Climate Change. Climate Change: Cause, Effect and Recommendations to Mitigate its Effects in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Region

Transcription

1 Climate Change Think Globally - Lead Locally Climate Change: Cause, Effect and Recommendations to Mitigate its Effects in the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Region Climate Change Team The George Washington University Regional Executive Development Program - Cohort 6 Dennis Bailey, MWCOG Justin Clarke, Arlington County Kathleen Schramm, City of Alexandria Laurie Wilson, Prince William County Lupita Marcos-Rubio, Fairfax County Needham Kelly, Jr., Fairfax County Sponsor Department of Environmental Programs, MWCOG

2 Climate Change: Cause, Effect and Recommendations to Mitigate its Effects in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Region Table of Contents Executive Summary Goals for COG Members by Benchmarks of Success in Introduction... 4 Background... 4 Research, Scope and Methodology... 5 Stakeholders... 5 Preliminary Findings... 5 General Trends Memberships and Baseline Data Energy Efficiency Renewable Energy Transportation Alternatives Land Use Solid Waste Outreach and Education Recommendations Steps to Climate Change Leadership Phase 1: Goals for COG Members by Phase 2: Benchmarks of Success in Appendices and Contacts Appendix I: Compendium of Current Initiatives to Mitigate Climate Change in The Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area Appendix II: Climate Change Survey Tool Appendix III: Climate Change Brochure Appendix IV: Survey Contacts Appendix V: Research Materials and References Appendix VI: Criteria Table Appendix VII: Acknowledgements 1 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

3 Climate Change: Cause, Effect and Recommendations to Mitigate its Effects in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Region Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to identify practices that would aid the jurisdictions of the National Capital Region in addressing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions from current industry, household, transportation and agriculture practices are very likely the main cause of recently observed climate change. Although a global concern, climate change has real implications for every region of the world and, most certainly, the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. There is no one solution for climate change, and no one region can act alone to remedy the implications of climate change. The metropolitan Washington D.C. governments can play a leadership role in promoting climate change initiatives. Although a few innovative energy reducing and low carbon systems have been put to use in the area, there is little region-specific information available on how local jurisdictions should apply their resources to help solve the problem. As part of the Washington Council of Governments (COG) Institute for Regional Excellence, a team of six managers from the COG region addressed the issue of Climate Change with a goal of creating a better understanding of the status of climate change programs in the region. The foundation of this work was a survey developed to identify current efforts, which was sent to all 21 member jurisdictions of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Seventeen responses were received, compiled and analyzed. The survey was conducted from September 1 to November 15, Following a review of national and international trends in climate change action programs, the survey was grouped into six sections: 1) energy efficiency, 2) renewable energies, 3) transportation alternatives, 4) land use, 5) solid waste and 6) outreach and education. Information from the survey was assembled into a compendium of local practices to facilitate a better understanding of the state of the issue in the region and to aid jurisdictions in developing policies that address the causes of climate change. Among the most relevant findings of the survey were that jurisdictions are having a hard time tracking the cost and effectiveness of current initiatives. The initiatives are mostly funded with local monies. Only a few jurisdictions reported receiving State or Federal funds for some of their initiatives. The most commonly referred initiatives were recycling, purchasing of fuel-efficient vehicles, and wind energy. Surprisingly, only 41 percent of jurisdictions have education and outreach plans in place. Based on these findings, the Climate Change Team developed a total of eight recommended steps or actions for the National Capital Region, with the ultimate goal of establishing the region as a national and international leader in responding to the climate change crisis. The goals are divided into two distinct phases, each with four items. Although response to these recommendations need not be in a specific order within each phase, the two phases were developed to first guide the region in establishing broad climate change policy and then, in the second phase, implement those policies to achieve specific action targets. 1. Goals for COG Members by 2010 All COG Members join a national or international Climate Change Group. Implement Climate Change Educational Programs. Establish Regular Climate Change Summits for Residents and Business. Create a National Capital Region Climate Change Action Alliance. 2 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

4 2. Benchmarks of Success in 2015 All COG members establish a CO2 emission baseline 25 percent of all purchased energy is purchased from renewable sources. 100 percent alternative fuel or hybrid for fleet replacement. 50 percent of all waste streams are recycled. In conclusion, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan region operates a number of successful climate change programs, but further initiatives need to be explored and put in place to mitigate its effects. The Washington D.C. metropolitan region jurisdictions must work together to maximize the effectiveness of their initiatives and become world leaders in the area of climate change. 3 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

5 Introduction Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, household, transportation and agriculture practices contribute to climate change. There is no one solution for climate change, and no one region can remedy its impact. Because the nation s capital is in our region, the actions of local governments can gain national exposure. For those actions to be effective, they need to be coordinated across the region. In its role as a clearing house among local jurisdictions, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) can be the catalyst necessary for concerted action to respond to the challenges posed by climate change. The purpose of this report is to identify practices that would help local jurisdictions address greenhouse gas emissions. Recommendations are based on a review of national and international best practices and a detailed survey of initiatives in the National Capital Region (NCR). A survey was developed to identify current efforts and sent to all 21 member jurisdictions. Conducted from September 1 to November 15, 2007, the survey addressed a range of topics, including energy efficiency, renewable energy, transportation alternatives, land use, solid waste, outreach and education. Results of the local survey have been compiled into a compendium to facilitate a better understanding of greenhouse gas emissions and to aid jurisdictions in the formulation of policies that can reduce emissions. Background Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth s atmosphere. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere; others result from human activities. The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. Studies show that human activity increases the greenhouse effect primarily through the release of carbon dioxide, but human influences on other greenhouse gases can also be important. Some of the main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity include: Burning of fossil fuels and deforestation that lead to higher carbon dioxide concentrations Livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill or septic system emissions that lead to higher methane atmospheric concentrations Use of chlorofluorocarbons (cfcs) in refrigeration systems, and use of cfcs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes Agricultural activities, including fertilizers that lead to higher nitrous oxide concentrations. The result of the greenhouse effect is ultimately a larger phenomenon called Climate Change. Climate change has been associated with increased temperature extremes (long droughts and devastating rains) as well as storms with escalating intensities. Melting ice in Polar Regions may lead to sea level rise, something that will have adverse impacts on many NCR jurisdictions. Reduced air quality via emissions from fossil fuel consumption and hotter summers due to climate change are likely to lead to health concerns. Temperature changes can impact crop and food production (including fish and shellfish) and affect the viability of local food resources. Higher temperatures will increase the demand for electrical power to cool homes, offices and other enclosed structures. That demand will likely be met by the use of power plants powered by fossil fuels. Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally 4

6 Research, Scope and Methodology Research was conducted at a national and international level to identify jurisdictions where initiatives to mitigate climate change are in place. These jurisdictions included Chicago, Illinois; Seattle, Washington; and Austin, Texas. The appendix includes a full list of jurisdictions and organization websites researched. At an international level, the Stern Report in the United Kingdom and the U.N. report on Climate Change were reviewed. This research led to the formulation of the survey tool that was provided to the 21 jurisdictions in our region. The project team and sponsors had three key goals for data collection: 1. To gather enough information to develop a compendium that would outline initiatives, projects and policies the jurisdictions currently have in place to mitigate the effects of climate change. 2. To determine the scope of those initiatives relative to comparable efforts elsewhere in this country and abroad. 3. To develop recommendations that the jurisdictions could implement, both near term and longer term. To enable jurisdictions to make effective use of this data, the group determined that the resulting compendium must: Contain information, not discrete data, which can be used for policy direction and analysis Be comprehensive for the COG region with information from as many COG member jurisdictions as possible Target user needs and critical issues Be presented in a user friendly and attractive format The survey was sent to all 21 member jurisdictions; 17 responded. Each response entailed a significant effort by the jurisdiction, which needed to consult multiple departments and subject matter experts to gather and compile the information requested by the survey. Stakeholders Everyone has a stake in mitigating the effects of climate change. The health of individuals will be adversely affected by bad air and extreme temperature swings. Elected leaders of local jurisdictions have a stake in providing leadership, education and a long range view to make changes now that will benefit residents of the future. This represents a great opportunity to begin the dialogue. By exploring best practices, establishing benchmarks and working together regionally, local leaders can re-design government services, position themselves as progressive communities and manage population growth in a way that preserves land values and the quality of life within their respective communities. Preliminary Findings The jurisdictions that responded to the survey were: City of Alexandria Arlington County 5 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

