduction goal -- Minn. Stat. §216H.02) Adopt the state's SB 2030 guidelines and goals for building energy use and emissions (Woodbury did this for new & renovated buildings -- GSC action 3.1) Achieve at least one net-zero energy facility Below is an example of a strategic energy management process to achieve a performance goal: Goal Tool Identify least efficient buildings with the biggest opportunity for savings B3 Benchmarking and annual reporting Capture no-cost operational savings Employee Engagement Identify measures to improve building performance Energy Audits Maintain building systems for peak performance Recommissioning Maximize building efficiency by prioritizing CIP projects Capital Projects -- Repair, Replace, Upgrade, Utility rebates Below are policy considerations related to implementing a strategic energy management plan: ● Staffing: Identify dedicated staff capacity with technical expertise and organizational Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 14 responsibility to achieve the goal. ● Considerations for Policy Guidance: ○ Benchmarking: Require annual B3 Benchmarking for all public facilities (continuation of current practice). By April 1 each year, publish annual report on EEAC webpage that includes B3 outputs for each city facility: ■ (1) energy use, (2) benchmark-to-meter ratio, (3) energy use intensity, (4) greenhouse gas emissions, (5) annual energy costs (6) ENERGY STAR score (if available) ○ Benchmarking Data Access: Request utilities to provide automatic data upload into B3 tool. ○ Operational Savings: Determine whether a certain percentage of energy savings may be used by employees to implement energy saving projects or professional development activities of their choice. ○ Energy audits: should be conducted every 5 years on each public facility to determine projects to be included in CIP. Energy audits should be prioritized for the least efficient buildings, as determined by B3 Benchmarking. ○ Recommissioning: Large public facilities over (XYZ square feet) should receive recommissioning studies to maximize equipment performance no less frequently than once every five - ten years and prioritized for the least efficient buildings, as determined by B3 Benchmarking. ○ Capital Projects: CIP should prioritize building envelope, HVAC and lighting projects for least efficient buildings as determined by B3 benchmarking. CIP should prioritize the most energy-efficient projects that are cost-effective on a life-cycle basis. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 15 Appendix -- Additional Technical Information: According to the B3 data, Eagan has 4 buildings representing 132,879 square feet that are good candidates for energy efficiency improvements. If they were upgraded to perform 10% more efficiently than the current state energy code, the city would realize $70,000 in annual savings. The current state energy code is based on the 2006 model code. The state is currently in the process of adopting a new energy code based on the 2012 model code, which is 15% - 25% more energy efficient than the current code. https://mn.b3benchmarking.com/Potential-Savings.aspx?ReportType=PotentialSavings Eagan’s GreenStep Cities Completed Actions: Date completed/entered: 04/19/2012 Implementation details: Monthly Energy consumption at City building being monitored via the B3 database beginning in May 2011; particularly at buildings that received retrofits from Federal Energy grant. The City worked with the MPCA and a GreenCorp Volunteer to enter historic utility data into the B3 system. City staff will continue using the B3 system to manage and track energy usage at City facilities. Outcome measures/metrics: After having validated the data and correcting errors that existed the utility information reported in B3 is current for city buildings. Data suggests a decrease in energy consumption for five buildings and an increase in four buildings from the established baseline. Decrease is directly related to retrofits to some of the buildings and additional study and action is planned for the four underperforming buildings. Not all of the suggested energy enhancements identified in the initial energy audit were implemented, therefore a strategic plan is being developed to address the remaining projects so that improvements can be budgeted and implemented over the next 5 years. B3 data has been fully updated and tracked monthly to identify trends and/or inconsistencies in buildings that need to be addressed. The building retrofits have all been reflected in B3 reporting to track their effectiveness. Next steps will consist of continuing to track data, budget for improvements that could be included in the planning for the 2013 budget, continue to work with utility companies to define ways to be more energy efficient, and educate staff in each building to enhance energy savings. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 16 For Immediate Release Contact: Elena Temple etemple@usmayors.org 202-286-1100 Thursday, February 27, 2014 Lina Garcia lgarcia@usmayors.org 202-341-6113 Karen Hinton Karen@hintoncommunications.coms703-798-3109 STIMULUS DOLLARS ADVANCE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY IN AMERICA’S CITIES U.S. Mayors Release 200+ City Survey Showing Successful Use of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Funding Under The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Washington, D.C. – The nation’s mayors today released the results of a new survey pointing to city successes in using Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) program funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Gresham (OR) Mayor Shane Bemis, Bridgeport (CT) Mayor Bill Finch and Carmel (IN) Mayor Jim Brainard presented the survey findings on a national press conference call to highlight local energy innovations championed by mayors in every part of the country. The results document the responses of 204 mayors – representing cities of all population sizes and from all regions – to a series of questions from the Mayors’ Climate Protection Center designed to show generally how cities invested their EECBG program funds to help further local initiatives to reduce energy use, deploy new energy technologies and curb harmful energy emissions, among other local outcomes. “These findings underscore that mayors have been leading by example on energy efficiency and conservation for years,” said Gresham Mayor Shane Bemis, Chair of the Conference’s Energy Committee. “Mayors all across the country have been actively working to advance energy- saving measures in communities large and small, and what we see in this report translates into real budgetary savings, local job creation and small business growth.” While the full report can be found at www.usmayors.org, some of its key findings are below: • The three top uses of EECBG dollars by cities were energy retrofits of government buildings (83 percent of cities), LED/other energy- efficient street lighting (42 percent), and solar energy systems on public buildings and facilities (31 percent). • Most mayors directed a majority of their EECBG funds to investments in municipal projects and operations. Nearly seven in eight mayors (87%) expended a majority of their EECBG grant dollars on municipal projects and operations. • LED/other energy-efficient lighting ranked first among energy technologies that have already been deployed by cities, with local and federal resources, most notably EECBG grants, providing the primary sources of funding for these deployments. • The availability of EECBG funds to cities has influenced city budgetary priorities, and also prompted new partnerships with a range of private sector and governmental entities. • A majority of mayors cited energy service contracting as the innovative energy financing strategy that EECBG funds helped most often. Of the report’s findings, Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, who Co-Chairs the Conference’s Energy Independence and Climate Protection Task Force said, “Even as mayors were confronting budget constraints due to the recession and federal spending cuts, this report shows that cities leveraged EECBG dollars by making investments that are still paying dividends today. In my city, we are reducing electricity usage and making solid waste and sewage sludge operations more efficient. So, clearly, this modest federal commitment has bolstered mayors’ efforts to advance energy efficiency, conservation and technology deployment initiatives in their cities.” Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 17 2 Five years ago, as part of ARRA, EECBG formula grants were distributed directly to cities by the U.S. Department of Energy. Of the $2.7 billion provided to the program in formula funding, about half of these dollars ($1.3 billion) were distributed directly to cities to support their energy and climate efforts, a commitment that ranked among the largest provided to local governments in the ARRA legislation. The Conference of Mayors conceived the EECBG Program to engage the federal government in supporting the nation’s mayors in accelerating local energy and climate initiatives, especially the more than 1000 mayors who have joined as signatories to the Conference’s Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, which was a landmark pledge for mayors all across the country to take bold action to significantly reduce carbon emissions in cities in alignment with Kyoto Protocol standards. “The mayors who signed the USCM Climate Protection Agreement represent more than 86 million people in the U.S. who are learning how important it is to work locally to curb harmful greenhouse emissions and adapt to climate change,” said Carmel Mayor Jim Brainard, Co-Chair of the Conference’s Energy Independence and Climate Protection Task Force. “The success mayors are having in deploying these resources makes the case for a stronger local-federal partnership on our nation’s energy and climate challenges, including continued EECBG funding to support cities and local areas as they develop new energy solutions.” Last month, the Conference released a related report, Energy Efficiency and Technologies in America’s Cities, which was unveiled during the USCM 82nd Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C. at a session with mayors and U.S. Energy Secretary Moniz at the Capital Hilton. That survey can be found at usmayors.org/2014energysurvey. __ About the United States Conference of Mayors: The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are nearly 1,400 such cities in the country today, and each city is represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the mayor. Like us on Facebook at facebook.com/usmayors, or follow us on Twitter at twitter.com/usmayors. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 18 Mayors Climate Protection Center Successful City Initiatives with Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Funding A 204-City Survey February 2014 The UniTed STaTeS ConferenCe of MayorS Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 19 do your part! please recycle! THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS Scott Smith Mayor of Mesa President Kevin Johnson Mayor of Sacramento Vice President Stephanie rawlings-Blake Mayor of Baltimore Second Vice President Shane Bemis Mayor of Gresham Chair, Energy Committee James Brainard Mayor of Carmel Co-Chair, Energy Independence and Climate Protection Task Force Bill finch Mayor of Bridgeport Co-Chair, Energy Independence and Climate Protection Task Force Greg Stanton Mayor of Phoenix Chair, Environment Committee Tom Cochran CEO and Executive Director The U.S. Conference of Mayors is the official nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more. There are 1,398 such cities in the country today, each represented in the Conference by its chief elected official, the Mayor. Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 20 Foreword The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center It was just about five years ago that The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the nation’s mayors persuaded Congressional and Administration leaders to authorize and then fund the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program. In late 2007, Congress authorized a five-year, $10 billion commitment to cities, counties and states, providing for new federal investment in local energy and climate initiatives as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act (P.L. 110-140). About a year later in early 2009, President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders made the EECBG Program a top funding priority in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). Appropriating $2.7 billion in formula grant funds (to be distributed directly to cities, counties, states and tribal governments) and another $400 million in discretionary grants (to be awarded competitively by the U.S. Department of Energy), a new and expanded federal/local partnership to further locally-directed energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives was launched. It has been a journey since that time – working to recover from such a deep economic recession and having to respond to significant federal budgetary constraints affecting all domestic activities, including energy. These survey findings provide just a glimpse of the important changes now underway in our cities, driven by local energy innovations championed by mayors in every part of this great nation. These mayoral “best practices” we so often share at the Conference of Mayors and our work on surveys to compile a broader picture of city-based initiatives only scratch the surface of what has been achieved locally by this significant, although one-time, infusion of EECBG resources directly into cities. The very positive results reported in this survey challenge the Conference of Mayors and its members to continue to tell the story of why sustained mayoral leadership is so important to the nation’s efforts to find cleaner and safer energy solutions for the future. Recent national data also indicate that our many actions, including mayoral energy initiatives, are making a difference. America today produces a larger share of its energy than it has in many decades, an achievement made possible in part by the improving efficiency of local energy use and the deployment of more home-grown renewable energy in our cities. America is getting more economic output from each unit of energy, and carbon emissions are declining faster than experts predicted just a few years ago. And, we see changes every day in our cities, whether it is less energy to light, heat and cool our buildings, new renewable technologies powering our energy needs, or the fewer miles driven or less gas consumed to make our many daily trips. We have started the journey toward a cleaner energy future where mayors and their cities are key drivers in getting us there faster. We welcome any and all partners to join mayors in this effort, and respectfully request the Federal government to take another look at renewing commitments to city- and local-based energy action, by providing additional EECBG funding and taking other actions to support mayors and other local leaders. 