Executive Summary: A Global Warming Plan of Action for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Mitigation Program Options Sarah E. Knuth M.S. Degree Candidate Department of Geography Penn State University 19 June 2006
Background Information Local governments are becoming increasingly important to climate change policy in the United States. By June 2006, mayors from 238 cities had signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, pledging to reduce city greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and to promote state and national climate policy. As of 2006, over 150 United States cities had also developed climate change mitigation plans as part of the Cities for Climate Protection program. Local policymakers are increasingly realizing that their efforts are significant, and that local climate change programs may promote a range of ancillary benefits including cost savings on energy, reduced traffic congestion, open space preservation, increased recycling, and overall quality of life improvements. The potential for Montgomery County to develop a local climate change plan of action has been explored in a collaborative study involving Penn State University, the Montgomery County Planning Commission, and other local stakeholders. This research process, which lasted from March 2005 to May 2006, inventoried Montgomery County GHG emissions, proposed GHG reduction targets, and brainstormed emissions reduction strategies. Major findings and recommendations from the process are summarized here. For more detailed results, see the reports Measuring Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Montgomery County 1990-2004: Technical Report (Knuth, 2006a), Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 1990-2004 (Knuth, 2006b), and A Global Warming Plan of Action for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies (Knuth, 2006c). GHG Emissions Inventory Montgomery County s inventory tracked GHG emissions over the past fifteen years from a number of sources and sinks, including energy, transportation, waste, forest, and agriculture sector activities and processes (Figure 1). 1 The county s overall GHG emissions increased almost every year from 1990 to 2004. Total emissions grew from about 2.6 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent GHG emissions (MTCE) in 1990 to almost 3.6 million MTCE in 2004, a 36% increase (Figure 2). Energy-related fossil fuel combustion dominates Montgomery County s GHG emissions. use, on-site fuel consumption (for space heating, water heating, industrial processes, and other uses), and transportation energy use were the top three sources of GHG emissions in all years, making up 89% or more of total emissions. Wastewater and sludge treatment and agriculture contribute very small amounts to total emissions. Solid waste disposal and forest management and land-use change were emissions sinks in 1990 but, due to 1 GHG inventories calculate emissions by tracking levels of known GHG emissions-producing/reducing activities, then multiplying these activity data by emissions coefficients (e.g., EIIP, 1999). Emissions are often expressed in metric tons of carbon-equivalent units (MTCE). In Montgomery County, data unavailability prevented measuring emissions from industrial processes and off-road transportation (see Knuth, 2006a). 2
increasing waste disposal, waste management changes, and deforestation, had become increasingly important emissions sources by 2004. On-Site Fuel Highway Off-Road Transportation Burning Waste Soils Animals Manure Energy Montgomery County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Agriculture Waste Forest Industrial Solid Waste Wastewater +/- Land Management Processes Figure 1: Montgomery County GHG Emissions Sources and Sinks 4,000,000 3,500,000 Montgomery County GHG Emissions (MTCE) 1990-2004 GHG Emissions (MTCE) 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 Agriculture Forest Wastewater and Sludge Municipal Solid Waste On-Site Fuel Transportation 0-500,000 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Figure 2: Montgomery County GHG Emissions (MTCE) 1990-2004 GHG Reduction Targets Montgomery County s climate change mitigation planning process produced a number of potential targets for reducing county GHG emissions (Table 1). These goals may be modest (e.g., reducing GHG intensity, or emissions per capita) or more ambitious (e.g., adopting the 7% reduction below 1990 emissions levels required for Kyoto Protocol 3
compliance). Stakeholders involved in the planning process showed particular support for lowering GHG intensity and reducing annual emissions by several percent below 2004 levels. Table 1: GHG Emissions Reduction Targets GHG Emissions Reduction Targets Reduce GHG intensity (e.g., Reduce emissions per capita, etc.) Stabilize annual emissions at 2004 levels (0% growth) Reduce annual emissions below 2004 levels (5% decrease, 10% decrease, etc.) Reduce annual emissions to 1990 levels (36% decrease) Reduce annual emissions below 1990 levels (36%+ decrease) Climate Change Mitigation Program Montgomery County s research process also developed a number of potential frameworks for organizing a county GHG reduction program that could secure funding, initiate specific projects, track GHG emissions reduced, and advertise successes. Stakeholders recommended that a necessary first step in developing any such program is to assign responsibility for climate change mitigation to a particular county department (the county planning commission is an obvious choice, because it already deals with a broad range of sectors). Creating a new position that is specifically charged with running a GHG emissions reduction program (or energy conservation initiative; see below) may also be critical. Alternately or additionally, a county department may partner with outside agencies (e.g., businesses, universities, non-governmental organizations, schools) to implement climate change strategies. These partnerships (especially with local businesses) may help the county secure funding and enhance its ability to control GHG emissions. Programs may handle GHG emissions in a number of ways (see Table 2). A comprehensive climate change program might focus on emissions reductions possible in all sectors, potentially balancing fairly cheap and easy-to-implement options (e.g., urban reforestation projects) with more expensive and long-term solutions (e.g., reducing urban sprawl). Alternately, a program might focus on energy rather than climate change (e.g., conserving energy, promoting renewable energy use). This focus would respond to public concern for variable energy prices and energy security while still addressing almost 90 percent of the county s GHG emissions. Because the county s 2025 comprehensive plan already sets goals for reducing county vehicle miles traveled and 4