7 City of Frederick College Park Fairfax County Falls Church Frederick County Gaithersburg Greenbelt Loudoun County Manassas Park Montgomery County Prince George s County Prince William County Rockville Takoma Park District of Columbia General Trends The survey tool was designed to include questions about funding, partnerships, costs and measures of success in all six6 areas of the survey. However, most respondents were unable to complete this information. In general, most funding comes from local sources. In certain areas, some Federal, State and Grant funds were also listed but as the exception rather than the norm. Some partnerships were also listed. Again, this was the exception and not the norm. Only two jurisdictions were able to specify cost in some subcategories in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy and solid waste. Some respondents expressed their difficulty in obtaining reliable information for costs and success measures because the information is fragmented among many departments that may track this data in different ways, making it difficult to aggregate and or compare. For example, many departments within the jurisdictions may use LED lighting, energy star appliances or efficient light switches. Since each department has its own line item budget, this project-based information across departments is difficult to compile. A few respondents indicated they have some sort of plan to address the cost and measures issue in the near future. Other at-a-glance trends: Most jurisdictions have one to several types of fuel-efficient vehicles although the number of vehicles and type varies widely among jurisdictions. All jurisdictions that responded to the survey have a recycling program and find it successful. Few of the jurisdictions seem to be doing strategic efforts for outreach and education. Some periodic efforts are listed but they do not seem to be coordinated. Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally 6

8 Cost increases or savings was rarely mentioned throughout. It could be recommended that cost is tracked as a future metric. Short and long-term bases are needed to determine the efficiency of the programs. Few (just two) new FTEs have been hired directly in coordination with global warming efforts throughout the region. 1. Memberships and Baseline Data This area of the survey was created to find out how many member jurisdictions belonged to a climate change organization and specifically which organizations they belonged to. Questions were also included regarding the development of baseline and emission inventory data. Survey results showed that 53 percent (or 9 out of 17) belong to a climate change organization. Of those 9, 89 percent (or 8) belong to multiple climate change organizations. Forty-one percent of jurisdictions reported being a member of the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and ICLEI and ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection. Thirty-five percent reported participating in the US Mayor s Climate Protection Agreement, 24 percent in Cool Cities, 18 percent in Cool Counties, 6 percent in the Climate Registry and 6 percent in the Cool Capital Challenge. Twenty-nine percent of jurisdictions have already developed a baseline and have developed an emission inventory. No jurisdictions reported belonging to the Chicago Climate Exchange or to Drive Neutral. Additionally, results showed that some jurisdictions are beginning to use software to measure emissions but seem to be on the early stages of implementation. Table 1 Memberships and Baseline Data Has your jurisdiction joined/is it a member of: Climate Registry 6% Cities for Climate Protection Campaign 41% ICLEI/ and ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection 41% Cool Cities 24% Cool Counties 18% US Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement 35% Chicago Climate Exchange 0% Cool Capital Challenge 6% Drive Neutral 0% Other Program 0% Has your jurisdiction developed a baseline? 29% Has your jurisdiction developed an emission inventory? 29% Source: 2007 Climate Change Survey Percent Yes (n=17) Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally 7

9 2. Energy Efficiency The fastest and least expensive way to reduce pollution from global warming is to increase energy efficiency for appliances, industrial equipment and buildings. This second area of the survey was intended to identify the types of energy efficiency initiatives currently being utilized by member jurisdictions. Survey results showed 53 percent of jurisdictions use energy star appliances, LED lighting, and programmable thermostats; 59 percent reported using compact fluorescent lighting. Forty-seven percent reported having efficient windows and doors, 41 percent use insulation and weatherization and 35 percent have green roofs/cool roofs and energy performance contracting. Twenty-nine percent have green building codes and incentives, high efficiency heating and air conditioning and wise water use. Twenty-four percent have ground source heat pumps and 18 percent have clean fuel boilers and furnaces and efficient motors. Jurisdictions using these energy efficient initiatives report saving energy and cost, but were not always able to report the exact level of energy reduction or cost savings. There is a need to identify mechanisms to improve the tracking of energy reduction and cost savings. Table 2 Energy Efficiency Does your jurisdiction participate in any of the following: Energy Star/Appliance Efficiency Standards 53% Green Building Codes and Incentives 29% Green Roofs/Cool Roofs 35% Energy Performance Contracting 35% LED Lighting 53% Compact Fluorescents 59% Ground Source Heat Pumps 24% High Efficiency Heating and Air Conditioning 29% Clean Fuel Boilers and Furnaces (natural gas, biodiesel) 18% Efficient Windows and Doors 47% Efficient Motors 18% Occupancy Light Switches 35% Programmable Thermostats 53% Insulation and Weatherization 41% Wise Water Use 29% Source: 2007 Climate Change Survey Percent Yes (n=17) Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally 8

10 3. Renewable Energy This third area of the survey targeted information about types of renewable energy programs in the member jurisdictions. Sixty-five percent of respondents are currently purchasing a percentage of their energy from a renewable source. Wind energy is the most purchased commodity primarily because the region has access to nearby wind power generation. Wind Energy is a popular source of renewable energy as it produces no polluting emissions. Forty-one percent reported using a type of renewable energy source; 12 percent have a clean energy rewards program. One jurisdiction also purchases geothermal energy. The percent of renewable energy purchased ranges from 3 to 11 percent of the total energy purchased by each jurisdiction. Table 3 Renewable Energy What renewable energy programs does your jurisdiction have? Green or renewable power purchase 65% Renewable energy use 41% Clean energy rewards program 12% Wind 24% Percent Yes (n=17) % of consumption 3-10% usage range Solar 0% Geothermal 6% % of consumption 1% Range Goals? Source: 2007 Climate Change Survey 10% Use in general 4. Transportation Alternatives Gasoline burning vehicles are a major contributor to the creation of carbon dioxide and global warming. This area of the survey was designed to identify the various transportation alternatives like fleet operations, commuting and transit planning programs, and type of fleet in the participating jurisdictions. Survey results showed that a wide variety of fleet operations are in place in member jurisdictions. Fiftythree percent have a clean fuel vehicle procurement policy while twenty-nine percent have special refueling stations for ethanol and natural gas. Fifty-nine percent of jurisdictions have telecommuting programs and provide incentives to increase transit use, and 71 percent have bicycle initiatives. Fiftythree percent have carpooling/vanpools and 47 percent plan to expand their transit system. Survey findings show that: 6 percent use electric vehicles, 18 percent use natural gas vehicles, 24 percent use bio-diesel vehicles, 41 percent use ethanol powered vehicles and 71 percent use hybrid vehicles. Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally 9

11 Table 4 Transportation Alternatives Which of the following fleet operations are in place in your jurisdiction? Improve Vehicle Gas Mileage 47% Improve Fleet Gas Mileage 41% Reduced Idling (cars, trucks, buses, etc) 41% Recharging Stations (Electric) 0% Special Refueling Stations (Ethanol, Natural Gas) 29% Clean Fuel Vehicle Procurement Policy 53% Percent Yes (n=17) What commuting and transit planning programs are in place? Telecommuting Programs 59% Planned Expansion of Transit System 47% Transit Incentives to Increase Use 59% Carpooling/Vanpools 53% Bicycle Initiatives (routes, lanes, facilities) 71% What of the following are used in your jurisdiction? Natural Gas Vehicles 18% Number of Natural Gas Vehicles Type vehicles Biodiesel Vehicles 24% Range from 7 to 100 vehicles Bus, admin fleet, car, vans, trucks Number Range from 14 to 400 Type Trucks, light trucks, buses, dump trucks, loader, compressor, etc % of Fleet Range % of Fleet Ethanol Powered Vehicles 41% Number Range from Type All type of vehicles % of Fleet Range from % Hybrid Vehicles 71% Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally 10