1 Tom Cochran CEO and Executive Director The United States Conference of Mayors Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 21 Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 22 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center3 More than two-thirds of all mayors participating in The U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 2014 energy efficiency and technologies survey provided information on their city’s use of formula grant funding under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program. The Conference of Mayors “conceived” the EECBG Program to engage the Federal government in supporting the nation’s mayors in accelerating local energy and climate initiatives, especially the more than 1000 mayors who have joined as signatories to the Conference’s Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Of the $2.7 billion to the program for formula grants, nearly half of these EECBG funds ($1.3 billion) were allocated directly to cities; the average EECBG formula grant to cities was about $1 million. In 2009, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, this U.S. Department of Energy-administered program distributed $2.7 billion in formula grants (largely based on population) directly to: • Cities with a population of 35,000 or more (including some cities below this population threshold depending on the state); • Counties with a population of 200,000 or more (including some counties below this population threshold depending on the state); • States to allocate funds to cities and counties not receiving direct formula funding; and • Tribal governments. Specifically, 204 of 288 mayors – representing cities of all population sizes and from all regions of the country – responded to a series of questions designed to document how this direct funding helped further city initiatives to reduce energy use through greater energy efficiency and conservation, deploy new energy technologies especially renewable energy systems and curb harmful energy emissions, among other local outcomes. This report and its findings provide an overview of the EECBG Program, highlighting generally how cities invested their formula grant funds to further their local energy and climate protection efforts. a sizable majority of mayors used all or some portion of their eeCBG funds to develop neW programs rather than allocating funds to already PLanned and/or eXiSTinG city programs and policies. More than six in ten cities (62%) invested EECBG resources in developing new programs that were not previously included in city energy and climate plans, followed by smaller majorities choosing to implement planned programs and policies not previously funded (55%) or advance/continue existing programs and policies already underway in the city (50%). Use of eeCBG funds for neW, PLanned and/or eXiSTinG Programs (percentage of cities) 62% 55% 50% Develop NEW programs that were not previously included in energy/climate plans Implement PLANNED program/policies not previously funded Advance/continue EXISTING programs/policies already underway in city Survey Results Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 23 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center4 In addition, one in five cities (21% of all respondents) used their EECBG grants exclusively for new programs not previously included in their energy and climate plans. For the half which invested in existing programs and policies, almost six in ten of them (58%) committed some share of their EECBG funds to new programs. Only about one in seven cities (14%) directed all of their funds to existing programs and policies. This emphasis on new programs is notable because the prevailing view at the time was that many cities would simply substitute EECBG dollars for allocated local funding to existing city energy initiatives. Most mayors directed a majority of their eeCBG funds to investments in municipal projects and operations. Nearly seven in eight mayors (87%) expended a majority of their EECBG grant dollars on municipal projects and operations, such as improving city-owned buildings, upgrading streetlights, or deploying renewable energy; the remaining 13 percent of cities invested a majority of their funds in non-municipal programs, such as loans, rebates or programs benefiting homeowners and businesses. When asked how EECBG dollars were invested in their cities, mayors were given 16 project/programmatic choices, categories that largely followed those set forth in the federal law (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) that authorized the EECBG program. While the category of government building retrofits was the top choice, the chart below illustrates the range of activities that mayors pursued in their efforts to promote greater energy conservation, improve energy efficiency and/or advance renewable energy supplies in their cities. In addition to retrofitting government buildings, more than four in ten cities (42%) invested EECBG dollars in LED/other energy-efficient street lighting, and about one in six cities (16%) invested in LED/other energy-efficient traffic signals. Nearly one-third of the cities (31%) used these flexible funds to deploy solar energy systems at public buildings and public facilities. While some projects are generally considered municipal in scope, they are often