The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOS 02-10 City n Report To Joint Planning & Executive Committee IeKERIN Report Number: OS 02-10 Date: September 7, 2010 94 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, Office of Sustainability Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program - Status Update - File: D-1100-006 Recommendation: 1. That Council receive Report OS 02-10 providing an update on the City's Partners for Climate Protection Program. 2. That Council endorse the Five Year Corporate Emissions Reduction Strategy outlined in Attachment 1 to this Report.and direct staff to proceed as set out in that Strategy. 3. That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Partners for Climate Protection Office. Executive- Summary: In 2007, Pickering completed the first three (of five) milestones of the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program. The PCP program is promoted by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to help local municipalities reduce energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In completing the first three milestones of the program, the City committed to reducing GHG emissions by 50% per capita for municipal (i.e. corporate) emissions and by 35% per capita for community emissions. The reductions are to be achieved by 2016 using 1995 as our baseline year. In late 2009 and early 2010 Durham Sustain Ability (DSA) reviewed the City's progress in reducing energy consumption and GHG emissions both corporately and on a community-wide basis. The results of DSA's review for corporate emissions are presented in this *Report. A staff report on community emissions will be completed separately and submitted to Council at a later date. Although the City has made some progress towards achieving our corporate GHG emissions reduction target, much work remains to be done. To help accelerate and focus our efforts, it is recommended that Council endorse the Five Year Corporate Emissions Reduction Strategy outlined in Attachment 1 to this Report and direct staff to proceed as set out in that Strategy. Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 S b ct: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 2 Financial Implications: There are no new financial implications related to the recommendations contained in this Report. Many of the Priority Actions included in the attached Five Year Corporate Emissions Reduction Strategy either have no budget implications or can be implemented this year in accordance with the Council approved 2010 budget. For those Priority Actions that are not within the existing approved budget, the financial implications (costs and savings) will be identified for Council's consideration through future budget submissions. Sustainability Implications: Energy conservation is one of the cornerstones of the City's Sustainable Pickering program. Reducing corporate energy consumption provides economic, social, and environmental benefits. Using less energy saves money, improves air quality and helps address climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By taking action to meet its corporate GHG and energy reduction targets, the City would also set a positive example for businesses and residents, potentially resulting in even further energy and GHG reductions across the municipality than might otherwise be achieved if the City did not lead by example. Background: The Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program is supported and promoted by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It has been established to assist municipalities in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from community and municipal (i.e. corporate) operations. The PCP program has five milestones as follows: 1. Creating a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and forecast 2. Setting GHG emissions reduction targets 3. Developing a local action plan 4. Implementing the local action plan 5. Monitoring progress and reporting results In 2007, the City.of Pickering became only the fifth municipality in Ontario to complete milestones 1, 2 and 3 of the PCP Program (there are now over 10 municipalities in Ontario that have completed at least the first three milestones). The City is now working through Milestones 4 and 5 of the program. This Report provides an update on the City's progress in relation to corporate emissions, and recommends a number of Priority Actions for Council's consideration. The data gathered for this Report was derived from a review of the City's corporate and community greenhouse gas emissions completed by Durham Sustain Ability in late 2009 and early 2010 (see Attachment 2). Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 3 96 Through the City's PCP program Council established the following corporate and community GHG emissions reduction targets. • 50 percent per capita reduction for corporate emissions by 2016 (from 1995 levels) • 35 percent per capita reduction for community emissions by 2016 (from 1995 levels) It should be noted that these emissions targets were determined assuming a constant relationship between energy use and GHG levels. However, the approved protocol for measuring GHG emissions under the PCP program requires municipalities to measure GHG levels on the basis of an annually fluctuating "electricity equivalent carbon dioxide coefficient" (eC02 coefficient). In Ontario (as in all provinces), the eC02 coefficient varies from year to year depending on the average annual amount of fossil fuel used to generate energy in the Province. When power is generated mostly from fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas and oil, higher levels of GHG emissions are produced. When power is generated mostly from other sources such as hydroelectric, nuclear and renewable sources, there are fewer GHG emissions. Depending on Ontario's fuel mix, GHG emissions in Pickering could drop in a given year even if the City did nothing to change its energy usage. Likewise, in another year, the City could complete a number of energy conservation initiatives, but GHG emissions could still rise if the provincial fuel mix in that year was weighted more heavily toward the burning fossil fuels. . In 1995 (our baseline year) the provincial fuel mix was relatively "clean" compared to subsequent years (i.e. fewer fossil fuels were part of the provincial energy mix). Since 1995 however, Ontario's fuel mix has become slightly "dirtier," raising the provincial eC02 coefficient. To account for the annual fluctuations in the provincial eC02 coefficient (over which the City has no control), the GHG reduction targets approved by Council can be "adjusted" and restated as follows: • 22 percent per capita reduction for corporate emissions by 2016 (from 1995 levels) • 19 percent per capita reduction for community emissions by 2016 (from 1995 levels) Corporate Energy Management Priorities There are a number of possible initiatives the City can implement to reduce energy consumption and lower greenhouse gas emissions, from the "low hanging fruit" to the "hard to reach" projects. Given cost and resource limitations, the City needs to be strategic in selecting projects for future implementation. Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 4 97 To help prioritize projects, the City's potential energy management initiatives have been grouped and evaluated in relation to Pickering's three broad sustainability objectives, as shown in Table 1 below. The Table organizes the City's potential corporate energy management projects into three categories (municipal facilities, municipal fleet and municipal lighting) and provides a high-level qualitative assessment of the potential sustainability benefits of the various projects within each of these categories considering: • economic objectives (i.e. the likelihood of saving costs) • environmental objectives (i.e. the potential to reduce GHG emissions) • social objectives (i.e. the opportunity to enhance municipal service delivery) Table 1 - Energy Management Projects and Sustainability Objectives Sustainability Objectives Energy Management Economic Environmental Social Projects (cost-savings) (GHG reductions) (service enhancements) (by category/subcategory) Municipal Facilities • City Hall High High High • Recreation Facilities High High High • Libraries High High High • Fire Halls Medium Medium Medium Municipal Fleet • Light Duty High High High • Medium Duty Medium Medium, High • Heavy Duty Low Low High Municipal Lighting • Traffic Lights High High High • Park/Walkwa Lights Medium Low High • Street Lights Medium Low High This high-level analysis shows that Pickering's sustainability objectives would be best served if the City focuses its corporate energy conservation efforts in the following areas: 1. Municipal Facilities (especially higher-occupancy/higher-use facilities) 2. Light duty vehicles 3. Traffic lights Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 5 98 Corporate Energy Use and GHG Emissions A summary of Pickering's corporate energy use and GHG emissions from 1995 through 2008 is provided in Table 2 below. The City's 2016 target for energy use and GHG emissions is also shown in the Table, as is a "business as usual" (BAU) forecast. The BAU forecast represents the growth in energy use, and GHG emissions that would occur to 2016 if the City did not undertake any significant energy management and GHG emissions reduction efforts. Based on the data, if the City did nothing different, total corporate energy use and total corporate GHG emissions would rise between 2008 and 2016 by more than 55 percent. i To meet our corporate PCP target, it is estimated that the City's total energy use would need to be reduced by almost 24% between 2008 and 2016. Accounting for anticipated population.growth, this would result in a 22% reduction by 2016 in our per capita GHG emissions from 1995 levels (which matches our "adjusted" GHG target for corporate emissions). If achieved, it would also result in a savings of more than $2.0 million in annual energy costs compared to the BAU scenario. Table 2 - Corporate Energy Use and GHG Emissions (1995 to 2008 and 2016 BAU1 Forecast and PCP2 Target) 2016 2016 Summary 1995 2004 2007 2008 BAU PCP Forecast Target Energy Use i a'oules) 104,442 116,852 124,471 123,531 191,757 93,957 Per Capita Energy i a'oules 1.33 1.28 1.36 1.35 1.36 0.67 GHG Emissions tonnes eC02 5,032 6,865 6,864 6,803 10,575 7,083 Per Capita GHG tonnes eC02 0.064 0.075 0.075 0.074 0.075 0.050 Energy. Cost $'000 $1,435' $2,233 $2,478 $2,644 $3,997 $1,958 1. BAU = Business as Usual 2. PCP = Partners for Climate Protection Also noteworthy from Table 2 is that total energy consumption by the City rose steadily from 1995 to 2007, generally in line with population growth, before falling slightly as a result of a variety of corporate energy management initiatives that were undertaken by the City in late 2007. i i Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 6 99 Recent and Planned Energy Management Projects Between late 2007 and the end of 2010 the City will have completed over 20 energy management projects. These projects are listed in Appendix B of the June 2010 Durham Sustain Ability Report (see Attachment 2). A summary of the energy and GHG savings attributable to these projects broken down by facilities, fleet and street lighting is shown on Table 3 below. Table 3 - Energy and GHG Savings for Municipal Projects (from 2007 to end of 2010) Project Energy GHG Savings Operating Cost Simple Payback Category Savings (tonnes / year) Savings (in years) (GJ / ear) per ear) Municipal Facilities 11,428 609 $249,853 5.4 Municipal Fleet 102 11 $3,233 20.1 Street Lighting 794 40 $23,118 2.2 TOTAL 12,324 660 $276,204 5.3 Collectively, these energy management projects will provide an estimated savings of approximately $276,000 annually. It should also be noted that: • facility projects (by far) produce the greatest energy and GHG savings • fleet savings (both energy and GHG) are due mainly to the replacement of older City vehicles with five hybrids. However, operating savings for the City's hybrid vehicles are relatively small, and payback periods relatively long • although GHG savings are relatively small, the conversion of the City's traffic lights to high efficiency LED's provides an excellent payback of just over 2 years Figure A on the next page is a trend analysis of the City's GHG emissions between 2007 and 2016, taking into consideration anticipated population increases as well as the growth in municipal facilities and services expected to occur over this time period. The figure shows GHG emissions both on an absolute basis (the bars) and per capita basis (the line). Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 7100 Figure A - GHG Corporate Emissions Trend Analysis (2007 to 2016) 12,000 0.100 0.090 10,000 By 2011 - 660 t (19%) M' 0.080 0.075 0.074 +772 ; 8,000 158 0.066 Target Gap - 2832 t(81%) 0.070 N v a 0.060 w _ a 0.05 0 6,000 0.050 W 2011-2016 Initiatives: 566 t/_ y~ CL _ 0.040 r- d m _ Kam- laty. a 4,000 k Y a 0.030 . E 0.020 r; - 2,000 0.010 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2016 Target Pre-2007 Buildings Streetlights Q Fleet ■ Waste Bau A number of conclusions can be reached from Figure A. 1. The City's first major energy management project (re-lamping City Hall) was completed in late 2007 and began to show an impact on GHG emissions in 2008. 2. The City's initiatives undertaken in 2009 will begin to show an impact on GHG emissions in 2010, with a total projected GHG savings of 284 tonnes per year. This corresponds to a 5.4% reduction in GHG emissions compared to 2007. 3. The 2010 approved projects will have a slightly lower impact than the 2009 projects with projected savings of 234 tonnes per year, commencing in 2011. 4. The energy management initiatives through 2010 have reduced the City's corporate GHG emissions, but in terms of our corporate PCP target, the reduction in emissions only closes our GHG emissions gap by 19%0. 5. Commencing in 2011, the City will need to enact measures that allow us to close the remaining 81 % of our GHG emissions gap if we are going to meet our 2016 PCP target for corporate emissions. Annually this translates into a reduction target of 566 tonnes GHG emissions per year, which is more than double the annual impact of the initiatives implemented by the City in 2009 and 2010. Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 8 10 i Toward an Integrated and Sustainable Energy Management Strategy Although some progress has been made in reducing corporate GHG emissions, much more work needs to be done. The corporate initiatives undertaken by the City starting in late 2007'and continuing through 2010 have made a difference. However, in order to meet our 2016 corporate GHG emissions reduction target, the City will have to more than double its efforts starting in 2011. Doubling our efforts could present some challenges. Yet it could also provide significant benefits, not only in terms of climate change and air quality, but also financially. If we are successful in meeting our 2016 corporate GHG emissions target, it is estimated that the City could save over $2.0 million annually in energy costs. To help focus and direct the City's efforts in this regard, it is recommended that Council endorse the Five Year Corporate Emissions Reduction Strategy outlined in Attachment 1 to this Report and direct staff to proceed as set out in that Strategy. A broad and integrated approach is needed. Below are examples of the types of Priority Actions that are identified in Attachment 1 as part of our Five Year Strategy. • Require all new municipal buildings and facilities greater than 500 sq. m. to be constructed to a