My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
RES 221271
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
RESOLUTIONS
>
2020-present
>
2022
>
RES 221271
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/1/2022 2:56:45 PM
Creation date
3/1/2022 2:32:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
RESOLUTIONS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
GHG Reduction Strategies Quantification and Evidence <br />Page 4 <br />Actions were further divided into the following categories: <br /> Existing actions: Actions that are already underway, planned, and/or budgeted for <br />implementation and will result in future GHG emissions reductions. <br /> Primary CAP actions: Actions to be implemented as part of CAP 2.0 implementation. <br /> Secondary CAP actions: Actions to be implemented as time and resources allow. <br />Cost Estimation <br />Action implementation costs were estimated for both costs to the City and community: <br /> Community costs estimate how much it will cost an average resident, business, or developer to <br />implement the measure as compared to a business‐as‐usual scenario. <br /> City costs estimate costs related to consultant services and procurement. <br />Like the impact analysis, the consultant estimated costs for all measures in the prioritized shortlist. The <br />estimated cost was based on consultant experience, available literature, consultation with peer cities, <br />and City staff input, and included the following cost elements: <br /> Initial start‐up costs, in the form of consultant and capital expenses. <br /> Ongoing costs through 2031over a 10‐year timeframe, including continued labor expenses, <br />maintenance, and monitoring/evaluation of resource needs. <br />City staff time required for action implementation was evaluated separately and is not included in the cost <br />estimations as some of the anticipated staff time may be absorbed into existing City staff. <br />City staff reviewed the cost estimations—especially the City cost element (e.g., estimated FTE requirements). <br />To the extent possible, the consultant provided citations for consulted literature and case studies, although <br />information on climate action costs is very limited at this time. <br />Where known, the analysis includes consideration of partnerships. However, the analysis does not include <br />potential grants and other funding sources, so estimates here may be conservative representations of the <br />City’s final cost. A more detailed funding plan will be provided in future stages of the plan. <br />Emission Reduction Estimation <br />The consultant explicitly modelled emissions reductions associated with proposed CAP 2.0 actions. <br />Modeling built from the emissions forecast and considered interacting actions to avoid double counting, <br />such as impacts of EV vehicle use on community electricity consumption. All assumptions are provided <br />for transparency and City/stakeholder review and outcomes are visualized in both table and graphical <br />format. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.