designed to serve residents and businesses directly. Examples of these investments, as shown in the chart below, are electric charging stations for automobiles, bicycling projects, or city education campaigns designed to help inform the public and businesses about energy conservation measures or ways to deploy renewable energy systems. how did Cities Use eeCBG funds (percentage of cities) 83% 42% 31% 26% 22% 16% 16% 15% 14% 13% 11% 9% 8% 4% 3% 2% Energy retrofits of government buildings LED/other-energy efficient street lighting Deploy solar energy systems at public buildings/facilities Education of public/businesses on energy conservation/renewable energy Energy retrofits of residential buildings LED/other energy-efficient traffic signals Rebates/incentives to the public/businesses Energy retrofits of commercial buildings Capitalized energy revolving loan fund Building code revisions to promote energy effiency/renewable energy Bicycling/walking facilities and projects Automobile electric charging stations Alternative fuels for vehicles Deploy solar energy systems by the public/businesses Distributed energy systems (e.g., fuel cells, combined heat & power) Methane capture (e.g., landfills, treatment plants, waste products) Survey Results Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 24 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center5 In addition to selecting from these pre-set categories, survey respondents could offer written descriptions of local projects/programs funded by EECBG dollars. Cities described a range of activities, from relighting parks and garages with LEDs to some unique energy initiatives. EECBG funds in one city underwrote a neighborhood-based project, whereby energy technicians targeted underserved neighborhoods and retrofitted homes with energy conservation measures. With its funds, one city undertook a lighting retrofit of its convention center, including installation of a green roof. Another city developed a program to provide for comprehensive audits for private commercial buildings in the downtown core that were predominately vacant; others used ENERGY STAR’s Portfolio Manager to benchmark city- owned buildings and to support benchmarking efforts by commercial building owners. One city used some of its funds to modernize its development practices and rules to make it easier for businesses and homeowners to install renewable energy systems. Among other renewable energy projects, a city installed a 135 kw windmill at an existing sports complex, and another installed a 100 kw wind turbine on top of a city building. A few cities cited acquired solar-powered garbage/recycling containers, while another installed solar water heaters on its city buildings. A city traffic signal optimization program, with solar-powered street crossing beacons, was also funded with these resources. One city funded the construction of a central energy plant that now serves a high school, middle school and a civic center. Among several IT projects, conserving energy in one city will be easier now with installation of software that automatically shuts down city PCs at night as well as during weekends and holidays. Workforce training initiatives also received some EECBG funding, with one city training private sector officials on energy efficiency and building rating. Another city developed a program for trades interns to train them on the installation of energy efficient technologies. One city paid for consulting services to be available to owners of industrial/manufacturing properties, helping them identify ways to cut energy waste and other production inputs. Although some cities reported challenges in securing federal approvals, one city noted its geothermal project, funded with EECBG resources, which is now producing energy for the city. Although not a primary use of these funds, many cities directed resources to updating comprehensive plans and other specialized plans to reduce energy use, promote sustainability and/or advance climate action. Some invested in new city energy management systems, while others undertook greenhouse gas inventories, including developing emission reduction strategies. Finally, some unique projects included a feasibility study to convert grease to fuel and an evaluation of potential energy projects to be funded through a newly-established energy improvement district. While not an area of inquiry in this survey, a 2010 Conference survey, Mayoral Survey on Implementation of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, did query cities on the entities delivering EECBG-funded projects, whether they were municipal or non-municipal in nature. Cities reported then that more than three-quarters (77%) of all grant funds would be passed through to private firms. Survey Results Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 25 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center6 The availability of eeCBG funds to cities has influenced city budgetary priorities, and also prompted new partnerships with a range of private sector and governmental entities. More than six in ten mayors (63%) said EECBG resources influenced city operating