minimum LEED silver standard. • Select through a Request for Proposals process, appropriate business partners to work with the City on the review. and installation of sustainable energy technologies on one or more City buildings, such as solar PV panels and geothermal systems. • Investigate and report to Council on the use of alternative vehicle fuels, including natural gas, propane, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity. • Initiate a pilot/demonstration project involving LED lighting and/or street light dimming on City roadways to assess the feasibility of implementing these technologies on a broader scale. • Launch a "Staff Energy Conservation Campaign" to encourage and promote staff to reduce their energy use and carbon footprint: o in the workplace, by turning-off lights, powering off computers, taking stairs rather than using the elevator, etc.; and o when driving, by improving driving habits, adopting anti-idling practices, reducing vehicle trips (especially single occupancy trips), etc. I Report OS 02-10 September 7, 2010 Subject: Partners for Climate Protection Program Update Page 9I 02 Attachments: 1. City of Pickering Five Year Corporate Emissions Reduction Strategy 2. Durham Sustain Ability report entitled: "City of Pickering, Corporate and Community Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emission Sustainability Indicators" dated June 2010 Prepared and Approved/Endorsed By: J ~ Thomas Mely uk, G. 1. P. Director, Office of Istainability TM:ljg Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Directors Recommend d for the consideration " of Pickerin ity C it Tony reve el, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer i Attachment No. 1 103 Report OS 02-10 City of Pickering Five Year Corporate Emissions Reduction Strategy Priority.Actions 1.0 City 1.01 Require all new municipal buildings and facilities greater than Facilities 500 sq. m. to be constructed to a minimum LEED silver standard ("Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design"). 1.02 Select through a Request for Proposals process, appropriate business partners to work with the City on the review and installation of sustainable energy technologies on one or more City buildings, such as solar PV panels and geothermal systems. 1.03 Conduct energy audits of City Hall / Central Library, Petticoat Creek Community Centre, East Shore Community Centre, West Shore Community Centre, and Claremont Community Centre and include for Council's consideration the priority energy efficiency projects identified in these audits in future City budget submissions. 1.04 Investigate and where practical install "low-cost" energy efficiency retrofit devices in all City facilities. Low-cost devices may include (but are not limited to) motion-detectors, occupancy sensors, automatic timers, light dimmers, low flow toilets and showerheads. 1.05 Include in future budget submissions, the energy efficiency projects identified in the 2008 Recreation Complex Energy Audit that have not yet been implemented. 2.0 City 2.01 Adopt the principle of "right-sizing" as a basis for future vehicle Vehicles purchasing decisions (whereby the most fuel efficient vehicle is used for the assigned job or task requirement). 2.02 Investigate the use of alternative vehicle fuels, including natural gas, propane, ethanol, biodiesel and electricity. 1 Attachment No. 1 Report OS 02-10 104 City of Pickering Five Year Corporate Emissions Reduction Strategy (cont'd) Priority Actions (cont'd) 3.0 City 3.01 Initiate a pilot/demonstration project involving motion sensors, Lighting solar lighting and/or LED lighting in City parks or walkways to assess the feasibility of implementing these technologies on a broader scale. 3.02 Initiate a pilot/demonstration project involving LED lighting and/or street light dimming on City roadways to assess the feasibility of implementing these technologies on a broader scale. 4.0 General 4.01 Launch a "Staff Energy Conservation Campaign" to encourage and promote staff to reduce their energy use and carbon footprint: • in the workplace, by turning-off lights, powering off computers, taking stairs rather than using the elevator, etc.; and • when driving, by improving driving habits, adopting anti- idling practices, reducing vehicle trips (especially single occupancy trips), etc. 4.02 Investigate the feasibility of purchasing low or no GHG emission energy from a recognized and viable provider of green power. 4.03 Investigate and acquire appropriate energy/GHG emission management software systems. 4.04 Review the City's purchasing policies and establish explicit provisions that support energy-efficiency and GHG emission reductions in all City purchases. 2 1 0 5 ATTACHMENT # LTO REPORT # n S aQ 0 Cafl, _r N-'G. Ability City of Pickering Corporate and Community Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emission Sustainability Indicators June 2010 Prepared By Durham Sustain Ability Email: info -sustain-ability.ca Website: www.sustain-ability.ca 1709 Highway #7 Brougham, ON LOH 1A0 Phone: 905-427-0061 i ATTACHMENT # i TO REPORT #L.5~-► a City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 106 Contents 1. Introduction ....................................'................:................................................................3 2. Corporate Operations- ....................................................................................................5 2.1 Energy and GHG Emissions Inventory and Trends Update ......................................5 2.2 Corporate Initiatives ..................................................................................................8 2.3 Energy and GHG Monitoring and Reporting ..........................................................12 3. Community Energy and GHG Inventory Update ..........................................................15 3.1 Community Summary ............:..............................................:..................................15 3.2 Trends By Sector ....................................................................................................17 3.2.1 Residential ........................................................................................................18 3.2.2 Institutional, Commercial and.Industrial (IC&I) 3.2.3 Transportation ...................................................................................................20 3.2.4 Waste ................................................................................................................21 4. Recommendations .........................................................................................................22 4.1 Corporate Actions ....................................................................................................22 4.2 Community Actions .................................................................................................23 Appendix A - Corporate Energy and GHG By Sector ......................................................24 Appendix B - Corporate Initiatives by Facility / Function ...............................................25 2 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # Ls L0-i n City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 107 1. Introduction In 2007, the City successfully completed milestones 1, 2 & 3 of the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) program for both the corporation and the community, which includes establishing a greenhouse gas (GHG) baseline inventory, setting reduction targets and developing a local action plan. The remaining milestones 4 & 5 in the PCP framework ate the implementation of the local action plan initiatives and development of a monitoring and reporting system to verify GHG reductions, respectively. The established local GHG emission reduction targets (milestone 2) are as follows.. 