12 Table 4 Transportation Alternatives Number Type Percent Yes (n=17) Ranges from 1-94 vehicles All types of vehicles, mostly sedans % fleet Range from 1-25% Electric Vehicles 6% Number Range 0-3 Type % of Fleet 0% Source: 2007 Climate Change Survey Off Road Vehicles 5. Land Use Land use decisions made today are perhaps the most important, long-term environmental issues facing our country. Greater energy efficiency can be achieved through better land use management. This area of the survey was designed to identify what types of alternative land use initiatives were being implemented in the member jurisdictions. Eighty-eight percent of jurisdictions are involved in Transit Oriented Development, and 82 percent have pedestrian initiatives. Seventy-one percent have green infrastructure, and 65 percent have programs to control growth and development. Thirty-eight percent have urban heat mitigation. While jurisdictions report that funding for initiatives is a combination of state, federal, local and grant funding, more information is needed about overall funding of alternative land use initiatives. Table 5 Land Use Which of these land use programs are implemented in your jurisdiction? Transit Orient Development (TOD) 88% How is TOD Funded? What are your TOD partners? Pedestrian Initiatives 82% How are your pedestrian initiatives funded? Programs to control growth or development 65% How are your growth control programs funded? Green Infrastructure 71% 11 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally Percent Yes (n=17) Some state, fed, grant and private funding. Mostly local Some partnerships (minimal info) Mostly local. Some grant and other Mostly local. Some grant and other

13 Table 5 Land Use How are your green infrastructure programs funded? Urban Heat Mitigation (UHM) 38% How are these UHM programs funded? Source: 2007 Climate Change Survey Percent Yes (n=17) Mostly local. Some grant and other Mostly local. Some grant and other 6. Solid Waste Every year, the United States generates approximately 230 million tons of trash or solid waste about 4.6 pounds per person per day. Less than 25 percent is recycled, and the rest is incinerated or buried in landfills. With little effort, more that 70 percent of the landfill waste could be reused or recycled. This area of the survey targeted information about solid waste initiatives in member jurisdictions. One hundred percent of the jurisdictions reported participating in a recycling program, and 59 percent reported participating in a composting program. Forty-one percent reported having a waste to energy facility, and forty-one percent reported having a landfill gas recovery program. Twenty-four percent have a refrigerant recovery and a refrigerant leak detection and repair initiative while 12 percent have both an old car purchasing program and alternative solvent use program. Table 6 Solid Waste Which general programs does your jurisdiction participate in? Recycling Programs 100% Composting 59% Old Car Purchasing Programs (Cash for Clunkers) 12% Waste to Energy Facility (or Facilities) 41% What are your jurisdiction's gas mitigation programs? Landfill Gas Recovery (Methane) 41% Refrigerant Recovery 24% Refrigerant Leak Detection and Repair 24% Alternative Solvent Use 12% Source: 2007 Climate Change Survey Percent Yes (n=17) 7. Outreach and Education Education of the public at large, young and old, as to the primary causes and impact of climate change, the benefits of energy reduction and the importance of recycling is imperative. Outreach and education to the community, business and children in schools can have great impact in the future mitigating the effects of climate change. This area of the survey was designed to identify what initiatives the member 12 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

14 jurisdictions have in place. Surprisingly, survey results revealed less than 40 percent of the jurisdictions have outreach programs for the general public and less than 25 percent have outreach programs for businesses. Thirty-five percent make an effort to turn off unused electrical devices, and 29 percent turn down thermostats. There are certainly opportunities to enhance public outreach and education in all of the jurisdictions. Table 7 Outreach and Education What are your jurisdiction's climate change outreach and education programs? General Climate Change Outreach (Public) 35% General Climate Change Outreach (Business Community) 24% Turn Down Thermostats 29% Turn off Unused Electrical Devises 35% Buy Locally Produced Food 47% Reduce Unnecessary Trips 35% Source: 2007 Climate Change Survey Percent Yes (n=17) Overall, the survey results illustrate that the jurisdictions in the COG region have established a wide array of climate change mitigation programs. Most jurisdictions have just begun to track progress of these initiatives and have not yet documented financial requirements. The initiatives in place in the Washington DC metropolitan region jurisdictions in reducing carbon emissions are comparable to what is happening in the rest of the nation. However, these efforts are still insufficient to mitigate the effects of climate change. Research showed most jurisdictions nationally and internationally are addressed at the individual level. Data about regional approaches was limited. A coordinated regional response would put the National Capital region ahead of the curve in response to global warming, making our region a leader in the nation. Recommendations Moving from existing programs that may be associated with climate change or carbon reduction to a regional, coordinated, government-based approach to climate change will require significant commitment at all levels of government throughout the Metropolitan Washington Region. The study conducted by the Climate Change Team sought insight into proposed recommendations from a baseline study of current national and international programs but determined that its recommendations would best serve the needs of the region by focusing on the initiation of climate change momentum in the region. Recommendations were also developed in concert with COG staff suggestions. Three guiding criteria led to the recommendations described below. First, strategies must have proven their effectiveness in other metropolitan areas. Although the NCR will likely initiate climate change mitigation unique to this region, this study focused on leveraging existing programs to launch the NCR into a leadership role in climate change mitigation. The fastest way to do this is through the application of ready-to-use technology, established systems and politically viable programs. The second criterion for recommendations is that results must be measurable. Climate change programs and associated greenhouse gas mitigation are inherently quantifiable. Our survey noted that although Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally 13

15 cost savings and greenhouse gas reductions can be measured, most jurisdictions in the region do not have documentation systems in place to fully measure the impacts of their programs. Measurement systems must be put into place to track progress and legitimize established goals related to ameliorating climate change. Finally, recommendations must have minimal budgetary impact when implemented. Despite the success of many new technologies and sweeping climate change initiatives, government agencies are likely to filter new initiatives through a budgetary screen. Practical, low cost initiatives should have priority over complex and costly solutions. Steps to Climate Change Leadership The Climate Change Team developed a total of eight recommended steps or actions for the National Capital Region, with the ultimate goal of establishing the region as a national and international leader in responding to the climate change crisis. The goals are divided into two distinct phases, each with four items. Although response to these recommendations need not be in a specific order within each phase, the two phases were developed to first guide the region in establishing broad climate change policy and then, in the second phase, implement those policies to achieve specific action targets. The team envisions that the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments will take the lead in coordinating these initiatives through an extension of its Climate Change Steering Committee. COG s leadership will be critical in the first phase although action will be necessary at the jurisdictional level to meet the targets proposed for the second phase. The two phases are described below. Phase 1: Goals for COG Members by 2010 All COG Members join a national or international Climate Change Group. Joining a national (such as Cool Counties) or international (similar to ICLEI) climate change group will allow jurisdictions to link together to exchange ideas, information and discuss possible actions to raise government and public awareness of climate change issues that must be addressed immediately. Many of these groups provide tools to address climate change, such as ICLEI s software that can be used to measure greenhouse gas reduction initiatives. While communities may be reluctant to join national groups that some may view as out of step with local initiatives, the goal is to get all jurisdictions involved at some level. There are many climate change groups with different goals. It is not so important what organization jurisdictions join initially. The main objective in this step is to get jurisdictions to begin thinking about climate change and introduce them to networks of climate change solutions. Implement Climate Change Educational Programs. An effective education program develops skills knowledge and values that promote behavior in support of a sustainable environment. It is not confined to formal schooling. It also occurs in a wide range of nonformal education settings at work and at home. Cost for educational programs may vary, but existing media and public notice channels should be used whenever possible to reduce new expenses. The key to climate change education programs is coordinated methods that minimize discussion of common myths while aiming to activate the public and business community. COG should take leadership here. Its proven track record on programs such as Ozone Awareness Days should facilitate success. 14 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

