RES 221271 - Laserfiche WebLink

GHG Reduction Strategies Quantification and Evidence Page 2 Executive Summary This document summarizes findings from a quantitative assessment of draft Pleasanton CAP 2.0 actions. The quantitative assessment provides high‐level estimates of the costs and emission reductions associated with each action to provide a defensible plan for meeting the City’s emission reduction goals. Key findings of the analyses include:  Modeling suggests that implementation of proposed primary CAP 2.0 measures could exceed the City’s proposed 2030 target (4.11 MTCO2e per capita) and SB‐32 required reductions, resulting in emissions that drop from 13.6 MTCO2e per capita in 1990 to 4.05 MTCO2e per capita in 2030. The following CAP strategies and actions are the highest contributors of GHG emission reductions through 2030: o Carbon sequestration (Urban Forest Master Plan) o Renewable electricity (Zero emissions as default EBCE choice) o Organic waste prevention and management (SB 1383 implementation) o Vehicle decarbonization (ZEV Infrastructure Plan) o Comprehensive climate awareness, education, and outreach  Modeling suggests that the total net present value (NPV) City cost over the next ten years through 2031 of implementing all the primary CAP 2.0 actions will be $2.8 million—equivalent to around $276,000 per year.1  The estimated NPV cost to the community over the next ten years through 2031 of implementing all the actions in the shortlist is a net savings of $5.9 million—equivalent to around $587,000 in savings per year. Much of these savings to the community are in the form of rebates/incentives and fuel cost savings.  Implementing all the actions in the shortlist will require staff time, ranging from an estimated 1.6 FTE per year through 2031. These FTE may be absorbed into existing staff duties or new staff may be hired. The following actions have the highest total FTE estimated from 2022‐2031: o Wildfire preparation, prevention, and education o Increase transit ridership o ZEV Infrastructure Plan o VMT reduction for K‐12 activities o Urban Forest Master Plan This document is organized as follows:  The Overview introduces the approach and key assumptions that drove the analysis.  The Findings Summary provides the emissions reductions, City staff time, NPV, and cost‐effectiveness for proposed CAP 2.0 actions.  The remaining sections detail emissions reduction and cost results by sector:  Buildings & Energy  Materials & Consumption  Natural Systems  Water Resources  Transportation & Land Use  Community Resilience & Wellbeing  A detailed References list documents the sources used to conduct the analyses. Does not include City labor costs.