35 percent per capita reduction in community GHG emissions by 2016 (from 1995 community emission levels) 50 percent per capita reduction in municipal operational GHG emissions by 2016 (from 1995 corporate operational emission levels) As part of the Sustainable Pickering benchmarking program, 32 community and corporate sustainability indicators have been developed of which the baseline analysis of an initial number will be reported in early 2010. Two key sustainability indicators that are relevant to the PCP program are total and per capita energy consumption and total and per capita GHG emissions for corporate operations and the community at large. Since 2007, the City of Pickering has engaged in several key initiatives within the corporation to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions such as relamping the Civic Complex and implementing a number of energy efficiency projects at the Recreation Complex and other facilities. These PCP Milestone 4 corporate initiatives need to be documented and quantified (as part of Milestone 5) such that they can be included in future sustainability reports to show how the City is leading by example. In 2008, the "Sustainable Pickering Challenge" was created to focus on a number of broad initiatives including the "Corporate Challenge". The Corporate Challenge provides an opportunity for the City to lead by example, which includes the development of an Energy Management Strategy as both a long- term and short-term decision-making tool with established and focused priorities. In 2009, the Corporate Challenge gained momentum as a growing number of corporate energy efficiency and GHG reduction projects have been or are in the process of being implemented. 3 ATTACHMENT#,Z_.TO REPORT#GLS -to City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 08 This report provides: i) an update and discussion of both corporate and community energy consumption and GHG emissions through 2008 as part of both the sustainability indicator program and PCP requirements; ii) a summary of recent and planned corporate sustainability initiatives with quantified energy consumption and GHG emission savings; iii) a preliminary assessment of an automated monitoring and reporting system for corporate energy and GHG emissions; and iv) a set of recommendations for both corporate and community near term actions i 4 ATTACHMENT #-.Q.-TO REPORT#.M W-AD City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 109 2. Corporate Operations 2.1 Energy and GHG Emissions Inventory and Trends Update As part of the PCP program, the City established a corporate GHG emissions target of 7,083 t eC02 and 0.050 t eC02 per capita by 2016. The year 1995 was used as the baseline for measuring progress and converting these targets into percent changes. The 1995 baseline year GHG emissions were calculated using two methods due to issues regarding the electricity equivalent carbon dioxide (eC02) coefficient. This coefficient for electricity is based on the annual average amount of fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, oil) used at Ontario's electricity power plants. Other sources such as hydropower, nuclear and renewable energy do not directly produce eC02 emissions. As Ontario's electrical generation mix changes from year to year so does the eC02 electricity coefficient. This means that the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption in Pickering can vary year to year even if there is no significant change in energy usage, in fact when a municipality reduces its energy consumption, its GHG emissions may even increase if the provincial fossil fuel mix significantly increases. All municipalities participating in the PCP program use this GHG calculation methodology (PCP Protocol) in Canada and throughout the world. The following two methods were used for calculating the 1995 baseline GHG emissions inventory: i) PCP Protocol method - based on absolute changes in GHG emissions with annually fluctuating provincial eC02 electricity coefficients. This was required for PCP approval. 1995 Baseline: 5,032 t eC02 (using 1995 eC02 coeff.) % Absolute Change: 41 % increase between 1995 and 2016 % Per Capita Change: 22% reduction between 1995 and 2016 ii) Constant eC02 electricity coefficient - this provides consistency in comparing the baseline with the target year as well as intermediate years. 1995 Baseline: 7,874 t eC02 (using then latest eC02 coeff. for 2000) Absolute Change: 10% reduction between 1995 and 2016 Per Capita Change: 50% reduction between 1995 and 2016 The second method has been the preferred way of referencing the corporate target as a 50% per capita reduction, however it is becoming clear that the first method is preferable for several reasons: 5 ATTACHMENT #-61-TO REPORT O City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 0 It is the only method approved by PCP and if the City wishes to continue with the PCP framework and milestones 4 & 5, it will need to comply with this method of measuring GHG emissions. • Using the year 2000 electricity coefficient is becoming less relevant as more current annual coefficients become available. • As the City is tracking energy consumption as well, this is a means by which one can remove the affect of annually fluctuating coefficients as a complimentary measure to GHG emissions. Table 1 provides a summary of energy and GHG emissions on an absolute and per capita basis from 1995 baseline through 2008 based on the PCP protocol for GHG emissions inventory. The 2016 target for energy and GHG emissions and the pre-2007 "Business As Usual" (BAU) forecast is also included. The 2016 BAU forecast provides the energy use and GHG emissions that would occur through normal growth of services if there were no concerted focus on sustainable initiatives (as per pre-2007 outlook). The difference between the 2016 target and the 2016 BAU forecast is the gap that needs to be met through these initiatives: 3,492 t of eC02 emissions. By meeting the 2016 target, it is forecasted that the City would save over $2.0 million per year in energy costs. Table 1 - Corporate Energy and GHG Inventory, Forecast and Target Summary 1995 1999 2004 2007 2008 2016 2016 BAU Target Forecast Pre-2007 Energy Use 104,442 104,414 116,852 124,471 123,531 191,757 93,957 (GJ) Per Capita 1.33 1.21 1.28 1.36 1.35 1.36 0.67 Energy GJ GHG Emissions 5,032 7,252 6,865 6,864 6,803 10,575 7,083 (t eC02 Per Capita GHG t eC02 0.064 0.084 0.075 0.075 0.074 0.075 0.050 Energy Cost $1,435 $1,487 $2,233 $2,478 $2,644 $3,997 $1,958 ($'000 6 ATTACHMENT #--a_ TO REPORT #DS-JD0 -P Ci s f Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators Figure A provides the GHG emissions by sector (facilities, streetlights, fleet and .waste) and the per capita trend line. The sector data is provided in Appendix A. The BAU forecast is based on the per capita emissions level of 0.075 t/person in 2006 and 2007. The gap of 3,492 t of eC02 between the 2016 BAU forecast and 2016 target is also shown schematically. Figure A - GHG Emissions By Sector with Per Capita Trend Line 12,000 0.100 i 0.084 0.090 ~ i 10,000 • .075 0.075 0.075 0.080 0.074 • - 3,492 t 0.070 N 8,000 0.064 N o 0.060 0u d a 0.050 6,000 i 0.050 E t ±o i a 4,000 k 0.030 t i ~ 0.020 2,000 v 0.010 0 . _ -.i- 0.000 1995 1999 2004 2007 2008 2016 2016 Pre-2007 BAU Target Buildings Streetlights Fleet ■ Waste The GHG emissions for 1995 through 2008 use fluctuating annual electricity eC02 coefficients to correspond with each year as per the PCP protocol. Using this method, the per capita GHG reduction target of 0.050 t eC02 corresponds to a 22% per capita GHG reduction and a 50% per capita energy consumption reduction from 1995. The trends show that both streetlights and fleet vehicles have used more energy both on an absolute basis and on a per capita basis in 2008 versus the baseline of 1995, although streetlight energy consumption was reduced by about 10% from 2007 to 2008 partially as a. result of a traffic light relamping program started in 2008. 