16 Establish Regular Climate Change Summits for Residents and Business. COG should help to coordinate Regional Climate Change Summits with participation from experts from the corporate, academic, government, and financial sectors. Climate Change science and mitigating technology are changing daily. Summits will serve to facilitate the sharing of practical solutions and innovative response to challenges. For example, the City of Rockville could share details of its use of waste fuel oil as a heating source. This is a leading recommendation based on our established criteria. Climate Change summits include the sharing of proven strategies, describe and illustrate measurable results, and are designed to minimize budgetary impact through the sharing of ideas avoiding costly research or failed initiatives. Create a National Capital Region Climate Change Action Alliance. Leading the response to climate change will require the NCR to attain lofty and comprehensive goals. A formal agreement with participation throughout the region is necessary to move the discussion from idea sharing to unified, measurable success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and softening the impending impacts of climate change. Significant precedence exists in New England states and other metro areas. Increased political awareness with regard to climate policies may mandate some form of climate agreement within the next few years. Broader civil alliances including environmental, development, faith-based and other types of organizations have been organized and successful in implementing climate change policy. All these groups should be included in the NCR Action Alliance. This alliance may be the most difficult of the first phase recommendations to achieve. The key to success will be to incrementally reach consensus on difficult issues with regular meetings to revise drafts of an Action Alliance charter. Phase 2: Benchmarks of Success in 2015 All COG members establish a CO2 emission baseline. Controlling greenhouse gas emission is fast becoming a management priority. A carbon emission profile that takes into account all activities that generate greenhouse gases, such as manufacturing and facility operations, corporate travel and energy use, is a critical first step toward developing plans to reduce emissions and track progress toward emissions targets. Until the emission baseline is established, the region will not be able to effectively measure greenhouse gas emissions. Costs for this step can be mitigated through the summits and national/international memberships described in Phase One. Twenty-five percent of all purchased energy is purchased from renewable sources. Renewable resources are essential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The five renewable energy sources used most often are solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and water (hydropower). A number of state and federal government incentives, including the Energy Policy Act of 2002 and 2005, have encouraged the production and use of renewable fuels. The use of renewable sources is limited by the fact that they are not always available at all sites. Wind power is dependent on proximity to windmill facilities, solar power may be most applicable for buildings with specific orientation, and geothermal power may be cost prohibitive for widespread use. Despite these limitations, renewable energy plays an important role in the supply of energy. When renewable energy sources are used, the demand for fossil fuels is reduced. Current renewable energy use in the NCR ranges from three to 10 percent. Although there is precedent for widespread use, no large metropolitan region in the United States is near the 25 percent mark. This may be the most costly of our recommendations, but rewards in energy diversity may reap large rewards 15 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

17 as the cost of fossil fuels continues to escalate. All segments of society from single family homes to churches and municipal buildings have a role in deciding what energy is purchased and from what source. Renewable energy will play a key in nearly all successful climate change mitigation strategies. Reaching a mark of 25 percent of energy from alternative fuels will undoubtedly put the NCR in the top echelon of climate change action. This goal is achievable only through explicit cooperation via the Climate Change Action Alliance described above, interaction and idea sharing at summits, and political leadership. One hundred percent alternative fuel or hybrid for fleet replacement. Alternative fuels are derived from resources other than petroleum. Some are produced domestically, reducing our dependence on imported oil, and some are derived from renewable sources. Often they produce less pollution than gasoline or diesel. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) combine the benefits of gasoline engines and electric motors and can be configured to obtain different objectives, such as improved fuel economy, increased power, or additional auxiliary power for electronic devices and tools. Jurisdictions can save $200 -$1500 in fuel costs each year by choosing the most efficient vehicle that meets their needs. This can add up to thousands of dollars over a vehicle s lifetime. The large challenge for this recommendation will be its application to all vehicle types. While parking enforcement may be a good fit for small lightweight HEVs, police, construction and emergency personnel may face challenges in finding alternative-fueled vehicles that meet their needs. By purchasing new vehicles that can accommodate a variety of fuel types, exchanging ideas at climate summits, and leveraging the region s collective buying power, the NCR can become a leader in innovative inclusion of alternative fueled vehicles. Fifty percent of all waste streams are recycled. Waste stream is the solid material output of a community, region or state. Recycling is the practice of recovering used materials from the waste stream and then incorporating those same materials into the manufacturing process. Successful recycling depends on manufacturers making products from recovered materials and, in turn, consumers purchasing products made of recycled material. The State of California Integrated Waste Management Act required jurisdictions to divert 50% of their waste in year Jurisdictions selected and implemented a combination of waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting programs that met the needs of their residents while achieving the diversion requirements of the Act. Given that all jurisdictions in the NCR have existing recycling programs, the region has a solid foundation from which to follow this lead. In conclusion, the Washington, D.C. metropolitan region has made progress in addressing issues climate change. However, further initiatives need to be explored and put in place to mitigate its effects. The Washington D.C. metropolitan region jurisdictions can work together to maximize the effectiveness of their initiatives and become world leaders in the area of climate change. 16 Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

18 Appendix I Climate Change Compendium of Initiatives in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

19 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 1: Memberships and Baseline Data What Established Climate Change Consortiums or Organizations does your locality participate in? Climate Registry Cities for Climate Protection Campaign ICLEI/ and ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection Cool Cities Cool Counties US Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement Chicago Climate Exchange Cool Capital Challenge Drive Neutral Other Progra % Yes 6% 41% 41% 24% 18% 35% 0% 6% 0% 0% Participating Jurisdictions District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia City of College Park Montgomery County District of Columbia District of Columbia Prince William City of College Park City of College Park City of Gaithersburg Arlington County City of College Park City of Gaithersburg City of Gaithersburg City of Rockville Fairfax County City of Gaithersburg Montgomery County Montgomery County City of Alexandria City of Rockville City of Rockville City of Rockville City of Tokoma Park City of Takoma Park City of Tokoma Park City of Alexandria Arlington County Arlington County Please comment on your jurisdictions' work to begin overall emissions analysis: Has your jurisdiction developed a baseline? Has your jurisdiction developed an emission inventory? If yes, what software was used to perform emission inventory? % Yes 29% 29% Participating Jurisdictions District of Columbia District of Columbia City of Gaithersburg City of Gaithersburg ICLEI Montgomery County Montgomery County ICLEI CACPS Modified for local needs City of Tokoma Park City of Tokoma Park ICLEI Arlington County Arlington County ICLEI's CCAP software City of Rockville Baseline inventory in process; ICLEI software, may finalize with their web based software Page 1

20 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 2: Energy Efficiency Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. Energy Star/Appliance Efficiency Standards Green Building Codes and Incentives Green Roofs/Cool Roofs Energy Performance Contracting LED Lighting Compact Fluorescents Ground Source Heat Pumps % Yes 53% 29% 35% 35% 53% 59% 24% Participating Jurisditctions District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia City of Gaithersburg City of Gaithersburg City of Gaithersburg City of Greenbelt City of College Park City of College Park City of Gaithersburg Montgomery County City of Greenbelt City of Greenbelt Rockville, Maryland Montgomery County City of Greenbelt City of Greenbelt City of Takoma Park Montgomery County Arlington County Arlington County Rockville, Maryland Montgomery County Prince William County Arlington County Arlington County City of Alexandria City of Alexandria City of Takoma Park City of Takoma Park City of Alexandria City of Falls Church City of Falls Church City of Alexandria City of Alexandria Fairfax County Fairfax County Fairfax County City of Falls Church City of Falls Church City of Falls Church Prince William County Prince William County Loudoun County Prince William County High Efficiency Heating and Air Conditioning Clean Fuel Boilers and Furnaces (natural gas, biodiesel) Efficient Windows and Doors Efficient Motors Occupancy Light Switches Programmable Thermostats Insulation and Weatherization % Yes 29% 18% 47% 18% 35% 53% 41% Participating Jurisditctions District of Columbia District of Columbia City of College Park City of Takoma Park City of Gaithersburg District of Columbia District of Columbia City of Gaithersburg City of Takoma Park City of Gaithersburg City of Falls Church City of Greenbelt City of College Park City of College Park City of Greenbelt Prince William County City of Greenbelt Prince William County City of Takoma Park City of Gaithersburg City of Greenbelt City of Falls Church City of Takoma Park City of Alexandria City of Greenbelt City of Frederick Prince William County City of Falls Church City of Falls Church City of Takoma Park Montgomery County Loudoun County Prince William County City of Falls Church Loudoun County City of Manassas Park Loudoun County Prince William County Prince William County City of Manassas Park Prince William County Wise Water Use Energy Audits % Yes 29% 29% Participating Jurisditctions City of Gaithersburg District of Columbia City of Greenbelt City of Greenbelt City of Falls Church City of Falls Church City of Manassas Park Loudoun County Prince William County Prince William County Page 2