practices and procedures, with almost the same share (59%) indicating that this direct federal funding influenced city capital budgeting priorities. About one in three cities said EECBG funds prompted additional partnerships with private utilities (32%), with other private sector entities (33%) and with other local governments (29%). how eeCBG funds influenced Budgets and Prompted new Partnerships (percentage of cities) 63% 59% 33% 32% 29% 25% 21% Influenced city operating practices/procedures Influenced city capital budgeting priorities Prompted additional partnerships with other private sector entities Prompted additional partnerships with private utilities Prompted additional partnerships with other local governments Prompted additional partnerships with state government Prompted additional partnerships with the federal government The “leverage” that comes from this relatively modest infusion of federal resources directly into the nation’s larger cities and counties can’t be overstated, considering the enormity of local operating and capital budgets. According to the U.S. Census and its 2011 State and Local Government Finances report, all local governments -- cities, counties, towns and special districts -- expended $1.3 trillion for current operations, with another $220 billion in capital outlays, with the direct EECBG formula recipients accounting for a substantial share of these expenditures. a majority of mayors cited energy service contracting as the innovative energy financing strategy that eeCBG funds helped most often. For cities responding to this question, energy service contracting was the top choice (55%) among energy financing strategies that benefited most from the availability of EECBG grant dollars. The next two choices – property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing and on-bill energy financings – were chosen by about one in five cities. how eeCBG funds advanced innovative energy financing Strategies (percentage of cities) 55% 23% 20% 16% 5% Energy service contracting Property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing On-bill energy financing (i.e., municipal utilities) Renewable power purchase agreements Renewable energy tax credit financings The dominance of energy service contracting among financing strategies is another example of how the conventional wisdom can miss the mark. During the ARRA debate, some private sector firms and their organizations claimed that funding the EECBG Program would discourage cities from utilizing this financing option, commonly called ESCO financing; as the findings of this report show, the availability of EECBG resources had the opposite effect. Survey Results Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 26 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center7 Similarly, the Conference’s 2010 EECBG survey found that for the more than two-thirds of the respondents (151 of 221 cities) that had not previously used ESCO-type financings, more than half said that EECBG funds had prompted their city to consider or include such financing in their EECBG strategies. Of the 204 cities participating in this new EECBG survey, slightly more than half (108 cities) provided information on how these funds helped advance innovative energy financing strategies. In addition to the five choices shown above, cities could also provide written information on other locally-initiated financing structures. Among these responses, one city noted its loan-loss reserve program in partnership with a local credit union, allowing for no money down, no home equity-based energy loans to homeowners. Another city described its interest-free loans to help residents buy Energy Star appliances, high SEER ACs, and other energy efficient devices, reporting no loan defaults. Another one cited its multiple-city partnership in concert with its Council of Government to facilitate a regional PACE lending program. Led/other energy-efficient lighting ranked first among energy technologies that have already been deployed by cities, with local and federal resources, most notably eeCBG grants, providing the primary sources of funding for these deployments. The first table below shows the energy technologies that cities have already deployed, with more than four in five cities (82%) making LED/other energy-efficient lighting their top choice; the second table below shows the dominance of local funds and federal funds, including EECBG grants, in supporting city deployments of these energy technologies. After lighting, more than six in ten cities have already deployed low-energy buildings (62%) and energy-efficient appliances, pumps and other systems (62%). More than half of the cities have used hybrid vehicles (53%), and almost half have installed solar technologies to generate electricity (47%). Notably, city use of all-electric vehicles increased to nearly one in four cities (23%), up considerably from the 2011 level of 13 percent. Technologies already deployed by Cities (percentage of cities) 82% 62% 62% 53% 47% 31% 23% 22% 21% 19% 16% 12% 11% 11% 11% LED/other energy-efficient lighting Low-energy buildings Energy-efficient appliances/pumps/other