7 ATTACHMENT #__R_)_-_T0 REPORT City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 112 Facility energy use has fared better on a per capita basis in comparison to 1995, yet is showing a trend towards higher per capita consumption since 1999. This trend should reverse by 2010 based on the energy efficient projects being completed in 2009. Total corporate energy. consumption has increased steadily from 1999 to 2007 on both an absolute and per capita basis. In 2008, this trend has reversed as both absolute and per capita energy usage has been reduced slightly. Total corporate GHG emissions have been declining on an absolute and per capita basis from 1999 through 2008 mainly as a result of declining provincial electricity pC02 coefficients through 2007. The reduction in GHG emissions in 2008 was mainly due to energy reductions from corporate initiatives. 2.2 Corporate Initiatives As part of the "Corporate Challenge" to lead by example, an increasing number of energy efficiency and GHG reduction projects have been initiated. The slightly better performance in 2008 in terms of both energy consumption and GHG emissions is a result of corporate initiatives in late 2007 and throughout 2008. Table 2 provides a summary of projects by sector that have been implemented since late 2007 including those in the planning stages for implementation in 2010. Twenty-six initiatives have been quantified for energy, cost and GHG savings, % GHG savings versus 2007 baseline, incremental capital cost of energy/GHG elements of projects, and simple payback and ROI to measure financial returns. These initiatives provide an estimated annual savings of $276K/y with an average return of 19%. Its environmental performance includes GHG emissions savings of 660 t/y corresponding to a 12.5% savings of total 2007 emissions. Table 2 - Impact of 26 Initiatives To-Date plus Budgeted for 2010 Sector Energy GHG Total GHG % GH Op. Cos Increment Simple Simpl Saving Saving Emissions Saving Saving Capital Co Faybac ROI (G7/y) (t/y) 2007 Baseli Within ($/y) (years] (t eC02) Sector Facilities 11,428 609 4,176 14.60$249,85 $1,341,717 5. 18.60 Fleet 102 11 1,221 0.90/ $3,23 $64,97 20. 5.00 Streetligh s 794 40 1,107 3.60/ $23,11 $50,53 2. 45.8° Total 12,32 660, 5,283 12.50/,)$276,204 $1,457,2 4 5. 19.00 8 ATTACHMENT #_sQ,._TO REPORT #-10 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 113 The facility projects have produced the majority of the energy and GHG savings impact to-date accounting for 92% of GHG savings, while providing good economic returns averaging an estimated ROI of 18.6%. The conversion of traffic lights to high efficiency LED's provides an excellent payback of 2.2 years although GHG savings impact of 11 t/y is relatively small. Fleet energy and GHG savings is mainly due to the replacement of older vehicles with 5 hybrids, however the economic performance is relatively poor with an estimated 5% ROI to-date. Table 3 provides the impact of the initiatives by year starting with a large impact project: the relamping of the Civic Complex in late 2007 with first full year impact in 2008. The initiatives ramped up in 2009 (first full year impact in 2010) with a total GHG savings of 284 t/y corresponding to a 5.4% reduction versus the 2007 GHG baseline. The 2010 budgeted projects (first full year impact in 2011) have a slightly lower impact than 2009 projects with projected savings of 234 t/y of GHG corresponding to a 4.4% reduction from 2007 baseline. Table 3 - Impact of Corporate Initiatives by Year First Full Energy Cost GHG % GHG Year . Savings Savings Savings Savings impact G)/ / t/ from 2007 Initiatives by Year 2008 2,106 $36,668 107 2.00/0 2009 640 $17,335 34 0.7% 2010 5,543 $139,593 284 5.4% Initiatives To-date 8,289 $193,597 426 8.1% Projects in 2010 2011 4,035 $82,607 234 4.4% Total Projects thru 2010 12,324 $276,204 660 12.5% Figure B shows the impact of the 26 initiatives on both an absolute basis (bars) and a per capita basis (red trend line). The full impact of the initiatives by 2011 is a reduction 660 t eC02/y which corresponds to a 14% per capita reduction from 0.075 t in 2007 to 0.064 t/capita in 2011. The figure shows a trend line that is likely to meet the 2016 target, however it does not take into account the adverse effect of growth in facilities and services as population grows. 9 ATTACHMENT#-s3-kTO REPORT#D2Laa-i C> City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 114 Figure B - GHG Emissions Impact of Initiatives Only in Meeting Target 8,000 _ 0.100 0.090 7,000 ~r_ _ _ ~ 0.075` 0.07 660 t 0.080 6,0001 0,072 N 0.068 0.070 o 0.0 4 V 0, 5,000 { 0.060 a"+ .0 0. 4,000 0.050 W ~ G i - 0.040 ID 3,000 m a 0.030 2,000 0.020 1,000 0.010 p 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Target 12 Buildings StreOtlights 10 Fleet ■ Waste Figure C provides a more realistic picture with the impact of growth in municipal facilities and services and therefore growth in energy consumption and GHG emissions as provided in the BAU forecast. In 2011, the impact of the'Recreation Complex expansion in 2010 is taken into account, which increases the per capita GHG emissions from 0.064 t as shown in Figure B to 0.066 t as shown in Figure C. The slope of the per capita trend line starts to flatten in 2011 as a result of this expansion. I I 10 ATTACHMENT #_a.-TO REPORT #DSW -10 City1of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 15 Figure C - GHG Emissions - Meeting the Target with Growing Municipal Operations (BAU Effect) 12,000 _ 0.100 0.090 10,000 By .2011. 6.6.0. t (19%0) 0.080 0.075 0.074 0.072 0.068 0.066 Target Gap - 218,32 t (81%) 0.070 0.060 6,000 0.051 > 0.050 W 2011-2016 Initiatives: 566 Vy a v 0.040 `rr ! i a 0 4,000 0.030 0.020 2,000 0.010 0 0.000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ' 2014 2015 2016 2016 Target Pre-2007 Buildings Streetlights Fleet ■ Waste Bpu The initiatives through 2010 have reduced the target gap of 3492 t of GHG emissions by 19%. The remaining gap of 2832 t of GHG emissions corresponds to an annual reduction target of 566 Vy from 2011 to 2016. This is over double the annual impact of the initiatives being implemented in. 2009 and 2010 (260 by). By 2011, the Corporation will need to step-up its corporate sustainability initiatives to a new level to meet its 2016 target. One missing element that is crucial in supporting this new level of attention and focus is an automated energy and GHG emission monitoring and monthly reporting system. I 11 E ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 116 2.3 Energy and GHG Monitoring and Reporting It is recommended that the City utilize an energy management system that accurately monitors and reports corporate energy consumption -and corresponding GHG emissions on a monthly bas.is. This reporting will provide the operational and management information required to bring the needed attention to this crucial corporate challenge and to support decision-making utilizing a sustainability lens. An energy and GHG management system can provide additional benefits for the City including: • Automated comparison of facility energy performance and potential benchmarking to other similar municipal facilities • Monthly reports to both Operations staff and management provides the visibility and attention required-to ignite a sense of urgency to reduce energy and operating costs and to improve processes • Savings verification of energy efficiency and GHG reduction projects • Baseline data for calculating energy savings for obtaining government and utility incentives • Third party data entry of invoices (as well as interface with smart meter data and electronic invoices) to ensure accurate and detailed energy information is in the system. • Meets future requirements of the Green Energy Act that require all public agencies including municipalities to prepare energy plans including annual progress updates • Meets requirements of PCP Milestone 5 There are several software packages available from private contractors, which tend to be very costly (over $100k) and may have risks concerning future service and support. There are at least two options that are more economical and are backed by secure organizations. Option 1 - "Energy and Environment Management System" (EEMS) developed, licensed and supported by. York Region This software was developed by a municipality for municipalities. York Region and a network of GTA municipal licensees (including Markham, Oakville, Halton) regularly share best practices. The program provides comprehensive coverage of all energy consumption including facilities, streetlighting, and fleet fuels along with performance indicators. 