21 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 2: Energy Efficiency - Part 2 Text Responses to Survey Questions What programs are working? City of Greenbelt Several of the energy efficient programs/technologies for which an affirmative response was given have only recently been undertaken or approved. These new initiatives reflect a commitment bu Greenbelt to implement such programs/technologies as opportunities arise. For example, the Public Works facility, for which construction is just starting, includes several technologies and strategies, such as cool roofs, ground source heat pumps, occupancy light switches. The long term efficiencies and value of these initiatives is not yet known. City of Rockville Performance contracting; City gets a guaranteed return on investment making it easier for Mayor and Councils to approve larger expenditures on upgrades. City of Takoma Park Retrofitting more efficient equipment when doing scheduled replacement. The cost is minimal. The savings are significant. City of Falls Church Fairfax County There is secondary criteria that applicants applying for approval of a special exception are expected to meet and one of those criterion are that the resulting development utilizes LEED criteria in the design of the process. Installation of Energy Management Control Systems. They turn off HVAC equipment when not in use and result in 25-50% reduction in energy consumption. Also not listed above is retrofitting Air Handling Unit Motors to use Variable Frequency Drives, and the use of lighting controls to turn off lights when buildings are not occupied. The Park Authority is in the process of hiring an Energy Manager for the development of numerous program in the near future. Programs will include lighting, HVAC systems, green building practices and energy audits. Prince William County Lighting retrofit program - Florescent light bulbs use about one half the watts of a regular light bulb. Occupancy switches. Most energy goes For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? City of Gaithersburg Considering green building code requirements. Montgomery County TBD and prioritized as part of county efforts City of Alexandria New fire station to be built will be state of the art energy efficient. Prince William County Green Building codes and incentive discussion to happen in the future How are results being measured? Some energy efficient measures have been adopted at City facilities and the City has worked with Md., SHA and PEPCO to upgrade to more efficient City of College Park street and pedestrain lighting; however, the City has not tracked the energy savings from these measures. City of Alexandria Measured as part of the performance contract. We use utility software database to track all utility bills for each facility. Unless a single initiative is undertaken at a time, we cannot quantify individual Fairfax County initiatives. However, we can see the results of all efforts we take at a particular facility by evaluating the bills before and after. City of Falls Church Energy Audits. For change a lightbulb program its in tracking the numbef of lightbulbs changed and participants in the program Page 3

22 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 3: Renewable Energy Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. Green or renewable power purchase Renewable energy use Clean energy rewards program For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? % Yes 67.41% 41.18% 11.76% Montgomery County TBD as part of ongoing efforts Participating Jurisdictions District of Columbia District of Columbia City of Gaithersburg City of Greenbelt planned a geothermal facility, not sure when City of College Park City of Greenbelt Montgomery County City of Manassas Park Geo thermal in new schools City of Gaithersburg Prince George's County Prince William County Green program Prince George's County City of Rockville Montgomery County Arlington County How are you measuring results? City of Rockville Fairfax County City of College Park The City purchases a certain percentage of wind power. City of Takoma Park Prince William County Fairfax County GATS Reporting City of Alexandria Arlington County Fairfax County Prince William County Wind Solar Geothermal % Yes Amount Used % of Conusmption % Yes Amount Used % of Conusmption % Yes Amount Used % of Conusmption 35% 6% 6% Participating Jurisdictions City of Gaithersburg Arlington County 10,000 kwh (estimate) << 1% City of Gaithersburg Montgomery County MWH 10% Prince William County 1% City of Takoma Park kwh Arlington County 4.7 million kwh/year 6% Fairfax County 5.8 kwh 5% Prince William County 3% What programs are working? Clean Energy Rewards is Montgomery County's flagship public clean energy program.the program educates, simplifies the purchasing process for consumers, and provides a smallfinancial incentive for voluntary purchases of clean energy. The program, in its first year of operation, has offsett 2,600 lbs of carbon dioxide emissions in FY2007/2008.The program has been wellreceived and if all participants in the program remain in the program for FY09 the program is expected to be nearly fully subscribed Montgomery County (approximately 31,900 MWHs of Clean Energy). Program details and procedures are available from Fairfax County Wind energy program is working and feel that benefit is that emissions are being reduced from power plants. Prince William County The wind energy program reduces CO2, it sets a good example and the county gets credits. The geothermal program is great to do; while the costs are high the pay back is phenominal. The landfill collects gas and converts it to energy. Page 4

23 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 4: Transportation Alternatives Please provide informatrion about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas: Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. 1C 2C 3C 4C 5C 6C 7C 8C 9C 10C Improve Vehicle Mileage Improving Fleet Gas Mileage Reduced Idling (Cars, trucks, buses etc.) Special Refueling Stations (Ethanol, Natural Gas Clean Fuel Vehicle Procurement Policy Telecommuting Programs Planned Expansion of Transit Systems Transit Incentives to Increase Use Carpooling or Van Pools Bicycle Initiatives (routes, lanes or facilities) % Yes 47% 41% 41% 29% 53% 59% 47% 59% 53% 71% Participating Jurisdictions District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia Montgomery County Montgomery County District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia Montgomery County Montgomery County Montgomery County Montgomery County Frederick County Frederick County Frederick County Montgomery County Montgomery County Montgomery County Frederick County Frederick County Frederick County City of Gaithersburg City of College Park Prince George's County City of Gaithersburg Frederick County Frederick County Frederick County City of Greenbelt City of Gaithersburg City of Gaithersburg City of Greenbelt City of Takoma Park City of Rockville Prince George's County City of College Park Prince George's County City of Gaithersburg Arlington County Arlington County Arlington County Arlington County Prince George's County Arlington County Arlington County Prince George's County City of Rockville City of College Park Fairfax County City of Falls Church Fairfax County Arlington County Fairfax County City of Alexandria City of Rockville Arlington County Prince George's County City of Falls Church Loudoun County City of Falls Church Fairfax County City of Alexandria City of Falls Church Arlington County City of Alexandria City of Rockville Loudoun County City of Alexandria City of Falls Church Loudoun County City of Alexandria City of Falls Church Arlington County City of Falls Church Loudoun County City of Falls Church Loudoun County Fairfax County Prince William County Loudoun County City of Alexandria City of Falls Church Prince William County Types and Numbers of Alternative Fuel Vehicles Natural Gas Vehicles 17.6% Ethanol Vehicles 41% Electric Vehicles <1% Montgomery County 100 (97 busses, 3 fleet) Montgomery County 121 light trucks Fairfax County 3 City of Greenbelt 7 (car, van, truck) Frederick County 10, 2 vans and 7 cars Arlington County 30 Prince George's County 120 sedans and SUVs Arlington County 80 Fairfax County 190 cars and light trucks City of Alexandria 40 Flex cars City of Falls Church are pick up trucks Page 5

24 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 4: Transportation Alternatives - Part 2 Text Responses to Survey Questions In the area of transportation, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? City of Greenbelt Providing opportunities for non-vehicle transit such as bike and pedestrian paths, lanes and trails Commuter Services conducts extensive outreach to employers in the County to impart awareness of commuting alternatives and the availabilty of other services and programs. FareShare and Super FareShare transit benefits programs offer employers a program that enhances employee benefits packages while also encouraging non-sov commuting alternatives. The Silver Spring, Friendship Heights, Bethesda and North Bethesda transportation management districts (TMDs) allow the County to focus its employer outreach efforts in these highly urbanized areas where alternative transportation is readily available. County is an active participant in MWCOG's Commuter Connections, which provides a venue for sharing ideas and information. Commuter Connections also serves as the clearinghouse and Montgomery County service provider for vanpool/carpool ridematching and the Guaranteed Ride Home program. City of Takoma Park Biodiesel has been a simple switch to make City of Alexandria Toyotoa Prius Purchases 13 cars get very good mileage, reliable Fairfax County Horsepower reduction on some Connector buses.** 190 cars are available to use ethanol fuel when a program is started with this fuel. Hybrids are working well and are used by different agencies. One Plug-In hybrid is in the fleetand 3 totally electric vehicles are used at a site on their roads only, not currently able to use on regular roads. Telecommuting has been very successful and county reached the goal of having 20% of the eligible workforce telecommuting on an average of one day per week. Telecommuting, transit incentive, carpooling and bicycle programs are all part of one incentive program where City employees get a certain amount of money each month if they agree to restrict the number of days they drive to work. GEORGE bus system: convenient routes for a City of Falls Church variety of users (ie. commuters, students) particularly during peak hours Loudoun County Free local bus rides on code red and orange days; car pool incentive of special parking spaces For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? City of Rockville A transportation demend management program which will reach all residents and visitors to the City will be implemented in the near future. Prince George's County Looking at biodiesel and ethanol pilots in the future; will request funding in budget How are you measuring results? City of College Park The City has one hybrid vehicle in its fleet. Fuel efficiency as compared to other fleet vehicles is the easiest measure of results. Page 6