preserving open space, another program option might be tracking the GHG emissions reduction benefits of projects implemented under the plan. Finally, the county might reduce GHG emissions from its own operations (e.g., conserve energy in county buildings, adopt green purchasing policies). Although this option would produce only modest GHG emission reductions, it sets a good public example and might be useful as a first step in implementing more comprehensive programs. Table 2: Program Organizational Frameworks Organizational Framework Potential Delivery Agent(s) Organize Comprehensive Climate Change Program Reframe Program as Energy Project Incorporate Climate Change Goals into Comprehensive Plan 2025 Reduce GHG Emissions from County Government Operations New Position/Department Partnership with Outside Agency(ies) New Position/Department Partnership with Outside Agency(ies) County Planning Commission County Building and Fleet Managers, Purchasing Agents GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies The planning process researched almost 40 specific strategies for reducing GHG emissions, in seven sectors. Appendix A lists these options, and Knuth (2006c) describes each in detail, considering ways of securing funding for each project, measuring GHG emissions reductions achieved, combining efforts with other county stakeholders, and building climate change goals into existing county programs. Stakeholders evaluated potential strategies using a number of criteria including GHG emissions reduction potential, cost-effectiveness, ancillary benefits (economic, environmental, social, and health and welfare), feasibility (technical and political), and educational value. Stakeholders supported many emissions reduction strategies that address existing county goals reducing vehicle miles traveled via smart growth policies and support for intermodal transit, decreasing deforestation, planting and maintaining urban trees, and preserving farmland from development. Other popular options included increasing the energy efficiency of new homes in the county, promoting renewable energy use, making county schools more energy efficient, and reducing methane from landfills that accept county waste. Stakeholders emphasized that a county program, once established, would be free to develop further options and to choose among the 38 strategies already researched. 5
Summary: Required Actions This stakeholder-driven research process developed background information needed for Montgomery County to develop a climate change plan of action. The GHG emissions inventory showed that Montgomery County s GHG emissions grew significantly (over 36%) between 1990 and 2004, and that stationary and transportationrelated energy consumption was the major source of emissions (with deforestation- and waste disposal-related emissions becoming increasingly important). The research process also developed 5 alternative GHG reduction targets, 4 ways of organizing a climate change mitigation program, and 38 specific emissions reduction projects. However, finalizing and implementing a climate change plan of action will require several additional steps. Montgomery County leadership must: Declare a GHG emissions reduction target Put a department/position in charge of the climate change program Choose a way of organizing the program Develop stakeholder partners and funding sources Choose specific GHG reduction strategies to implement (later) By taking these actions, Montgomery County may reduce its GHG emissions, contribute to the important role local governments are increasingly playing in climate change policy, and make the county more livable, energy-independent, and environmentally sustainable. References EIIP (1999). Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. EIIP Documentation Series, Volume VIII. Washington, DC: Greenhouse Gas Committee, Emissions Inventory Improvement Program, and US Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttm/chief/eiip/techreport/volume08/index.html. Knuth, Sarah (2006a). Measuring Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Montgomery County 1990-2004: Technical Report. Report compiled for the Montgomery County Planning Commission. Knuth, Sarah (2006b). Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 1990-2004. Report compiled for the Montgomery County Planning Commission. Knuth, Sarah (2006c). A Global Warming Plan of Action for Montgomery County, Pennsylvania: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies. Report compiled for the Montgomery County Planning Commission. 6
Energy (Residential) Enforce Building Codes Target New Homes Target Existing Homes Target Low- Income Homeowners Promote Renewable Energy Purchases Energy (Commercial/ Industrial) Enforce Building Codes Appendix A: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies by Sector Energy (Other) County and Municipal Government Programs Transportation Waste Forest Agriculture Reduce VMT Land-Use Target New Facilities School Programs Reduce VMT Promote Car Alternatives Retrofit Existing Facilities Target Building Operations Promote Renewable Energy Purchases Promote CHP Systems (large facilities) College and University Programs Congregation Programs Reduce Traffic Congestion Promote Alternative Fuels Reduce Freight Emissions Reduce Off-Road Emissions Reduce Solid Waste Target Landfill Methane Target Incineration Target Wastewater Reduce Overall Waste Transportation Encourage Multi- Municipal Cooperation Encourage Local Waste and Recycling Alternatives Reduce Deforestation and Land-Use Change Maximize Carbon Sequestration in Existing Forests Plant and Maintain Urban Trees Promote Development of Biofuels and Biomass Feedstocks Buy Local Wood Products Produce Biofuel/Biomass Feedstocks for Modify Agriculture Practices Preserve Farmland from Development Increase Organic Farming Use Local Farm Products 7