12 ATTACHMENT #--a.-TO REPORT # - i v City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 117 Its major disadvantage is that it has no benchmarking capability for similar facilities at other municipalities, so there is no automated mechanism for comparing energy performance such as energy use per square foot to other similar facilities. Option 2 - LAS Energy Management Tool (EMT) - developed and supported by. AMO Pickering was part of their pilot program last year. Software is newer and is currently focused on facilities only. It has drastically improved its service capability from a year ago and now has a viable product and service including extensive benchmarking capability. Table 4 - Cost Comparison Between EEMS and EMT Systems System Purchase Annual Option 1 Option 2 Option 2 Total Total Price Fee Third Third Optional Annual Annual (capital Party Party Account Costs - Costs - cost) Electronic Paper Maintenance Self- Full Inputting Invoice.' and Report Service Service Fee Inputting Generation (option (option, Fee 1 2 York $20,000 $2,000 $3,600 $5,400 Not offered $ 5,600 $ 7,400 EEMS LAS Nil $3,600 $3,600 $5,400 $9,000 $ 7,200 $18,000 EMT Table 4 shows that the EMT "self-service" option (option 1) is an "apples to apples" comparison to EEMS. The EMT self-service option is more economically attractive as the simple payback on the EEMS capital outlay is prohibitively high at 12.5 years in comparison to EMT. The EMT "full-service" option (option 2) provides an important service that EEMS does not in that it verifies data accuracy and generates and distributes different levels of reports depending on the needs of operations and management. On an economic basis, the EEMS system has a payback of less than 2 years when compared to the full service LAS EMT option however the service levels are quite different. A problem with the self-service option is that manual invoice copies cannot be processed so electronic information needs to be sent by the City's accounting department. There were a number of problems arising from this method during the pilot project, which include information accuracy and limited information (only energy consumption and cost data are available electronically). Other relevant information on the invoice is not inputted into the accounting system such as the invoice period start and end dates and electricity power/demand information. 13 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT #,-~0 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 18 With this preliminary analysis it's not fully apparent which system will best meet the needs of the corporation. It is recommended that both systems be further investigated by Operations and that they recommend the best option taking into economic considerations, operational decision-making and data verification requirements, and management reporting needs. Key considerations between the two systems include whether facility benchmarking capability and reporting beyond facilities (i.e. fleet software replacement) are important needs of the corporation. 14 ATTACHMENT #,a-TO REPORT # - i 0 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 119 3. Community Energy and GHG Inventory Update 3.1 Community Summary In 2006, the Pickering community GHG inventory was developed for the years 1995 and 2004. In 2009, as part of a Durham Region wide initiative, community energy and GHG inventories have been gathered for the years 2005 through 2008. This data has been segregated by municipality at the request of Pickering and other Durham municipalities. Table 3 summarizes the annual energy consumption, energy cost and GHG . emissions on an absolute and per capita basis from the 1995 baseline to 2008 as well as the original PCP targets for 2016. The 2016 per capita targets for GHG emissions and energy consumption are reductions of 19% and 35%, respectively, from the 1995 baseline. The GHG emissions have been calculated for each year with corresponding eC02 electricity coefficients as per PCP protocol. Table 5: Community Energy Consumption, Cost and GHG Emissions Target Summary 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 Energy Use (GJ) 9,264,042 9,786,980 10,562,086 10,278,757 10,793,743 10,652,834 10,948,967 Per Capita Energy 118.3 107.6 116.1 112.5 117.9 114.8 77.60 Energy Cost ($'000) N/A $170,444 $224,401 $224,490 $231,163 $246,852 $261,124 Per Capita Energy Cost N/A $1,874 $2,466 $2,456 $2,524 $2,660 $1,851 eC02 Emissions (t) 511,839 597,821 632,930 586,779 611,092 604,436 744,634 Per Capita eC02 6.54 6.57 6.96 6.42 6.67 6.51 5.28 From 1995 to 2008, absolute GHG emissions have, risen by 18% while per capita emissions have fluctuated without a clear trend. The 2008 per capita emissions are essentially the same as the baseline year of 1995 at 6.5 t/person, and per capita energy consumption has declined slightly by 3% from 118 GJ/person to 115 GJ/person. This difference quantifies the effect of the variable eC02 electricity coefficient. 15 I ATTACHMENT #-j;I) :TO REPORT#IrLc4D-4-~O City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 120 Although per capita energy consumption has declined slightly, the per capita energy cost has risen significantly from $1874/person in 2004 to $2660/person in 2008, a 42% increase. Figure D provides total GHG emissions by sector with the total per capita GHG emissions trend line in red. Section 3.2 will provide further discussion on each sector. The GHG emission targets in 2016 of 744,634 t eC02 and 5.28 t eC02 per capita correspond to a 45% absolute increase and a 19%. per capita reduction from the 1995 baseline. Figure D: Absolute GHG Emissions by Sector and Per Capita Trend Line 800,000 10.0 700,000 _ 9.0 0 8.0 a 600,000 3.. 7.0 4 \ 500,000 c - 6.0 0 0 400,000 _ 5.0 u v 4.0 300,000 a 3.0 f° 200,000 S x 2.0 a 100,000 _ 1.0 0 0.0 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 Baseline Target Waste 1116 Residential IC&I Transportation 16 ATTACHMENT #-a-TO'REPORT #D -10 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 121 3.2 Trends By Sector Table 6 provides a summary of absolute and per capita GHG emissions by sector. Each sector will be discussed in the following sections. Table 6 - GHG Emissions by Sector GHG Target Emissions t 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 Residential 203,900 208,306 212,239 187,801 195,897 183,433 226,938 Residential Per Capita 2.60 2.29 2.33 2.05 2.14 1.98 1.61 IC&I 127,020 171,437 228,462 217,037 234,773 238,640 261,507 IC&I Per Capita 1.62 1.88 2.51 2.37 2.56 2.57 1.85 Transportation 150,048 183,591 166,760 160,872 161,203 163,338 227,904 Transportation Per Capita 1.92 2.02 1.83 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.62 Waste 30,872 34,487 25,469 21,069 19,219 19,026 28,285 Waste Per Capita 0.39 0.38 0.28 .0.23 0.21 0.21 0.20 Total eC02 Emissions 511,839 597,821 632,930 586,779 611,092 604,436 744,634 Total eC02 Per Capita 6.54 6.57 6.96 6.42 6.67 6.51 5.28 Figure E provides the per capita GHG emissions by sector. Yearly fluctuations