25 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 5: Land Use Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. Land Use Initiatives Transit Oriented Development Pedestrian Initiatives such as Walkable Communities Programs to Control Growth or Development Green Infrastructure Urban Heat Island Mitigation Planning Future Initiatives % Yes (N=17) 88% 82% 65% 71% 41% 24% Participating Jurisdictions District of Columbia District of Columbia City of College Park District of Columbia District of Columbia City of Takoma Park City of College Park City of College Park City of Gaithesburg City of College Park Frederick County City of Alexandria City of Gaithesburg City of Greenbelt Frederick County City of Greenbelt Montgomery County Arlington County City of Frederick City of Frederick Montgomery County Frederick County City of Alexandria Fairfax County Frederick County Frederick County Prince George's CountyMontgomery County Arlington County Montgomery County Montgomery County City of Rockville City of Rockville City of Falls Church City of Rockville City of Rockville City of Takoma Park City of Alexandria Prince William County City of Takoma Park City of Takoma Park City of Alexandria Arlington County City of Alexandria City of Alexandria Arlington County Fairfax County Arlington County Arlington County Fairfax County City of Falls Church Fairfax County Fairfax County Prince William County Loudoun County City of Falls Church City of Falls Church Prince William County Loudoun County Cify of Manassas Park Cify of Manassas Park Prince William County Prince William County For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? Alexandria Falls Church Montgomery County Fairfax County Frederick County Master plan for Parks and Recreation; Urban Forestry. Master plan for other will regulate scale Master street tree plan For additional details contact the maryland national park and planning comission Green building practices, tree planting efforts future revisions to zoning ordinance will include T.O.D. In the area of land use, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? City of Gaithersburg The creation of a Mixed Use Development zone has enabled transit oriented dev., pedestrian programs, green infrastructure and growth control. City of Takoma Park City of Greenbelt City of Falls Church We are fairly built out and have little undeveloped space available. Our emphasis now is on improving pedestrain safety and maintaining green space. The city's ability to fully implement land use programs is limited as the city does not have planning and zoning authority. Implementation of land use initiatives is subject to ultimate approval of Prince George's County, and Greenbelt has not always agreed with plans approved by the county. Based on the history of Greenbelt, creating and maintaining safe options for walking is valuable in reducing vehicle trips and also supports the social growth of TOD, Pedestrian and Green Infrastructure because they part of criteria that developers try to meet for special exception approvals. Page 7

26 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 6: Solid Waste Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. General Programs Gas Mitigation Programs Recycling Programs Composting Old Car Purchasing Programs (Cash for Clunkers) Waste to Energy Facility (or Facilities) Landfill Gas Recovery (Methane) Refrigerant Recovery Refrigerant Leak Detection and Repair Alternative Solvent Use % Yes (N=17) 100% 59% 12% 41% 41% 24% 24% 12% District of Columbia City of Greenbelt Montgomery County District of Columbia City of Greenbelt District of Columbia District of Columbia City of Greenbelt City of College Park Frederick County City of Takoma Park City of Greenbelt Montgomery County City of Greenbelt Prince George's CountyCity of Alexandria City of Gaithesburg Montgomery County City of Manassas Park Montgomery County Arlington County Montgomery County Arlington County City of Greenbelt City of Rockville Arlington County Fairfax County Arlington County Fairfax County City of Frederick City of Takoma Park Fairfax County City of Falls Church Frederick County City of Alexandria City of Manassas Park City of Manassas Park Montgomery County Fairfax County City of Manassas Park City of Manassas Park Prince George's CountyLoudoun County City of Rockville City of Manassas Park City of Takoma Park City of Manassas Park City of Alexandria Arlington County Fairfax County City of Falls Church Loudoun County City of Manassas Park City of Manassas Park For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? City of Greenbelt Waste to energy facility currently being studied with proposals presented to Brd. of Commissioners in late '07 City of Alexandria Enhanced refrigerant recovery & leak detection is needed In the area of solid waste, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? Frederick County The city's recycling program is successful. The city offers a yard waste disposal and composting area, where residents can bring their yard waste. The success of this facility is difficult to measure in objective terms, but from volume of material brought to the compost area, it appears to be well used. Prince George's County We are in the process of switching over to single-stream recycling, as well as revamping our refuse program. We believe that single-stream recycling should encourage a much greater recycling rate for our residents, while simultaneously leading to a higher quality recycled product. We also collect the waste oil from fleet maintenance activities and burn it to heat the facility in the winter. City of Rockville Recycling program has been integrated into the day to day routine for residents. The county is in the process of using landfill gas generated at the closed I-66 Sanitary Landfill as a fuel source to heat county building at the West Ox Campus. Radiant heaters are in place that can be converted to burn LFG Arlington County as was done for the shop building at the I-95 Landfill. The county's recycling programs are very well received and very successful. Recycling and waste reduction. Curbside rebate for 2006 was $34, Cost of disposal is $48/ton and we recycled 1335 tons, saving $64,080 in disposal fees. Total = 98, Our collection contract is $139,039. That Fairfax County is a total loss of $40,209 or $12.81 per household cost for recycling services. Prince William County Recycling and composting programs divert amounts of waste from landfill disposal. Waste to energy makes electricity from waste. Landfill gas recovery treats greenhouse gases and makes power. Page 8

27 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 7: Outreach and Education Programs Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. General Climate Change Outreach (Public) General Climate Change Outreach (Business Community) Turn Down Thermostats Turn off Unused Electrical Devises Buy Locally Produced Food Reduce Unnecessary Trips Use Push Mower Other Specific Climate Change Programs % Yes (N=17) 35% 24% 29% 35% 47% 35% 24% 18% District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia District of Columbia Montgomery County Montgomery County City of Frederick Montgomery County City of Frederick City of Greenbelt City of Greenbelt City of Frederick Arlington County Arlington County Montgomery County Arlington County Montgomery County City of Frederick Montgomery County Montgomery County City of Manassas Fairfax County Arlington County Prince William County Arlington County Montgomery County City of Alexandria City of Rockville Prince William County City of Falls Church Prince William County Arlington County Arlington County Arlington County Prince William County Prince William County City of Falls Church Prince William County Loudon County Prince William County Please provide some information about other programs that you may have: Montgomery County Montgomery County DEP is developing an outreach program for residents and businesses that will emphasize sustainability City of Falls Church Earthwatch: Environmental education in schools; WaterWise; Neighborhood Tree Program; Invasive Plant Removal; Change a Light bulb; Liveable Neighborhood Water Stewardship Fairfax County Prince William County Display Hybrid plug in vehicle at outreach events and recycling outreach Earth Day; Youth Ambassadors Conference, Change a light campaign For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? City of Frederick City of Rockville City of Alexandria Plan to implement programs for the business community Plan to implement most programs listed in outreach section of survey Outreach to increase with Mayor's initiatives In the area of outreach and education, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? Frederick County City of Rockville City of Takoma Park Fairfax County While the city expresses informal support for the outreach efforts described above, there are no specific outreach and education programs in existence at this time. Rockville has not done much outreach and education on climate protection issues, but that is about to change. We are in the process of joining ICLEI. We will be dedicating additional staff time to climate protection issues in the near future. We do not have the funds available, nor the staffing to run outreach programs. Recycling outreach is very successful. City of Falls Church Loudon County Invasive Plant Removal and Neighborhood Tree Program - educating community on appropriate ways to plant trees; volunteers raise money to sustain the program; creates awareness and appreciation; promotes importance of native species. Earth watch - kids bring it home to parents (this is the first year of the program); approx. 350 kids participate. Economic development trying to get people to support local farmers Page 9

