18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Figure 3: Projected Emissions Tablet CAP 2.0 ACTIONS The following outlines the analysis and recommendation of new actions to be included in CAP 2.0, focused on new actions proposed to be incorporated into the draft plan document. As described, in addition to new actions the CAP 2.0 also reflects a number of existing and ongoing actions (see Attachment 2), such as implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and SB 1383 compliance actions, each of which should be maintained through the lifespan of the CAP 2.0 to ensure the City meets the GHG targets.3 Analysis of Scope of Proposed Actions Staff evaluated several different combinations of new actions that would meet the established 2030 GHG emission target to understand relative reductions, costs, and benefits, and to bracket the range of options. One scenario considered was inclusion of all new actions analyzed in the Cost -Benefit Analysis. In this scenario, the estimated cost to the City would be approximately $10.2 million through the 10 -year implementation of the plan. While all of the actions have merit, including them all would be cost prohibitive (even when considering outside funding sources) and infeasible to the City both in terms of staff time and cost. Further, some of the actions offer negligible GHG mitigation, are excessively costly for either the community or City, and/or seem more appropriate for a community organization or other entity to undertake. Staff also evaluated a scenario including just the minimum number of actions needed to achieve the GHG targets. In this scenario, the estimated cost to the City would be approximately $1.6 million through the 10 -year implementation of the plan. Although implementing as few as eight actions could result in meeting the 2030 targets, it also results in a narrow scope of actions allowing essentially no margin of error. Recognizing that the GHG reductions are estimates, actual reductions are subject to an inherent degree of variability. Limiting the scope of actions increases the risk that an '- This table accounts for the adjustments made by staff (e.g., adjusting phasing and moving actions to existing/on- going), as detailed in Attachment 2. 3 If existing actions which mitigate GHG emissions are no longer pursued, the City will need to revisit the projected emissions to ensure the targets will be met. Page 6 of 11 Emissions in 2030 - Mass Emissions Per Capita) MTCO2E - BAU Emissions 646,644 (7.79) ABAU Emissions 512,167 (6.17) Existing Ongoing Action Emissions Reductions -55,450 (0.67) All New CAP Action Emissions Reductions -121,645 (1.47) Total Projected Emissions 335,072 (4.03) Target Emissions 341,188 (4.11) Projected Emissions Gap from Target -6,116 (-0.08) Exceeds target reductions CAP 2.0 ACTIONS The following outlines the analysis and recommendation of new actions to be included in CAP 2.0, focused on new actions proposed to be incorporated into the draft plan document. As described, in addition to new actions the CAP 2.0 also reflects a number of existing and ongoing actions (see Attachment 2), such as implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and SB 1383 compliance actions, each of which should be maintained through the lifespan of the CAP 2.0 to ensure the City meets the GHG targets.3 Analysis of Scope of Proposed Actions Staff evaluated several different combinations of new actions that would meet the established 2030 GHG emission target to understand relative reductions, costs, and benefits, and to bracket the range of options. One scenario considered was inclusion of all new actions analyzed in the Cost -Benefit Analysis. In this scenario, the estimated cost to the City would be approximately $10.2 million through the 10 -year implementation of the plan. While all of the actions have merit, including them all would be cost prohibitive (even when considering outside funding sources) and infeasible to the City both in terms of staff time and cost. Further, some of the actions offer negligible GHG mitigation, are excessively costly for either the community or City, and/or seem more appropriate for a community organization or other entity to undertake. Staff also evaluated a scenario including just the minimum number of actions needed to achieve the GHG targets. In this scenario, the estimated cost to the City would be approximately $1.6 million through the 10 -year implementation of the plan. Although implementing as few as eight actions could result in meeting the 2030 targets, it also results in a narrow scope of actions allowing essentially no margin of error. Recognizing that the GHG reductions are estimates, actual reductions are subject to an inherent degree of variability. Limiting the scope of actions increases the risk that an '- This table accounts for the adjustments made by staff (e.g., adjusting phasing and moving actions to existing/on- going), as detailed in Attachment 2. 3 If existing actions which mitigate GHG emissions are no longer pursued, the City will need to revisit the projected emissions to ensure the targets will be met. Page 6 of 11