in all sectors have essentially cancelled each other out as the 2008 total per capita GHG emissions is the same as the 1995 baseline emissions at 6.5 t/capita. Figure E - Per Capita GHG Emissions By Sector 8.0 - - 7.0 0.39 n 0.38, "s 0.23 0.21 6.0 _ 1.83 1.76 1.76 0.20 1.92 2.02 1.76 5.0 N , 4.0 .1.62. ' 2.Sf a 3.0 1.62 +1 88 37 56 57 2.0 a : t k2.60 1.0 .'Z.29 2-33 2.05 2.14 ' .98 H6 .......0.0 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Target 2016 r Residential lul u Transportation 12 Waste 17 ATTACHMENT #-2L-TO REPORT # -10 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 122 3.2.1 Residential The residential sector for purposes of this analysis is comprised of single-family detached and semi-detached homes. Condominiums and apartments are generally on single meters and as such are regarded by the electricity local distribution companies (LDC's) as commercial accounts and cannot be readily segregated from other IC&I customers. The residential sector accounted for 30% of total community GHG emissions in 2008. Table 7 shows the residential energy consumption, energy cost and eC02 emissions on an absolute and per capita basis. From 1995 to 2008, the population grew by 19% while the number of households increased by 20%. Despite the increase in population and households, the energy consumption has.dropped by 15% and the eC02 emissions have decreased by 10%. The difference between the two measures can be attributed to the change to the provincial electricity eC02 coefficient from 1995 to 2006. The eC02 coefficient for the year 2006 has also been used for the years 2007 and 2008 as it's currently the last published figure. Changes in annual weather will also effect annual energy consumption and eC02 emissions. Drops in per capita energy consumption from 2005 to 2006 and from 2007 to 2008 may be partially due to relatively warmer winters in 2006 and 2008 versus 2005 and 2007, respectively. Table 7: Residential Energy Consumption, Cost and GHG Emissions Target Residential 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 Energy Use (GJ) 4,258,460 3,988,936 4,024,425 3,705,436 3,877,248 3,630,088 3,780,860 Per Capita Energy 54.4 43.8 44.2 40.5 42.3 39.1 26.8 Energy Costs ($'000) N/A $63,702 $70,522 $68,457 $66,931 $65,441 $68,159 Per Capita Energy Costs N/A $700 $775 749 $731 $705 $483 eC02 Emissions (t) 203,900 208,306 212,239 187,801 195,897 183,433 226,938 Per Capita eC02 2.60 2.29 2.33 2.05 2.14 1.98 1.61 18 ATTACHMENT# A TO REPORT# 3-lD City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 123 3.2.2 Institutional, Commercial and Industrial (IC&I) The IC&I sector comprises of institutions (government, schools, hospitals, churches, museums, and other public buildings), office buildings, retail and food service establishments, and industrial facilities. It also includes apartments and condominiums in this analysis for reasons discussed in residential Section 3.2.1. This sector accounts for the largest portion of total community GHG emissions. In 2008, it generated 40% of emissions. Table 8 shows the IC&I energy consumption, energy cost and eC02 emissions on an absolute and per capita basis. From 1995 to 2008, total energy consumption and eC02 emissions have significantly increased by 65% and 88%, respectively. As in the residential sector, the difference between the two measures can be attributed to the change to the provincial electricity eC02 coefficient from 1995 to 2006. Per capita energy consumption and GHG emissions seems to have leveled out between 2007 and 2008. This may be due to the effects of the recession starting in 2008 when some businesses started to reduce production and occupancy rates for commercial space declined, all of which affect energy consumption. Table 8: IC&I Energy Consumption, Energy Cost and GHG Emissions Target IC&I 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 Energy Use (GJ) 2,824,208 3,129,453 4,116,109 4,237,261 4,575,631 4,650,879 3,855,410 Per Capita Energy 36.1 34.4 45.2 46.4 50.0 50.1 27.3 Energy Costs ($'000) N/A $50,790 $93,297 $94,532 $100,659 $106,403 $88,204 Per Capita Energy Costs /ca ita N/A 558 $1,025 $1,034 $1,099 $1,147 625 eC02 Emissions (t) 127,020 171,437 228,462 217,037 234,773 238,640 261,507 Per Capita eC02 1.62 1.88 2.51 2.37 2.56 2.57 1.85 19 ATTACHMENT# EZE pndRT# 0-S06-'D City of Pickering = Energy and GHG Sus-&Ii ity In ica 6?_ 124 3.2.3 Transportation The transportation sector includes travel by all Pickering residents in personal vehicles and public transportation vehicles, but not rail, marine or air transportation as per PCP protocol. It also includes commercial vehicles used by Pickering businesses and institutions based on provincial proxy data. The total vehicle kilometers traveled is then used to calculate fuel and emission data based on average fuel efficiencies for different classes of vehicles. In 2008, transportation. accounted for the third largest portion of total community GHG emissions generating 27% of emissions. Table 9 shows the transportation consumption, energy cost and eC02 emissions on an absolute and per capita basis. From 1995 to 2008, total transportation fuel consumption and eC02 emissions increased by 9%. However, on a per capita basis, energy and eC02 emissions declined by 8% showing a reversal of an increasing per capita trend from 1995 to 2994. Total energy costs in the transportation sector have risen significantly. On a per capita basis, costs have risen by 31 % from 2004 to 2008, a large portion of which is attributable to the high fuel prices in the first three quarters of 2008. Table 9: Transportation Energy Consumption, Cost and GHG Emissions Target Transportation 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 Energy Use (GJ) 2,181,374 2,668,590 2,421,552 2,336,059 2,340,864 2,371,867 3,312,696 Per Capita Energy 27.9 29.3 26.6 25.6 25.6 25.6 23.5 Energy Costs ($1000) N/A $55,952 $60,582 $61,501 $63,573 $75,008 $104,761 Per Capita Energy Costs /ca ita N/A 615 666 673 694 808 742 eC02 Emissions (t) 150,048 183,591 166,760 160,872 161,203 163,338 227,904 Per Capita eC02 1.92 2.02 1.83 1.76 1.76 1.76 1.62 20 ATTACHMENT#-z -TO REPORT -10 City of Pickering Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 125 3.2.4 Waste The community waste sector includes all waste collected by Durham Region from residents, institutions and businesses within Pickering. It also includes waste collected by private companies from institutions and businesses except industrial waste and construction and demolition waste as very little of the organic portion of this waste ends up in municipal landfills and industrial landfill conditions do not foster decay. As little data is available on private collection, provincial proxy data was used to add to Durham Region records. In 2008, waste accounted for 3% of total community GHG emissions. Table 10 shows the waste tonnage to landfill and eC02 emissions on an absolute and per capita basis. From 1995 to 2008, total waste to landfill and eC02 emissions were reduced by 38% through successful diversion programs. The improvements in this sector are generally permanent systemic changes based on improvements in diversion rates. Table 10 - Waste to Landfill and eC02 Emissions Target Waste 1995 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2016 Waste to Landfill (t) 64,089 71,594 52,873 43,740 39,899 39,498 60,054 Per Capita Waste 0.82 0.79 0.58 0.48 0.44 0.43 0.43 eC02 Emissions (t) 30,872 34,487 25,469 21,069 19,219 19,026 28,285 Per Capita eC02 0.39 0.38 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.21 0.20 I 21 ATTACHMENT# a TOREPORT#Dc"~9-10 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 126 4. Recommendations 4.1 Corporate Actions The key initiatives starting in late 2007 and continuing through 2010 have been a good start for the Corporation. However, in order to meet its 2016 target the City will need