28 COG IRE VI Climate Chage Group NCR Climate Change Study Category 8: Miscellaneous Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. General Carbon Reduction Initiatives Reduced Mowing Restricted Open Burning Mechanism for contributions to Carbon Offset Fund Taxes/Fees/Value Pricing/Congestion Pricing Preferential fees or credits for CO2 emission reductions Other Programs (specify below) Other Program Type: % Yes (N=17) 18% 41% 0% 0% 0% 12% 6% District of Columbia City of College Park Nobody Responded Nobody Responded Nobody Responded District of Columbia District of Columbia City of Greenbelt City of Frederick City of Alexandria City of Falls Church City of Rockville City of Takoma Park Fairfax County Loudoun County Cify of Manassas Park Please indicate additional comments or specifics about program scope or activities, or recommendations for others considering embarking on similar initiatives. City of Greenbelt Mowing grass in County rights of way occurs less frequently City of Rockville Rockville does not allow large outdoor fires for the burning of trash or brush within the City limits. Small contained outdoor fires, such as in a fire pit or chiminea are allowed. Loudon County We don't burn during cetain months ie. June Has your jurisdiction hired any FTEs to address climate change initiatives? (FTE is a Full Time Equivalent and is used to represent a full time staff member - two part time staff would be one FTE) City of Gaithisburg added 1 FTE City of Alexandria added 1 FTE Page 10

29 Appendix II Climate Change Survey Tool Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

30 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Memberships and Baseline Data (Category 1 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person filling out questionnaire) Phone X What Established Climate Change Consortiums or Organizations does your locality participate in? 1X Climate Registry 2X Cities for Climate Protection Campaign 3X ICLEI/ and ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection 4X Cool Cities 5X Cool Counties 6X US Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement 7X Chicago Climate Exchange 8X Cool Capital Challenge 9X Drive Neutral 10X Other Program 11X If other please specify Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3 Please comment on your jurisdictions' work to begin overall emissions analysis: 12X Has your jurisdiction developed a baseline? 13X Has your jurisdiction developed an emission inventory? 14X If yes, what software was used to perform emission inventory? Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3 (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

31 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Energy Efficiency (Category 2 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person filling out questionnaire) Phone Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. A *A.1 *A.2 *A.3 *A.4 *A.5 *A.6 *A.7 If you have programs in the area of Energy Efficiency then please respond to the questions below. If NOT then skip to Category 3, Renewable Energy. Energy Efficiency Programs/Technologies 1A Energy Star/Appliance Efficiency Standards 2A Green Building Codes and Incentives 3A Green Roofs/Cool Roofs 4A Energy Performance Contracting 5A LED Lighting 6A Compact Fluorescents 7A Ground Source Heat Pumps 8A High Efficiency Heating and Air Conditioning 9A Clean Fuel Boilers and Furnaces (natural gas, biodiesel) 10A Efficient Windows and Doors 11A Efficient Motors 12A Occupancy Light Switches 13A Programmable Thermostats 14A Insulation and Weatherization 15A Wise Water Use 16A Energy Audits 17.A For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? (Specify programs if yes) Yes/No/NA Who is the Program For? Funding Source (Specify) Partnerships (Specify) Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3 County or City Government 1 Public 2 Development Community 3 Other 4 *A1 *A2 Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 Programs (TEXT) *A3(TEXT) Federal Funds-1 State Funds-2 Local Funds-3 Grant-4 Private Donation-5 Special Tax-6 Other (Specify)-7 Don't Know-8 Federal-1 Regional Government-2 Other Jurisdictions-3 State Government-4 Private Sector-5 Non Profit Sector-6 Other-7 Don't Know-8 If Other Specify (TEXT) Did the implementatio n of this program result in an annual cost savings or cost increase? Annual Cost ($) 18A In the area of energy efficiency, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? (TEXT) 19A Are you able to measure the results of these initiatives? Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 20A How? (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

32 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Renewable Energy (Category 3 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person filling out questionnaire) Phone Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. If you have programs in the area of Renewable Energy then please respond to the questions below. If NOT then skip to Category 4, Transportation Alternatives. B *B.1 *B.2 *B.3 *B.4 *B.5 *B.6 *B.7 Yes/No/NA Who is the Program For? Funding Source (Specify) Partnerships (Specify) Renewable Energy Programs 1B Green or renewable power purchase 2B Renewable energy use 3B Clean energy rewards program Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3; If Yes, see follow up below. County or City Government 1 Public 2 Development Community 3 Other 4 Federal Funds-1 State Funds-2 Local Funds-3 Grant-4 Private Donation-5 Special Tax-6 Other (Specify)-7 Don't Know-8 Federal-1 Regional Government-2 Other Jurisdictions-3 State Government-4 Private Sector-5 Non Profit Sector-6 Other-7 Don't Know-8 If Other Specify (TEXT) Did the implementati on of this program result in an annual cost savings or cost increase? Annual Cost ($) For each type of renewable energy that you use please provide information on the source, measurement and evaluation. Consumption Measures Monitoring Program 4B.Wind 5B.Solar 6B.Geothermal 7B.Other (specify) *B.1 Amount of Energy Consumed (#) *B.2 Percent of Total Consumption (%) *B.3 Lbs of Carbon or CO2 Reduction (Specify) (#) *B.4 Cost Savings (Specify) *B.5 Other (Specify) *B.6None 8.B What program goals do you have in terms of renewable energy use? (TEXT) 9.B For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? (Specify programs if yes) *B1 *B2 Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 Programs (TEXT) 10B In the area of renewable energy, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? (TEXT) 11B Are you able to measure the results of these initiatives? Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 12B How? (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

33 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Transportation Alternatives (Category 4 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person Phone Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. C *C.1 *C.2 *C.3 *C.4 *C.5 *C.6 *C.7 If you have programs in the area of Transportation Alternatives then please respond to the questions below. If NOT then skip to Category 5, Land Use. Fleet Operations 1C Improve Vehicle Gas Mileage 2C Improve Fleet Gas Mileage 3C Reduced Idling (cars, trucks, buses, etc) 4C Recharging Stations (Electric) 5C Special Refueling Stations (Ethanol, Natural Gas) 6C Clean Fuel Vehicle Procurement Policy Yes/No/NA Who is the Program For? Funding Source (Specify) Partnerships (Specify) Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3; County or City Government 1 Public 2 Development Community 3 Other 4 Federal Funds-1 State Funds-2 Local Funds-3 Grant-4 Private Donation-5 Special Tax-6 Other (Specify)-7 Don't Know-8 Federal-1 Regional Government-2 Other Jurisdictions-3 State Government-4 Private Sector-5 Non Profit Sector-6 Other-7 Don't Know-8 If Other Specify (TEXT) Did the implementation of this program result in an annual cost savings or cost increase? Annual Cost ($) Commuting and Transit Planning 7C Telecommuting Programs 8C Planned Expansion of Transit System 9C Transit Incentives to Increase Use 10C Carpooling/Vanpools 11C Bicycle Initiatives (routes, lanes, facilities) If your agency has a clean fuel vehicle program, please provide further on the vehicles you use: 12C Natural Gas 13C Biodiesel 14C Ethanol 15C Hybrids 16C Electric Vehicles 17C Other *C.1 # of Vehicles Type of Vehicle: Car or Light Truck, Truck, Bus *C.2 Percent of Fleet *C.3 Planned Purchase (# of Vehicles) 9.C For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? (Specify programs if yes) *C1 *C2 Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 Programs (TEXT) 10C In the area of transportation alternatives, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? (TEXT) 11C Are you able to measure the results of these initiatives? Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 12C How? (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

34 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Land Use (Category 5 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person filling out questionnaire) Phone Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. D *D1 *D.2 *D.3 *D.4 *D.5 *D.6 If you have programs in the area of Land Use then please respond to the questions below. If NOT then skip to Category 6, Solid Waste. Yes/No/NA Who is the Program For? Funding Source (Specify) Partnerships (Specify) Land Use Initiatives 1D Transit Oriented Development 2D Pedestrian Initiatives such as Walkable Communities 3D Programs to Control Growth or Development 4D Green Infrastructure 5D Urban Heat Island Mitigation Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3; County or City Government 1 Public 2 Development Community 3 Other 4 Federal Funds-1 State Funds-2 Local Funds-3 Grant-4 Private Donation-5 Special Tax-6 Other (Specify)-7 Don't Know-8 Federal-1 Regional Government-2 Other Jurisdictions-3 State Government-4 Private Sector-5 Non Profit Sector-6 Other-7 Don't Know-8 If Other Specify (TEXT) Did the implement of this prog result in an annual cos savings or increase? 6D For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? (Specify programs if yes) *D1 *D2 Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 Programs (TEXT) 7D In the area of land use, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? (TEXT) 8D Are you able to measure the results of these initiatives? Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 9D How? (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