systems Hybrid vehicles Solar electric generation Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles Energy-efficient water treatment technology All-electric vehicles Methane capture (landfills/biosolids) Solar hot water Geothermal Waste-to-energy converstion Cogeneration (combined heat & power) Advanced biofuels Smart grids/smart meters Survey Results Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 27 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center8 As shown in the chart below, more than seven in ten cities used city funding or federal funding as their top sources for deploying energy technologies. City funding (73%) and federal funding (71%) were used most often, with about one in three cities using local utility funding (35%) and more than one in four utilizing city energy savings (27%) to fund their energy technology deployments. how Cities funded Previously-deployed energ y Technologies (percentage of cities) 73% 71% 35% 27% 22% 9% City funding (e.g., current revenues, bond funds, enterprise Federal funding (e.g., EECBG grant) Local utility funding City energy savings (e.g., performance contracting) State funding Private sector funding (e.g., loans, public-private partnerships) Importantly, it is generally accepted that EECBG funds did help speed the deployment of new energy technologies, especially the use of LED technologies, in cities. The findings of this report and its January 2014 companion report adds further to the anecdotal and other information that the availability of EECBG grants helped accelerate demand for LED lighting. Certainly, such an outcome remains one of the legacies of the EECBG funding commitment to cities, reminding federal policy-makers of the potency of federal investments in city-based energy efficiency and technology initiatives. The role of the Federal government as a funding partner for cities declined sharply over the last few years. In a January 2014 report by the Conference of Mayors, Energy Efficiency and Technologies in America’s Cities, mayors ranked utilities (71%) as their top partner in advancing new technologies, followed by state governments (49%), the private sector (41%) and the Federal government (30%). In fact, the Federal government, previously the top choice in the Conference’s June 2011 energy survey, Clean Energy Solutions for America’s Cities, fell to the fourth position among potential partners for cities. This unprecedented decline – 71 percent in 2011 to 30 percent in 2014 – is certain to have been the result of the changed federal/local partnership; the Federal government did not renew its funding commitment to the EECBG Program. When mayors were asked to give examples of successes with the use of eeCBG funds, they often cited “energy firsts” for their cities, energy savings, greater energy efficiencies, and deployment of renewable energy systems, among scores of examples. This discussion provides a sample of successes by mayors in utilizing EECBG resources in their cities. There were many examples of successes in retrofitting public and private buildings in making the city’s building stock more efficient. “Electricity use at City Hall was cut by 47 percent, an outcome helped by the availability of EECBG funds,” one city wrote. “There will be a 20 percent reduction in energy use in the largest government facilities,” said another. Citing other achievements, one city reported that it had retrofitted 1,267 homes and over 130 businesses with its formula grant; another said it weatherized more than 200 income-qualified homes. Survey Results Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 28 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center9 Some cities described how broader goals were being achieved. “Funds helped advance a non-controversial ‘quick win’ toward sustainable operations,” said one city. “These funds helped change the mindset about energy reduction,” said another. In touting its investment in renewable energy, one city wrote, “These funds helped establish the credibility of renewable energy as a reliable and affordable alternative.” Given its prominence in the survey findings, energy gains from more efficient lighting were touted often. A nearly 50 percent reduction in annual electricity costs due to LEDs was reported. Another installed over 2,000 LED streetlights with smart controls, while one said its retrofit of 2,000 city streetlights will save $50,000 annually. Successes with other technologies were described, with solar energy systems mentioned often. One city said EECBG funds made its first municipal solar installation possible. Another said it leveraged $300,000 in EECBG grant funds into a $2.5 million solar array project. Two cities indicated that 2 or more MW of solar capacity had been installed in their communities. Another city noted its solar-powered hybrid charging station in the heart of its downtown. Other city transportation projects were traffic light signalization projects, more traditional EV charging stations, and CNG fueling stations. Cities described geothermal installations, smart grid technology, and a wind demonstration program, with one city reporting