San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Citizen s Advisory Committee, Wastewater Subcommittee June 14, Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis

Transcription

1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Citizen s Advisory Committee, Wastewater Subcommittee June 14, 2012 Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis 1

2 Presentation Overview TBL Overview Process Overview Where are we? Model Framework Public Outreach Overview Q & A / Discussion 2

3 Triple Bottom Line Overview 3

4 Why a TBL Analysis? SFPUC's mission is to provide our customers with high quality, efficient and reliable water, power, and sewer services in a manner that is inclusive of environmental and community interests, and that sustains the resources entrusted to our care. The Triple Bottom Line Analysis is a vehicle for evaluating future investments on whether they are more inclusive of the environmental and community interests, and help to sustain the resources entrusted to SFPUC s care. 4

5 TBL Primary Objectives 1. To inform and support the analytical process for developing alternatives by considering social and environmental components in the process alongside performance and economic considerations 2. To provide decision-making support for SFPUC project leaders; and 3. To increase project selection transparency and facilitate a reporting-out of expected project benefits. 5

6 TBL Case Studies Philadelphia Water Department (2009) Benefit-cost assessment of CSO control alternatives Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (2010) Ecosystem service valuation New York City Department of Environmental Protection (2010) Benefit-cost assessment of green and grey infrastructure Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District (Ongoing) Sustainable watershed evaluation process (SWEP) for sewer improvement project Melbourne Water (2007) Guidelines for evaluating sustainability on a project, program, and strategic level 6

7 4 Typical TBL Assessment Techniques Financial Analysis (SROI) Pure cash-flow analysis over the project lifetime (Sustainable Return on Investment)?: Is this option commercially viable? Which option has the lowest lifetime cost? Benefit-Cost Analysis Cost Effectiveness Analysis Scoring and Ranking Economic valuation which tries to capture quantifiable costs and benefits Monetizes criteria; allows for direct comparison of environmental and social to economic criteria?: Do alternative benefits outweigh the costs? How much should I invest to meet consumer demands? Non-financial benefits expressed in units, not monetary terms Similar to BCA, but not monetized?: Which option offers the leas cost alternative for reducing X emissions? Used to compare costs that can t be monetized Allows for consideration of various stakeholders, government, community Limits false precision Simpler 7

8 Triple Bottom Line Process 8

9 TBL Process Where are we? SFPUC Stakeholder Engagement and Commission Review (ongoing) Model Framework Develop Criteria and Indicators TBL Model (Beta) Receive Public Input Evaluate Project Alternatives Refine TBL Model Train SFPUC Staff Finish Evaluating Project Alternatives Select Recommended Alternative We are here Currently Ongoing June - September 2012 January- June 2013 January June 2014 February June 2014 June 2014 June

10 SFPUC TBL Evaluation Process The TBL will evaluate criteria reflecting: Real world costing values SFPUC and SF government priorities and policies Community values Criteria evaluation will rely on: Detailed evaluation of socio-economic, environmental conditions Review of existing City and SFPUC policies Meeting with City and SFPUC stakeholders CAC and Commission Input Life cycle costing Comprehensive public outreach Ordinal ranking of social and environmental outcomes (Criteria) 10

11 TBL Model Framework 11

12 TBL Process Total List of Evaluation Criteria Financial Social Selected Evaluation Criteria (10-15) Financial Social Indicators; Ordinal Ranking Negative = Neutral = Somewhat Positive = Significantly Positive = Criteria Evaluate Baseline and Proposed Alternatives Base line Financial $1.0 M Alt. 1 Alt. 2 $1.2 M $1.5 M Jobs ~ + - Next Steps: Select Appropriate Alternative, Recommend Implementation Strategy Recreation ~ ++ + Public Health ~ - ++ Environmental Environmental Weighted Social Criteria ~ + ++ Climate ~ - + Critical Habitat ~ + - SFPUC City Departments Case Studies Project team SFPUC Priority Criteria Project team SFPUC Community Values Survey City/Watershed policy review Project team / Alternative Designers SFPUC Project team / SFPUC 12

13 TBL Evaluation Criteria Categories Financial (LCA) Social Environmental 13

14 TBL Evaluation Criteria (Draft) Financial Life Cycle Costs Environmental Climate Social System Resilience Habitat Water Use Natural Resource Inputs of Construction Materials Ratepayer Costs Government Efficiency/ Coordination Odor Public Health & Safety Recreation / Community Facilities Jobs Archeological and Historic Resources Noise 14

15 Example Evaluation Criteria and Indicators System Resilience (CSAMP) Importance of system replacement Project resiliency during catastrophic event Odors Treatment system odors Collection system odors Climate Protection Tons of carbon sequestered by vegetation Annual GHG emissions 15

16 Criteria, Indicators, and Metrics Evaluation Criteria Indicators Model Metrics Criterion Example Criteria assess sustainability of externalities or outcomes of a particular activity at the most general level. Climate Protection Indicators are the major components of criteria that can be used to assess sustainability. Tons of carbon sequestered (annualized) Annual greenhouse gas emissions generated Model metrics = how a project can be evaluated and/or ranked for each indicator Tons of carbon sequestered by trees and vegetation at maturity Pump energy use Water treatment energy use Energy generated from biogas-to-energy system 16

17 TBL Output Example 17

18 TBL Output Example High (significantly positive influence to criteria) Low (somewhat positive influence to criteria) Neutral (no influence to criteria) Negative (detrimental influence to criteria) 18

19 Triple Bottom Line Public Outreach Process 19

20 Public Outreach Components SFPUC + Agency Working Group Watershed Charrettes (Challenges + Opportunities) Community values survey CAC Commission 20

21 Working Group Composition SFPUC Management/Operations Collection System Division Water Resources SSIP Treatment SSIP Project Management Power Finance Community Benefits SSIP Regulatory Natural Resources Bureau of Environmental Management External Affairs Communications SSIP Public Outreach Team City Agencies and Departments Public Health DPW Department of the Environment Planning Citywide Policy Recreation and Parks Economic and Workforce Development MTA SFCTA Port of San Francisco 21

22 Working Group Role Input on TBL criteria, indicators, and metrics, and process Input on model interface and reporting out Input on City plans and policy documents Perspective and direction on department and agency priorities Input on public outreach process Participation in technical sub-working groups for each of the criteria 22

23 Watershed Charrettes (Community Workshops) 23

24 Community Outreach Values Survey (sample questions) Benefit Not important Somewhat Important ---- Most important Reduce the risk of neighborhood flooding from major rain storms Improve system resilience and response following an earthquake or other disaster Reduce system-related odors Reduce noise levels at the sewer treatment plants and from pumping stations

25 Discussion & Questions Thank you for your input! 25

26 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Citizen s Advisory Committee, Wastewater Subcommittee June 14, 2012 Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Analysis 26

27 TBL Output Example 27