35 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Solid Waste (Category 6 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person filling out questionnaire) Phone Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. E *E.1 *E.2 *E.3 *E4 *E5 *E6 *E7 If you have programs in the area of Solid Waste then please respond to the questions below. If NOT then skip to Category 7, Outreach and Education. Yes/No/NA Who is the Program For? Funding Source (Specify) Partnerships (Specify) General Programs 1E Recycling Programs 2E Composting 3E Old Car Purchasing Programs (Cash for Clunkers) Waste to Energy Facility (or Facilities) Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3; County or City Government 1 Public 2 Development Community 3 Other 4 Federal Funds-1 State Funds-2 Local Funds-3 Grant-4 Private Donation-5 Special Tax-6 Other (Specify)-7 Don't Know-8 Federal-1 Regional Government-2 Other Jurisdictions-3 State Government-4 Private Sector-5 Non Profit Sector-6 Other-7 Don't Know-8 If Other Specify (TEXT) Did the implementation of this program result in an annual cost savings or cost increase? Annual Cost ($ Gas Mitigation Programs 4E Landfill Gas Recovery (Methane) 5E Refrigerant Recovery 6E Refrigerant Leak Detection and Repair 7E Alternative Solvent Use 8E For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? (Specify programs if yes) *E1 *E2 Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 Programs (TEXT) 9E In the area of solid waste, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? (TEXT) 10E Are you able to measure the results of these initiatives? Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 11E How? (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

36 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Outreach and Education (Category 7 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person filling out questionnaire) Phone Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. If you have programs in the area of Outreach and Education then please respond to the questions below. If NOT then skip to Category 8, Miscellaneous. F *F1 *F2 *F3 *F4 *F5 *F6 *F7 Yes/No/NA Who is the Program For? Funding Source (Specify) Partnerships (Specify) Outreach and Education Programs 1F General Climate Change Outreach (Public) 2F General Climate Change Outreach (Business Community) 3F Turn Down Thermostats 4F Turn off Unused Electrical Devises 5F Buy Locally Produced Food 6F Reduce Unnecessary Trips 7F Use Push Mower 8F Other Specific Climate Change Programs Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3; If Yes, see follow up below. County or City Government 1 Public 2 Development Community 3 Other 4 Federal Funds-1 State Funds-2 Local Funds-3 Grant-4 Private Donation-5 Special Tax-6 Other (Specify)-7 Don't Know-8 Federal-1 Regional Government-2 Other Jurisdictions-3 State Government-4 Private Sector-5 Non Profit Sector-6 Other-7 Don't Know-8 If Other Specify (TEXT) Did the implementation of this program result in an annual cost savings or cost increase? Annual Cost ($) 9FPlease provide some information about other programs that you may have: (TEXT) 10F For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? (Specify programs if yes) *F1 *F2 Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 Programs (TEXT) 11F In the area of outreach and education, what programs or initiatives do you think are working best and why? (TEXT) 12F Are you able to measure the results of these initiatives? Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 13F How? (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

37 MWCOG Climate Change Study Data Gathering Tool Miscellaneous (Category 8 of 8) Name of person completing this questionnaire Jurisdiction Agency Contact Person (if different from person filling out questionnaire) Phone Please provide information about initiatives that your government or agency has in the following areas. Marking yes indicates a program within your own facilities, facilities that you manage or operate, or programs you operate for residents or the development community. G *G.1 *G.2 *G.3 *G4 *G5 *G6 *G7 What other programs to reduce climate change to you have in place? Yes/No/NA Who is the Program For? Funding Source (Specify) Partnerships (Specify) General Carbon Reduction Initiatives 1G Reduced Mowing 2G Restricted Open Burning 3G Mechanism for contributions to Carbon Offset Fund 4G Taxes/Fees/Value Pricing/Congestion Pricing 5G Preferential fees or credits for CO2 emission reductions 6G Other Programs (specify below) 7G Other Program Type: Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3; If Yes, see follow up below. County or City Government 1 Public 2 Development Community 3 Other 4 Federal Funds-1 State Funds-2 Local Funds-3 Grant-4 Private Donation-5 Special Tax-6 Other (Specify)-7 Don't Know-8 Federal-1 Regional Government-2 Other Jurisdictions-3 State Government-4 Private Sector-5 Non Profit Sector-6 Other-7 Don't Know-8 If Other Specify (TEXT) Did the implementation of this program result in an annual cost savings or cost increase? Annual Cost ($) 8G For those initiatives where you don't have programs, do you plan to implement one in the near future? (Specify programs if yes) *G1 *G2 Yes/No/Don't Know Programs *G3(TEXT) 9.G.Please indicate additional comments or specifics about program scope or activities, or recommendations for others considering embarking on similar initiatives. (TEXT) Yes-1; No-0; NA- 3; If Yes, see follow up below. 10G Has your jurisdiction hired any FTEs to address climate change initiatives? 11G Please specify areas where these FTE are allocated: (FTE is a Full Time Equivalent and is used to represent a full time staff member - two part time staff would be one FTE) (TEXT) 12G Are you able to measure the results of these initiatives? Yes-1; No-0; DK- 3 13G How? (TEXT) Climate Change Study Group REDP Cohort VI 1/3/2008

38 Appendix III Climate Change Brochure Climate Change: Think Globally - Lead Locally

39 Climate Change Climate Change May Be One of the Greatest Threats Facing the Planet! C limate Change is the phenomenon of the heating of our earth s surface mostly caused by greenhouse gasses such as CO2 that trap the heat in the earth s atmosphere. Metropolitan W ashington Council of Governments Department of Environmental Programs, MWCOG Sponsor Dennis Bailey, MWCOG Justin Clarke, Arlington County Kathleen Schramm, City of Alexandria Laurie Wilson, Prince William County Lupita Marcos-Rubio, Fairfax County Needham Kelly, Jr., Fairfax County The George Washington University Regional Executive Development Program - Cohort 6 Climate Change Team Learn More about Climate Change Extreme Heat l Extreme Drought Extreme Weather Patterns l Loss of Agriculture l Loss of Livestock l Increase in Winter Rainfall l Poor Air Quality, (Creating Increase in Respiratory and Heart Disease) l Sea Levels are Rising Facts You Should Know 1. Every gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel burned releases about 22 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. 2. A national recycling rate of 30% reduces greenhouse gas emissions as much as removing almost 25 million cars from the road. 3. Each glass bottle we recycle saves enough energy to light an 11 watt compact florescent light bulb for 20 hours. 4. Each ton of paper that is recycled saves 17 trees. 5. Recycling benefits water and air because it creates a net reduction in 10 major categories of air pollutants and in 8 major categories of water pollutants. 6. Recycling 1 aluminum can saves enough energy to power a TV for 3 hours. Climate Change Think Globally - Lead Locally November 7, 2007

40 Think Globally - Lead Locally The National Capital Region can become a LEADER in Mitigating Climate Change and Reducing CO2. Steps to Climate Change Leadership: Goals for COG Members by 2010: 1. All COG Members Join a National or International Climate Change Group 2. Implement Climate Change Educational Programs 3. Establish Regular Climate Change Summits for Residents and Businesses 4. Create a National Capital Region Climate Change Action Alliance Benchmarks of Success In 2015: 1. All COG Members Establish CO2 Emissions Baseline 2. 25% of Purchased Energy is from Renewable Sources % Alternative Fuel/Hybrid for Fleet Replacement 4. 50% of Waste Stream is Recycled More than 80% have Transit Oriented Development Initiatives More than 60% have Green Infrastructure Plans More than 30% have Outreach Programs to Residents Less than 20% have Outreach Programs to Businesses 100% have Recycling Programs More than 33% have Waste to Energy Facilities 50% have Energy Star Programs More than 50% use Compact Fluorescent Lighting More than 50% have Clean Fuel Replacement Programs More than 60% have Telecommuting Programs More than 33% are using Renewable Energy The Range for the Consumption of Wind Power is 3% - 10%