to more than double its annual GHG emissions reduction efforts starting in 2011. In order to meet its 2016 target, it is recommended that the City of Pickering: i) Conduct a detailed assessment of the operational and reporting functionality of the two leading energy/GHG emission management software systems (LAS EMT and York Region's EEMS) and acquire such software by mid-2010 (in order to be used for 2011 budget prioritization and decision making). ii) Designate responsibility for the energy/GHG emission coordination function. iii) Conduct full energy audits in 2010 and 2011 on 7 key facilities as identified in the 2009 Energy Management Strategy. iv) Prioritize Recreation Complex projects identified in the audit yet to be implemented and include remaining priority projects in 2011 budget. V) Conduct sustainability assessment of light duty fleet vehicles, fleet management software, and fleet procurement policies in 2010. vi) Develop a detailed PCP submission report that meets the requirements of PCP milestones 4 & 5 for corporate operations. This will. include the corporate section of this report plus the following: a. For milestone 4, a detailed assessment of corporate actions in the Local Action Plan including what has been completed, what needs to be done, and changes in focus. b. For milestone 4, a detailed plan on how to narrow the gap between current status and the 2016 target. c. For milestone 5, a detailed plan for future monitoring and reporting and how this integrates with the sustainability indicators. The submission would be significantly strengthened by the City's commitment to energy and GHG management software. i 22 ATTACHMENT# Q TO REPORT #I -Its City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 127 4.2 Community Actions. Over the last 15 years, the per capita GHG emissions have fluctuated up and down between 6.4 and 7.0 t/person without any sign of real progress. In fact, the 2008 GHG emissions are the same as the 1995 baseline year at 6.5 t/person. Per capita energy consumption shows similar fluctuations with a small reduction in 2008 energy consumption of 3% from the 1995 baseline of 118 GJ/person. While the emphasis has been placed on corporate initiatives over the last two years, the community requires dedicated focus in order to catalyze and support initiatives to significantly reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions. In order to successfully engage the community, it is recommended that the City of Pickering: i) Research and develop refined performance indicators within each key sector (residential, IC&I, transportation, and waste) in order to measure meaningful performance. ii) Report sector performance indicators as part of the community energy and GHG emission sustainability indicator report. iii) Develop and prioritize key sector energy and GHG reduction initiatives as part of the Community Challenge. iv) Develop a PCP submission report that meets the requirements of PCP milestones 4 & 5 for the community. This will include: a. For milestone 4, a detailed assessment of community actions in the Local Action Plan (milestone 3) including what has been completed, what needs to be done, and changes in focus. b. For milestone 4, a detailed plan on how to narrow the gap between current status and the 2016 target including quantification of major initiatives in (ii) above. c. For milestone 5, a plan for continual future monitoring and reporting and how this integrates with the sustainability indicators report. 23 i ATTACH MENT#-a_TOREPORT #,5a.,c )-lo City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 128 Appendix A - Corporate Energy and GHG By Sector Sector Energy and GHG Year Parameters 1995 1999 2004 2007 2008 2016 2016 BAU Target Forecast Buildings Energy Use (GJ) 74,981 69,943 79,509 83,810 85,087 129,117 67,509 Per Capita Energy 0.96 0.81 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.48 GHG (t eC02) 3,242 4,421 4,198 4,176 4,239 6,433 4,694 Per Capita GHG 0.041 0.051 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.046 0.033 % Per Capita Change 24% 11% 10% 10% 10% -20% Streetlights Energy Use (GJ) 16,599 18,165 20,224 22,146 20,395 34,118 14,930 Per Capita Energy 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.11 GHG (t eC02) 585 1,352 1,124 1,107, 1,020 1,706 1,304 Per Capita GHG 0.007 0.016 0.012 0.012 0.011 0.012 0.009 % Per Capita Change 110% 65% 62% 47% 62% 24% Fleet Energy Use (GJ) 12,862 16,306 17,118 18,514 18,050 28,523 11,518 Per Capita Energy 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.19 0.20 0.08 GHG (t eC02) 897 1,137 1,199 1,293 1,259 1,992 807 Per Capita GHG 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.006 % Per Capita Change 15% 15% 23% 18% 23% -50% Corporate Waste to Landfill (t) 641 710 716 598 592 922 576 Waste GHG (t eC02) 309 342 345 288 285 444 278 Per Capita GHG 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002 % Per Capita Change 1% -4% -20% -22% -20% -50% Total Energy Use (GJ) 104,442 104,414 116,852 124,471 123,531 191,757 93,957 % Change from 1995 0.0% 11.9% 19.2% 18.3% 83.6% -10.0% Per Capita Energy 1.33 1.21 1.28 1.36 1.35 1.36 0.67 % Per Capita Change -9% -4% 2% 1% 2% -50% Total GHG (t eC02) 5,032 7,252 6,865 6,864 6,803 10,575 7,083 % Change from 1995 44.1% 36.4% 36.4% 35.2% 110.2% 40.8% Per Capita GHG 0.064 0.084 0.075 0.075 0.074 0.075 0.050 % Per Capita Change 31% 17% 17% 16% 17% -22% Total Energy Costs ($'000) $1,436 $1,487 $2,233 $2,478 $2,645 $3,997 $1,959 Est. Savings ($'000) $2,039 24 ATTACHMENT #_a-_T0 REPORT #D -I0 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 129 Appendix B - Corporate Initiatives by Facility / Function Location/ Initiative First Full Energy Cost GHG Total % GHG Function Year Savings Savings Savings GHG in Savings Impact (GJ/y) ($/y) (t/y) 2007 from 2007 t/ Facilities Civic Relamping 2008 1,830 $31,375 91.7 Complex HVAC upgrades (3) 2010 1,122 $35,605 55.9 HVAC upgrades (3) 2011 1,068 $16,964 82.7 Total 4,020 $83,944 230.3 810 28.4% Recreation Auto. Systems (2) 2009 232 $4,663 11.5 Complex Catalytic converters 2010 - $0 4.8 HVAC upgrades (2) 2010 1,602 $33,220 79.1 HVAC upgrades (3) 2011 402 $11,711 20.1 Total 2,236 $49,594 115.6 1,654 7.0% Don Beer Catalytic converters 2010 - $0 4.8 HVAC Upgrades 2011 1,448 '$33,357 71.7 Green roof 2011 559 $12,990 27.9 Total 2,007 $46,347 104.4 508 20.6% i West Shore HVAC upgrade 2008 174 $2,060 8.6 Building upgrade 2011 56 $1,663 2.8 Total 231 $3,723 11.4 27 42.0% East Shore Relamping 2010 17 $432 0.9 Building upgrade 2011 502 $5,922 24.7 Total 519 $6,354 25.6 157 16.4% Greenwood Fuel switch 2009 34 $1,771 4.2 7 56.1% Library Dunbarton Building upgrade 2010 2,381 $58,120 117.5 235 50.00/0 Pool Total Initiatives By Year 2008 2,004 $33,435 100 2.4% Facilities 2009 265 $6,434 16 0.4% 2010 5,123 $127,377 263 6.3% Initiatives To-date 7,393 $167,246 379 4,176 9.10/0 Projects in 2010 2011 4,035 $82,607 230 5.50/0 Total thru 2010 11,428 $249,853 609 4,176 14.6% 25 r ATTACHMENT#_a__.TO REPORT#bS.Da -10 City of Pickering - Energy and GHG Sustainability Indicators 130 Location/ Initiative First Full Energy Cost GHG Total % GHG Function Year Savings Savings Savings GHG in Savings Impact (GJ/y) ($/y) (t/y) 2007 from 2007 (t/y) Fleet Fuel Efficient Hybrid Ford Escape-5 2008 102 .$3,233 6.9 0.6% Vehicles Emissions Lawn mowers & Snow 2011 4.2 0.3% Controls Total thru 2010 102 $3,233 11 1,221 0.90/0 Streetli hts Traffic Relamp with LED's 2009 374 $10,901 19 40% Lights Relamp with LED's 2010 420 $12,217 21 45% Total Traffic Lights 794 $23,118 40 47 850/0 Total Total Streetlights 794 $23,118 40 1107 3.6% Grand Total. Grand Total Initiatives by Year 2008 2,106 $36,668 107 2.0% 2009 640 $17,335 34 0.7% 2010 5,543 $139,593 284 5.4% Initiatives To-date 8,289 $193,597 426 5,283 8.10/0 Projects im2010 2011 4,035 $82,607, 234 4.4% Total Projects thru 2010 12,324 $276,204 660 5,283 12.5% i 26