18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Figure 5: Summary of Costs and Emissions Reductions for Recommended CAP 2.0 Actions As shown in Figure 5, staffs recommendation decreases the total GHG emissions reduction potential that could be achieved by implementing all new actions analyzed in the Cost -Benefit Analysis (and detailed in Figure 3). For the recommended primary actions, the total GHG emissions reductions (i.e., 117,601 MTCO2e) represents an approximately one -percent buffer between the 2030 estimated emissions reductions and the 2030 emissions reductions needed to achieve the target. While this buffer is relatively small, staff notes that it will increase as GHG-mitigating secondary actions are implemented. The buffer will also increase if actions are completed ahead of their scheduled phasing. For example, on July 20, 2021, the City Council voted to move the community into Renewable 100 with East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). This action was conservatively evaluated in the Cost -Benefit Analysis to assume a 2023 start date to transition to Renewable 100. The July 20 decision provides a significant step toward accelerating progress and reducing cumulative GHG emissions. Committee on Energy and the Environment Recommendation The Committee reviewed and made a recommendation on the proposed CAP 2.0 actions at its meeting on August 11, 2021. The Committee's recommendation has one notable difference from staff's recommendation listed above. This difference is to include action 1216 as a primary action, which is to create a dedicated staffing position to support CAP 2.0 activities, rather than relying on that work being accomplished across multiple departments and individual staff members. In full, action 1216 reads: Institutionalize climate considerations across City and community activities and decision making. Dedicate at least one position (e.g., Sustainability Manager and/or Sustainability Management Analyst(s) focused on sustainability) to implement CAP tasks, manage the Energy Star Portfolio Manager for City a Represented annually through 2031. Does not consider potential funding to offset the costs (e.g., grants) s Represented annually per capita (based on an average of the forecasted population) through 2031. Includes costs to developers, future residents, current residents, and businesses. 6 Represented annually and may be absorbed into existing positions across several City Departments. One of the secondary actions included (1008 Energy Benchmarking and City Facility Retrofits) results in a net savings to the City through the lifespan of the plan, however this action will require a significant up -front investment in facilities. Page 9 of 11 AnnualAnnir1 Corrrrnumty annual ��1G �E`mtss�dns z; City Costo Cast Per Cap�tas " FTE6 z Primary $112,824 -$1.50 1.6 Emissions reductions in 2030 are approximately Actions 117,601 MTCO2e (exceeds 2030 target by 2,072 MTCO2e) Secondary $10,3297 -$16.32 1.5 Additional potential 2030 reductions are 3,696 Actions MTCO2e Total $123,153 -$17.82 3.1 Emissions reductions potential 121,297 MTCO2e (exceeds target by 5,768 MTCO2e) As shown in Figure 5, staffs recommendation decreases the total GHG emissions reduction potential that could be achieved by implementing all new actions analyzed in the Cost -Benefit Analysis (and detailed in Figure 3). For the recommended primary actions, the total GHG emissions reductions (i.e., 117,601 MTCO2e) represents an approximately one -percent buffer between the 2030 estimated emissions reductions and the 2030 emissions reductions needed to achieve the target. While this buffer is relatively small, staff notes that it will increase as GHG-mitigating secondary actions are implemented. The buffer will also increase if actions are completed ahead of their scheduled phasing. For example, on July 20, 2021, the City Council voted to move the community into Renewable 100 with East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). This action was conservatively evaluated in the Cost -Benefit Analysis to assume a 2023 start date to transition to Renewable 100. The July 20 decision provides a significant step toward accelerating progress and reducing cumulative GHG emissions. Committee on Energy and the Environment Recommendation The Committee reviewed and made a recommendation on the proposed CAP 2.0 actions at its meeting on August 11, 2021. The Committee's recommendation has one notable difference from staff's recommendation listed above. This difference is to include action 1216 as a primary action, which is to create a dedicated staffing position to support CAP 2.0 activities, rather than relying on that work being accomplished across multiple departments and individual staff members. In full, action 1216 reads: Institutionalize climate considerations across City and community activities and decision making. Dedicate at least one position (e.g., Sustainability Manager and/or Sustainability Management Analyst(s) focused on sustainability) to implement CAP tasks, manage the Energy Star Portfolio Manager for City a Represented annually through 2031. Does not consider potential funding to offset the costs (e.g., grants) s Represented annually per capita (based on an average of the forecasted population) through 2031. Includes costs to developers, future residents, current residents, and businesses. 6 Represented annually and may be absorbed into existing positions across several City Departments. One of the secondary actions included (1008 Energy Benchmarking and City Facility Retrofits) results in a net savings to the City through the lifespan of the plan, however this action will require a significant up -front investment in facilities. Page 9 of 11