that it had used its EECBG fund to achieve a total energy savings of 37,654 MMBTU. One city reported that it had leveraged its grant into an $8.7 million Energy Performance Contract. The survey findings in this area follow what EECBG Program champions at The Conference of Mayors and among cities have expressed in advocating for this program. Simply, the flexibility of the block grant structure allows cities and other local governments to tailor solutions to their own communities’ needs, which is especially important in the energy and climate arenas. Finally, cities were asked to provide examples of impediments, federal and otherwise, to the most effective use of EECBG program resources. This information will be provided, upon request, to parties working to make improvements or legislative adjustments to the EECBG program in the future. Survey Results Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 29 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center10 Fairbanks, AK Fort Smith, AR Little Rock, AR Avondale, AZ Mesa, AZ Oro Valley, AZ Phoenix, AZ Surprise, AZ Tempe, AZ Tucson, AZ Alameda, CA Alhambra, CA Anaheim, CA Cathedral City, CA Chula Vista, CA Costa Mesa, CA Dublin, CA Fontana, CA Fresno, CA Gardena, CA Hemet, CA Huntington Beach, CA Irvine, CA La Habra, CA Long Beach, CA Los Angeles, CA Monrovia, CA Newark, CA Newport Beach, CA Novato, CA Ontario, CA Palm Desert, CA Palmdale, CA Pasadena, CA Pleasanton, CA Redding, CA Redondo Beach, CA Rialto, CA Sacramento, CA San Clemente, CA San Diego, CA San Jose, CA San Leandro, CA Santa Ana, CA Santa Barbara, CA Santa Monica, CA Santee, CA South San Francisco, CA Tulare, CA Vallejo, CA Ventura, CA Westminster, CA Woodland, CA Aurora, CO Denver, CO Westminster, CO Bridgeport, CT Danbury, CT Fairfield, CT Milford, CT Norwich, CT Stamford, CT Torrington, CT Waterbury, CT Washington, DC Wilmington, DE Boynton Beach, FL Cape Coral, FL Coral Springs, FL Davie, FL Deerfield Beach, FL Hallandale Beach, FL Jacksonville, FL Lakeland, FL Largo, FL Lauderhill, FL Miramar, FL North Lauderdale, FL North Miami, FL Orlando, FL Palm Bay, FL Panama City, FL Pembroke Pines, FL Pompano Beach, FL Port St. Lucie, FL Tallahassee, FL West Palm Beach, FL Athens-Clarke County, GA Atlanta, GA Columbus, GA Savannah, GA Maui, HI Davenport, IA Des Moines, IA Dubuque, IA Urbandale, IA Boise, ID Idaho Falls, ID Evanston, IL Hanover Park, IL Hoffman Estates, IL Normal, IL Participating Cities Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 30 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center11 Schaumburg, IL Carmel, IN Indianapolis, IN Noblesville, IN Richmond, IN Olathe, KS Shawnee, KS Lexington, KY New Orleans, LA Boston, MA Springfield, MA Baltimore, MD Portland, ME Dearborn, MI Farmington Hills, MI Grand Rapids, MI Rochester Hills, MI Southfield, MI Troy, MI Westland, MI Burnsville, MN Eagan, MN Minneapolis, MN Minnetonka, MN Columbia, MO Kansas City, MO St. Louis, MO University City, MO Burlington, NC Charlotte, NC Fayetteville, NC Greenville, NC Winston-Salem, NC Grand Forks, ND Lincoln, NE Nashua, NH Brick Township, NJ Elizabeth, NJ Albuquerque, NM Clovis, NM Santa Fe, NM Carson City, NV Henderson, NV Las Vegas, NV North Las Vegas, NV Reno, NV Albany, NY Syracuse, NY Cleveland, OH Columbus, OH Cuyahoga Falls, OH Dayton, OH Lancaster, OH Lima, OH Tulsa, OK Beaverton, OR Bend, OR Gresham, OR Hillsboro, OR Lake Oswego, OR Portland, OR Tigard, OR Lancaster, PA Philadelphia, PA Pittsburgh, PA York, PA Caguas, PR Providence, RI Charleston, SC Summerville, SC Sioux Falls, SD Chattanooga, TN Hendersonville, TN Johnson City, TN Knoxville, TN Memphis, TN Abilene, TX Corpus Christi, TX Dallas, TX Denton, TX Garland, TX Mesquite, TX Pharr, TX Plano, TX San Antonio, TX Lehi City, UT Salt Lake City, UT Sandy, UT South Jordan, UT Alexandria, VA Norfolk, VA Burlington, VT Everett, WA Redmond, WA Seattle, WA Tacoma, WA Vancouver, WA Brookfield, WI Green Bay, WI Madison, WI Milwaukee, WI Gillette, WY Participating Cities Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 31 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center12 This report was prepared by The U.S. Conference of Mayors and was based on data collected in a mayoral survey sponsored by Philips. From November 25, 2013 through January 14, 2014, cities could complete the survey electronically. By email, the Conference contacted nearly 1,400 mayors, most representing cities with a population of 30,000 or more, requesting mayors to compete the survey. Survey responses from 204 cities were received and analyzed for this report. We would like to thank all those who participated in the survey for their efforts and timely responses. About the Survey Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 32 The United States Conference of Mayors Mayors Climate Protection Center13Energy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 33 THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS Tom Cochran, CEO and Executive Director 1620 Eye Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel: 202.293.7330 Fax: 202.293.2352 usmayors.orgEnergy and Environment Commission April 8, 2014 Page 34